Criminal Legal Aid Reforms

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner]

My hon. Friend makes a point that, again, I was about to develop. It is accurate to say that costs will increase and people will self-represent.

I was about to say that I agree with the chairman of the CLSA who said that the Government are wrong to say that the issue is simply about savings when their figures show that costs have been coming down for years and projections show that they will continue to fall. Ministry of Justice figures show that public expenditure on legal aid between 2004 and 2009 has fallen by 25%. Figures also show that, between 2004 and 2010, the cost of criminal legal aid fell by £165 million. Those are Government figures, and they are expected to fall by a further £264 million by the end of 2014. My respectful submission is that it is about not saving money, but ideology.

Desperate people who have no choice but to represent themselves—this is my hon. Friend’s point—will clog up the courts and cost more money. Court time is expensive and not only will extended court time cost more money, but self-representation will provide fertile ground for miscarriages of justice and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making his case very well. A long time ago, I ran a solicitors firm on a high street in north Shropshire. Does he agree that it is extraordinary that a Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government are making proposals that will specifically hit small firms on our high streets which are some of the most important providers of advice and services to local communities?

[Karl Turner]

My hon. Friend has stolen one of my best points. He is right of course.

I want to concentrate for a moment on the courts and staffing levels. I was not practising in the criminal courts during the recess, but I was there briefly. It is clear that since 2010, the courts have been stretched. There is no doubt that the proposals will put more pressure on the clerks in trying to advise clients who may be faced with no option but to self-represent.

Last year, the National Audit Office found that the cost of our legal aid system was average compared with other countries, and costs continue to fall. I accept that, according to the Government, 48% of criminal legal aid costs account for 1% of cases. Those are the cases that we should look at to make savings. The Government should concentrate their attention on high-cost cases. In times of austerity, we should look at all Departments for efficiencies, and the Ministry of Justice should shoulder its responsibilities and accept the burden for that.

It is right to make those who can afford it pay legal fees. It is also right to freeze the assets of convicted criminals to fund their legal costs. I am sure that my Front-Bench colleagues would be happy to work with the Government on that. However, it is not right that the legal aid system is sold off to the lowest bidder at the expense of quality. It is not right that huge global corporations that also run prisons, probation services and tagging—they do not do that well—are likely to bid for criminal defence contracts. That suggestion is appalling.

It is clear that there is a conflict when organisations involved in criminal defence also run the prisons. It is not right that companies such as G4S, which have great financial power, outbid smaller local firms at the expense of quality and local expertise. Local expertise is valuable. The legal aid scheme has evolved and changed over many years since its inception in 1949, but it remains a system in which the Government fund private expert practitioners to provide a pivotal public service.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That latter point is important and we will try to ensure that the bid process is as simple as possible for smaller organisations, and that it is as simple as possible for partnerships to be formed. I am not attracted by simply having a universal prime and subcontractor model. In Peterborough and Doncaster, for example, partnerships are already being formed between the private and voluntary sectors in a way that can make a real difference. Such partnerships are to be welcomed.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

In a parliamentary answer, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), stated that

“public sector entities will not be able to bid”

for probation contracts

“as they will not be able to carry the financial risk.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 955W.]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that public sector contracts cannot be awarded to probation trusts?

[Chris Grayling]

Self-evidently, the existing structure of public probation trusts cannot take risk on behalf of the taxpayer, but staff are welcome—they are being helped actively—to establish co-operative movements and social enterprises that bid for the business. That is to be welcomed. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is a Labour and Co-operative Member, but he sits with many who are. Surely he welcomes that approach.

Police Community Support Officers

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about police community support officers and their powers. PCSOs are an extremely successful product of the previous Labour Government. As a natural progression from provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, they are an effective part of community beat teams across England and Wales. I am proud to say that I served on the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Bill that became the Police Reform Act 2002, which introduced PCSOs.

Offa community council in Wrexham—a community council in Wales is the equivalent of a parish council in England— is an active local council that works hard to address local neighbourhood concerns in a part of Wrexham that is partly residential and partly commercial. The council works closely with its local police community beat team and PCSOs. One of the local PCSOs attended a monthly community council meeting last year at which she explained that she attended the local Victoria primary school at key times when parents dropped off their children in the morning and picked them up in the evening. While she was doing that, some of the parents—I emphasise that it was a minority—were parking on zig-zag lines outside the school and on double-yellow lines in the area. That is a problem across the country with which we are all familiar, but in the context of a primary school with young children, it is a big worry that parents and teachers have to deal with.

The PCSO told the community council that she had asked parents who were flouting traffic regulations to move, because they were causing a danger to children. Everyone, of course, would be fearful that an accident might occur and that someone would be seriously injured. Most parents complied with the PCSO’s wishes, but several refused. She heard one of the drivers comment, “There is nothing they can do about it. They are only police community support officers.”

In preparation for this debate, having been fortunate enough that it was drawn in the ballot, I attended the school last Thursday afternoon to see the situation on the ground. The area was very busy, and some cars were parked dangerously. Young children were moving precariously among traffic, as children of primary age do. In such circumstances, the existing law unfortunately says that even though a PCSO may make the judgment that some vehicles are causing a danger to children in the community, they cannot take appropriate legal steps to deal with the situation.

Chief constables can designate PCSOs as having various powers, as specified in part 1 of schedule 4 to the Police Reform Act. However, PCSOs do not currently have the power to prevent dangerous parking or parking that causes an obstruction. As far as I am aware, and I am grateful for the Library’s assistance on this point, primary legislation would be required to allow them to exercise such a power. Such provision would address a community danger that has been identified on the ground by a local PCSO who wants to do her best to resolve the difficulty but, as the law currently stands, cannot do so.

I am pleased that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will be responding to the debate, because I have written to him about the situation. I am sure that his assiduous civil servants will have dug out the file. I was not expecting him to be present, but it is good that he is. I had suggested, at the instigation of the community council, that the Government might consider amending the law to allow PCSOs to deal with such problems by giving them the powers so to do. Unfortunately, the Minister’s reply last November stated:

“the principal role for PCSOs is part of neighbourhood policing teams, connecting and engaging with their local community, as opposed to managing parking restrictions which is a matter for the Local Authority.”

I was very disappointed with that reply, and I was even more disappointed that the local community council and PCSO, both of whom wanted to try to resolve a practical difficulty in their neighbourhood, were being let down by the Government’s response. Such responses give this place, and politicians generally, a bad name.

As I have explained, the case arose from a specific request that was made by an officer on the ground in response to a danger to young children. It is patently clear that the request for an additional power is neither unreasonable nor excessive. In the spirit of localism, I am content for the local chief constable to be granted a power, which he may or may not exercise, to allow PCSOs to issue tickets in such circumstances. At present, the PCSO has no power to issue a fixed penalty notice and has to call in a community beat manager—a police officer—from the town centre to take the necessary action, which is a waste of valuable police time. That deficiency can be easily remedied.

The clerk of the community council, Karen Benfield, reports to me that there is increasing reliance on PCSOs to undertake community policing. In the immediate vicinity of Wrexham, the number of community beat managers, who are police officers, is falling because of the Government’s budget cuts. The area used to have one community beat manager for each of the four wards served by Offa community council, but now there is only one community beat manager in charge of a PCSO team of five.

PCSOs in north Wales are already given the full range of discretionary powers that the chief constable can grant, which include the power to issue fixed penalty notices for disorder, truancy, graffiti, littering and dog fouling, but not for dangerous parking. Additionally, 25% of the cost of PCSOs in Wrexham is paid for by Wrexham county borough council to encourage the police and the local authority to work together to address the needs of the local community. PCSOs are seen to be working closely with the local authority to address all sorts of community issues, and dangerous parking is clearly a community issue that is upsetting the local community council.

The community council does not want PCSOs to take on the role of traffic wardens. It is as anxious as anyone to ensure that PCSOs carry out their role in the community and have a balanced, discretionary approach. Parking is a matter for the local authority, but the community council wants the PCSO to have the power to act when she sees a vehicle parked in the community in a dangerous situation. At present, only police officers can deal with such situations, but that suggestion is entirely reasonable at a time when the number of police officers is being reduced because of budget cuts.

I ask the Minister to consult on allowing PCSOs to have that power, which would not be controversial. The power would be at the discretion of the chief constable, and it has been requested by a PCSO on the ground because she is worried about young children in her community. How can the Minister possibly say no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

As a fellow Kent MP, I am delighted that we will have more PCSOs and police officers on the streets of Kent in the coming years. I am happy to join my hon. Friend in his remarks.

I will now move on to the powers available to PCSOs, which are, as the hon. Member for Wrexham said, set out in the Police Reform Act 2002. All PCSOs are issued with 20 standard powers that enable them to deal with antisocial and nuisance behaviour in neighbourhoods. In addition, there is a list of discretionary powers that can be designated to PCSOs by chief constables in response to local requirements. The discretionary nature of the additional powers is important and goes to the heart of the notion of neighbourhood policing, which, at its core, is to ensure that policing responds to the needs of local communities. Discretionary powers ensure that PCSOs are flexible, as they bestow on chief constables the authority to take the necessary steps to ensure that their PCSOs are suitably empowered to deal with the issues that are of most concern to local residents. The Government believe that these limited and flexible powers are one of the key strengths of PCSOs, providing them with the time and space necessary to get to know their local area and actively to engage and build relationships with communities.

I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the powers available to PCSOs remain under constant review, and we are always willing to look at ideas, but we need to ensure we strike the right balance and do not overburden them. The Government welcome consideration of revisions to the powers where it is clear that they will enhance, rather than undermine, this important role. The draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, for example, proposes the introduction of a new dispersal power for PCSOs. That will replace two existing powers and will allow uniformed police officers and PCSOs to direct a person who has committed, or is likely to commit, antisocial behaviour to leave a specified area and not return for a specified period of up to 48 hours.

We must be cautious not to overburden PCSOs with powers that could introduce bureaucracy to the role, taking them away from providing the visible presence on the streets that we want. Extending the scope of existing PCSO powers could introduce to the role an unwelcome element of confrontation that is associated with the power of arrest and is outside the PCSO’s unique role. Many, in fact, see the power of arrest as a last—not a first—resort, preferring instead to focus on being proactive and preventive. Therefore, we need to ensure that we give full consideration to the issues around extending PCSO powers.

That lies at the heart of what might fall between the hon. Member for Wrexham and me. He quoted selectively from part of the letter that I wrote to him last November, so it falls to me to read the rest of it. He is right that I said that

“the principal role for PCSOs is as part of neighbourhood policing teams, connecting and engaging with their local community, as opposed to managing parking restrictions which is a matter for the Local Authority.”

He generously acknowledged that that is indeed the role of the local authority. I continued by saying that extending PCSO powers risks undermining that central role. From the letter he wrote on its behalf, I appreciate that Offa community council would want that power, but I said in my letter that that

“may not be true for all communities and legislating for such a change at a national level would not necessarily be uncontroversial.”

[Ian Lucas]

I accept that the move would not necessarily be uncontroversial, but I was clear about ensuring that it was a discretionary power that would be given to the chief constable. Will the Minister accept, therefore, that it is entirely appropriate for the Government to consult on whether to do that?

[Damian Green]

As I said, we published the draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. I know that antisocial behaviour is a term of art, but I am sure that parking dangerously outside a school can be regarded, certainly in non-legal terms, as antisocial behaviour, so the community council may want to contribute to the debate on that. The hon. Gentleman has already said that the extension of PCSO powers would require primary legislation, so, by definition, there will be no quick fix. He said that not having national legislation on this matter is the sort of thing that brings politics into disrepute, but I beg to differ. What brings politics into disrepute is insisting that every problem has to have a national legislative solution. This is clearly a local problem, although one that I dare say is replicated in various parts of each of our constituencies. Each local solution will be different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

Let me make a specific point about the situation that the hon. Member for Wrexham described at the start of the debate, and then conclude with a general point. Pondering it in our interregnum, it occurred to me that of all the parking issues, parking outside schools is probably the easiest to solve. It is overwhelmingly likely to involve parents, so if the PCSO turned up with a traffic warden or police officer and ticketed everyone, they probably would not do it again. If they turned up twice over the course of a couple of weeks, they certainly would not do it again. Therefore, it is a prime example of where we can use the PCSO’s power and detailed local knowledge to bring to bear the forces of law and order in a way that would prevent future crime. As I said, that would be a good example of how to use the specific virtues of PCSOs, with the powers that they have, and also, their ability to relate to local conditions.

We continue to look for opportunities to enable PCSOs to be used to their full potential.

[Ian Lucas]

Does the Minister not see that he is preventing a local solution that all parties want to implement in this particular case?

Points of Order

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on whether it is appropriate for a Minister to refuse to meet hon. Members to discuss important matters relating to their constituencies. It seems extraordinary that a Minister has refused three times to meet elected Members of Parliament, who should be given respect.

[Mr Speaker]

Even if something is extraordinary, that does not necessarily render it disorderly. It is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter between the Minister and the Member. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. If the Minister wants briefly to respond, he can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent. He will be pleased to learn that the system we have in mind for dealing with the rehabilitation of offenders will reward those who have good ideas—ideas that work—in driving down the reoffending rate. He is right that we want to see more mentoring, as we believe it is very effective. Many other things will be affected, too, and we look forward to hearing about them.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Last month, the Secretary of State announced the immediate closure of seven prisons. When will the replacement prison, referred to in the same statement, be constructed?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman knows that what we announced was to investigate the feasibility of a large prison. We also announced that we will build 1,200 places or thereabouts at prisons that already exist. We will look carefully at all proposals made to us for suitable sites for a large new prison. As the hon. Gentleman knows, one possibility is a site in north Wales, which councillors in his area are extremely keen that we consider carefully.

Transforming Rehabilitation

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I agree with every single word that my hon. Friend said. We have far too many foreign national prisoners in our jails. The challenge of returning them, of course, is that there has to be somebody willing to take them at the other end—I am not willing simply to release criminals on to the streets. I absolutely agree that we need to be able to return prisoners as quickly as possible. I intend to do everything I can to use the prisoner transfer agreement, which more and more countries are now ratifying, as much as possible to return offenders to other countries, and to do everything I can, with my hon. Friends in the Home Office, to make sure that they do not come back.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The practical effect of the Work programme in Wrexham is that local charitable organisations have been excluded from providing services, and some of them have closed. Will the Secretary of State impose a contractual condition that local charitable organisations should be involved in the provision of services for the new scheme?

[Chris Grayling]

It depends on what works. There are very good charities delivering excellent services for this country. There are charities that do good and noble work but are less good at the jobs they do. What matters to me is that we have the organisations that do the best job. In the Work programme we will find excellent organisations in the charitable sector doing first-rate work and excellent private organisations doing first-rate work, and I would like to have the best of both.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That would of course be the norm, but the most important thing is not geography but that punishment takes place. Given the circumstances that Newquay faces, I hope that the addition of a punishment to a community sentence will be a timely reminder to a lot of young people of what they can and cannot do. That approach will create a system that is better and more appropriate for Newquay.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Wales probation trust has carried out excellent community-related work with local voluntary services in north Wales. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he sees a role for probation services in the brave new world to which he has referred?

[Chris Grayling]

I can absolutely do that. I have visited the Wales probation trust and am impressed by what it has done, and I am absolutely committed to seeing high-quality, specialist public sector probation officers continuing to deliver the support that we need them to deliver, particularly to prevent harm from coming to members of the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

T6. The prisons Minister recently met council leaders from north Wales to discuss the long-standing issue of a prison in the area. Will he meet north Wales Members of Parliament to keep them in the loop on his thinking, or does he intend not to keep them informed?

[Jeremy Wright]

As I recall, almost all the council leaders who came to see me on that occasion were Labour council leaders, so I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has a communication problem with his own councillors. This is going to be part of a much wider consideration of the prison estate that we will undertake. As soon as we are in a position to make decisions we will attempt to keep informed all those who need to be informed.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

As I have said, this is not an issue of causation. I heard Lord Thomas speak in the other place yesterday, and I very much agree with what he had to say, which was essentially that in cases in which causation is not an issue, there is—in many respects—no reason why solicitors should have a success fee for that type of work. But the Opposition have made their case, as have others, and the Government have to deal with things as they stand. That is why we are offering to make this concession, but it is a time-limited concession only. The overall Jackson reforms stand as our preferred way to move forward.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for having listened closely to the debate last week and to the debate in the House of Lords. But is it not the case that this legislation facilitates a solicitor recovering a success fee from the client’s damages, and that if this legislation did not proceed, that could not happen?

[Mr Djanogly]

No. The hon. Gentleman rather distorts the implications of the legislation. We are capping success fees, which are currently 100%, at 25%.

--- Later in debate ---

On mesothelioma, last week I made an off-the-cuff speech, even though, to be truthful, I knew little about the subject. I urged the Government to find an alternative way to sort the matter out. They have done so and I am delighted to support them on that.

[Ian Lucas]

I thank the Minister for his letter today setting out the concession that has been made, and I am grateful to him and the Lord Chancellor for that concession.

I thank my constituent, Mrs Marie Hughes, whom I quoted extensively last week. I also thank the peers who listened to last week’s debate in the Commons and, as a result, sent this matter back to this House. Had they not done so, we would not have had the concession.

I pay tribute to those Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs—I think there were five Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats—who voted against their Whip last week. They listened to the debate, participated in it and contributed to the expression of the overwhelming view, both in this House and in the other place, that the measure could not proceed in the form in which it appeared last week. It was clearly wrong, and I am pleased that we have reached a different position.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I shall be brief. I pay tribute to the Government for the moves that they have made on the Bill and I welcome the progress on the definition of domestic violence. Although they have extended the range of evidence that will be required, there is still some way to go. I recall that last week the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) suggested that the time limits might be up to three years.

I am speaking on behalf of a constituent who came to see me a few weeks ago. She had been habitually abused—emotionally abused—over a number of years. The last straw for her was when her husband tried to set fire to her. She went to hospital. She has medical evidence but she did not want to press any charges. She is, understandably, so traumatised by the experience that she has been through that several months after the incident she can barely speak. She is years away from being able to take to a court or tribunal the levels of evidence that have been suggested. I support amendments 2B and 196B, particularly on her behalf.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), I welcome the amendment on mesothelioma and the moves towards a review, if there is to be one. Oldham is not far from Rochdale and many of my constituents worked in the industry. Once people are diagnosed with the disease, they are, unfortunately, likely to be dead within 18 months. It would be outrageous if 25% of the damages were taken from them. I support amendment 31, but I acknowledge the moves that the Government have made.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

The Government recognise that mesothelioma is a truly terrible disease—a terminal illness that has a devastating impact on the families of its victims—and we are wholly committed to doing everything we can to help its victims to achieve justice and get the support that they deserve. The Lords amendments seeking to exempt mesothelioma and industrial disease cases from our reforms to no win, no fee agreements in part 2 of the Bill are not the right way to advance the cause of sufferers.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Djanogly]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me a chance to put forward our opposition to the amendments.

First, the amendments are unnecessary. The legal climate in which mesothelioma cases can be brought has wholly changed in recent years, and nothing in our proposals should prevent cases from being taken or those affected from receiving appropriate damages. Secondly, in making an exception to our change to the no win, no fee conditional fee arrangements regime, the amendments would create inconsistency and damage the wider goal of our reforms—to restore sense to the costs of litigation, which have been substantially increased by the way in which no win, no fee cases operate, largely to the detriment of defendants.

[Ian Lucas]

How can appropriate damages be recovered by mesothelioma victims if a proportion of those damages is to be taken from them to cover the cost of legal fees?

[Mr Djanogly]

This is not a question of whether mesothelioma sufferers receive adequate legal support but of how much their lawyers get paid for providing it. We are saying that that must be more reasonably assessed, and that is the point of our reforms.

Let me remind hon. Members that the current regime of no win, no fee conditional fee agreements was meant to promote access to justice but has frequently ended up as something of a racket allowing risk-free litigation for claimants, inflated profits for legal firms, and punitive additional costs for defendants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

That is a strong point, but I have sympathy with the Minister’s argument, because everyone who is engaged in litigation has a duty—some of us have been engaged in litigation in difficult emotional times, with divorce being a very good example—to ensure that things are being done on their behalf in the right way. Some hon. Members are muttering from a sedentary position. Of course when somebody is sick it does seem heartless and cruel to say that they should be watching the clock, but we hope that they would be taking an interest in the conduct of their case. I respectfully suggest that that would include the costs. Often these people have families, who would also want to ensure not only that the costs are being properly calculated, but that the case is being properly conducted. That is what I would say on that point. I just hope that somewhere along the line there will be some way of sorting this out, given all the various submissions that have been made.

[Ian Lucas]

I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have read an excellent letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) to the Lord Chancellor, which set out an unanswerable case against this proposal. It is wrong, in principle, that the Government are proposing this evening to reduce the damages of a successful mesothelioma claimant. I am a solicitor, and I did not go into the law to take damages away from a dying person, pending the outcome of a claim.

I have been very much strengthened in my conviction by the words of my constituent Marie Hughes, whose husband, Phil, a massively respected head teacher in Wrexham, died from mesothelioma, having worked for four years at the Brymbo steelworks in his youth. She has written to me explaining, in her own words, why she thinks this proposal is wrong, and I am going to read this out to the Minister, whom I respect. I hope that he will listen. She says:

“Had we had to undergo the further anxiety of financial implications we would not have attempted to claim. The thought of ‘shopping around’ for deals on success fees like other claimants as the Government suggests would be an unimaginable burden. Any monies available were needed to sustain our day to day costs, my inability to go to work while my husband was ill, and the need for travelling/sustenance funding when receiving treatment away from home, also supporting our family in further education. If there was a chance of treatment, we could not gamble with our savings as the stakes were too high. By the final 3 months of Phil’s life, tumours had also developed on his spine resulting in paralysis from the chest down—and all this while he was fighting to breathe.

My husband was not there to proudly escort his daughter down the aisle, though he had spoken of this dream several times during our precious time together. He never saw grandchildren. He bravely bore his condition and battled to the end but Mesothelioma takes no prisoners.”

I appeal to Government Members to reconsider their position. They should listen to the Lords and accept the amendment. To take damages away from these victims would be an appalling act of which the Government should be ashamed.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agreed with everything the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said. His views are shared by many Members on the Opposition Benches—and one or two on the Government Benches as well, I am sure.

I want to speak briefly to amendments 31 and 32. I am sure I am not the only MP who has received many representations on the important issue in question. Lawyers should not skin people who are dying. I was a lawyer—both a solicitor and a barrister—and I would be ashamed of taking back as much as possible from the damages claims of people who may not have long to live. That is disgusting, but there is a very real worry that the Government are creating that problem in attempting to address what they call the compensation culture. Many of us do not recognise that such a culture exists, but even if it does, it involves petty claims such as whiplash injuries and people tripping up, or pretending to trip up, on pavements. In trying to sort out that problem, the Government are creating a problem for industrial injuries cases.

Under clause 43, a success fee under a conditional fee arrangement will not be recoverable from a losing party in all proceedings. Instead, it will be paid out of the damages of the injured person, meaning they may lose 25% of their damages.

Policing (North Wales)

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, and I will go on later to mention some aspects of policing, such as forensics, that are covered by the description of back-room policing.

Ministers say repeatedly that police chiefs are the only ones responsible for cutting back on numbers. Despite the inspectorate’s advice, they say:

“By the end of the spending review period, the police will still have the resources to do their important work.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 September 2011; Vol. 730, c. WA28.]

In fact, no fewer than nine times in the past six months, Ministers have given the same answer to various questions in Parliament about falling police numbers. The mantra goes a bit like this:

“we have set a challenging but manageable funding settlement for the police service. It is for the chief constable and the police authority in each force to determine the number of police officers that are deployed given the available resources.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 16.]

Perhaps we will hear that again from the Minister today, to round it off to a nice, even and decimal 10.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

In my constituency, the practical effect of the Government’s policy in terms of reduction is that dedicated community police officers, who have been hugely effective and successful in policing local areas, have been taken away from particular geographical areas, which is causing great concern among councillors and having a huge impact on the ground. Will my hon. Friend urge the Government to look again at the impact, not in the back room but on the streets?

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree totally with my hon. Friend and share his concern about the impact in Wrexham county borough.

If the Government know how police chiefs can keep all their people and premises on 20% less money, with a rising population and fewer back-office resources, I hope that the Minister will tell us. North Wales police knows its own organisation’s needs better than anyone, and it has made it clear that it cannot keep all its officers under the budget cut. Our excellent chief constable Mark Polin made his position perfectly clear, saying:

“If I am going to keep the organisation in balance, we are going to have to lose a significant number of staff…I have no wish to reduce any of our staff, but I have got to. I have no choice whatsoever”.

No choice whatsoever—Ministers know that that is true. Now is the time for them to stop passing the buck and take responsibility for the chaos that they have created.

North Wales’ policing needs will be hit particularly hard because of the rural nature of our area and the loss, on top of the 20% budget cut, of the payment that used to be awarded to help cope with that. One hidden change brought in alongside the headline cuts to budgets is the merging of the rural police grant into the core settlement. It is effectively being abolished for police forces such as North Wales, which used to benefit from it directly.

Our rural communities have specific policing needs, and the rural grant was introduced by the Labour Government to address them. A sparse and scattered population cannot be policed in the same way as an urban centre. Police have to cover huge distances, incurring extra costs in fuel or infrastructure such as buildings that urban police forces need not budget for. That is why the Home Office’s police allocation formula working group considered and rejected the recommendation that the rural grant should be rolled in with other categories of grant and effectively lost. Again, however, that expert opinion was ignored, and north Wales will have to do without.

Why does it matter? Let me give an example. Last year, part of my constituency suffered some worrying arson-related attacks on cars. That kind of crime requires exactly the same kinds of police resources in a rural village as it would if it happened in an inner-city area, but rural police are spread more thinly and need to travel further to reach the trouble when it happens. No amount of so-called efficiency savings can mitigate the geography, unless Ministers would like all of my constituents and others in north Wales to relocate together to one place in order to make things easier. The Countryside Alliance rightly makes the point that the proposed levels of police cuts would be “a free-for-all” for those who would commit crime in the countryside.

I am delighted to see the Labour-led Welsh Government fund an additional 500 community support officers across Wales, but the loss of the rural police grant is a double whammy for us. The official figures show that vehicle crime is up in north Wales by 84% over the past year—from about 130 incidents in November 2010 to 250 in November 2011. Burglary and other crimes, including theft, shoplifting, criminal damage and public disorder have also increased during that time frame.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman that behind each statistic there is often a human tragedy. I am grateful to him for raising that point.

[Ian Lucas]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Throughout the ’90s and the past 10 years, there was a consensus among all the political parties on the need to confront crime by increasing the number of officers. Is it not a profound shame that that consensus has been broken, and that the impact that that will have on individual people’s lives is being ignored by this Government?

[Susan Elan Jones]

That is correct, and it is especially true of our scattered rural communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on securing the debate.

I am still hoping that the debate will be an opportunity not for a display of new Labour, but for a display of new realism. Perhaps the hon. Lady might like to explain why the Welsh Assembly has cut police funding. I understand that the Labour party supports the budget reductions because its economic credibility depends on it and it cannot guarantee to reverse any of the funding cuts that the Government are going to make. Yet, at the same time, Labour opposes every step that the coalition Government take.

In fact, we have heard in the debate today that one of the cuts Labour Members think they can support is a 12% reduction in the police budget. If that is the case, perhaps the hon. Lady or the official spokesman for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) when he responds, would like to tell hon. Members exactly how many officers that will equate to, because the hon. Lady is in cloud cuckoo land if she thinks that a 12% cut does not relate to a reduction in staffing numbers.

[Ian Lucas]

Just to clarify the position for the right hon. Gentleman, the budget for the Welsh Assembly is provided by the UK Government, who cut the budget. The Welsh Assembly has less money because the UK Government cut the funding. That is why there are cuts taking place in the Welsh Assembly.

[Tom Brake]

I understand the very simple economics to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but, of course, the Welsh Assembly has the ability to take decisions and make its own priorities. Clearly, it has chosen not to make policing a priority.