Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

Yes. I am working closely with the European Commission on its investigation into video games tax relief and I am confident of a good result.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

This week we have seen the re-emergence of soccer violence in the UK. As a result, hooligans will be banned, if convicted, from league grounds. They are now congregating in non-league grounds, where the banning orders do not apply. Will the Government look at extending banning orders to non-league grounds?

[Hugh Robertson]

I say again that no one in any part of the House would do anything other than condemn the scenes that we saw both on Saturday and again on Sunday. Incidentally, I do not think this marks a return to the bad old days of the 1970s and 1980s. Huge progress has been made but clearly there is an issue there and it is one that we need to address. We are awaiting the results of the investigations from the police and the football authorities. As I said in answer to an earlier question, if action needs to be taken, this Government will take it.

Firearms Controls

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

There are concerns across the piece. Whether air guns are covered depends on the definition of air gun, but I hope to come to that in a few moments if my hon. Friend bears with me.

Public safety must be the primary aim of gun control legislation, but it is clear that the police, in view of significant budget cuts, can no longer afford to subsidise the licensing system. We heard in the debate a few moments ago of hon. Members’ concerns about 20% cuts in police budgets in their areas.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is on an emotive point for him. Does he agree that all aspects of firearms control should be a major concern and top of the agenda for prospective police and crime commissioners?

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are only a few weeks away from the elections for police and crime commissioners. I have discussed the issue with Ron Hogg, who is a PCC candidate in County Durham, and who has some expertise in the matter. It is important that this is a local priority, but I also suggest that we should have a national framework laying down guidelines—something stricter than guidelines, in fact—to be applied evenly. Part of the problem is that we have a patchwork of arrangements.

We cannot do firearms licensing on the cheap at the risk of compromising public safety. There is also a strong case for strengthening the link between the licensing authority and medical professionals when considering an application for or a renewal of a firearms certificate. We need early and proactive intervention when a firearms holder’s mental and physical health deteriorates.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to repeat that we have set up a commission to look at this important issue and that we want to get back to a position where human rights are taken to be one of the basic values of a democratic society, rather than having human rights abused in such a way that the whole concept has fallen into disrepute.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the problems facing the market testing of eight of Her Majesty’s prisons. When will an announcement be made in the House about who the preferred bidder will be at the end of that market testing?

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

As Lady Hale warned earlier this week, the £350 million legal aid cuts made by the Bill will hit the poorest and most vulnerable in society. She said that there is a well-known, ironic saying that

“in England, justice is open to all—like the Ritz”.

She went on to say:

“Courts are and should be a last resort but they should be a last resort that is accessible to all, rich and poor alike. The big society will be the big loser if everyone does not believe that the law is there for them.”

That sums up the current position very clearly.

The Bill represents a further attack on hard-working people and on the most vulnerable in society. It is a cobbled-together, dangerous, coalition concoction of the most risky kind. I think that it was the Justice Secretary who said today that it was a mixture of the Conservative dry and tough, and the soft, wet and liberal. I am honestly baffled by that. I do not know what it means; it does not make much sense. Should not our justice policy be wholly focused on the protection of the general public, on punishing offenders properly and on being on the side of the victim?

The Bill presents more questions than it answers. The measures go too far, too fast; they are incoherent. The cuts are aimed at saving money, not at reducing crime. The Bill puts cutting costs ahead of what is in the best interests of the victims and of reducing crime and punishing offenders. We are seeing massive cuts in front-line police, prison officers and probation trusts. Cuts to social welfare legal aid will leave the most vulnerable without any legal support. It is a one-size-fits-all approach to remodelling the civil justice system that threatens to render many areas of law unenforceable.

The Bill is unworkable, with a departmental cut of 23%. It is hardly the rehabilitation revolution promised by the Justice Secretary. The 23% cut to the Ministry of Justice budget means 10,000 fewer front-line staff in prisons and in probation, and a 50% reduction in capital spending on the prison estate. The cuts are intended to save £130 million, with a 3,500 reduction in the prison population. Undoubtedly the planned cuts will create massive problems with regard to the future security of prisons, the condition of the prison estate, and the safety of prison officers and their capacity to maintain order. It is an absolute nonsense for the Government to speak of the plans to improve rehabilitation and cut reoffending while cutting the number of prison and probation officers, and allowing the prison estate to be degraded.

There are three parts to the Bill: legal aid, litigation and funding costs, and sentencing and punishment of offenders. Like other hon. Members, I want to focus on the proposals for personal injury cases in the Jackson report, the precursor to the Bill. Jackson proposed that the after-the-event insurance premium become the responsibility of the claimant; that there be qualified one-way cost shifting to the defendant except in specific circumstances; that success fees be paid by the claimant; that referral fees be banned; and that there be a new test for proportionality. Those strong recommendations for reform are a package that needs to be implemented in full. The Bill does not deal with one of the most serious issues, the proposal to ban referral fees.

There are no proposals to ban referral fees. No one can have failed to become aware of the furore in the past two or three days created by the “revelation” of the market in road traffic accident claims. It now seems difficult to see which intermediary is not in receipt of a fee for selling on a claim. This cannot continue and should result in the banning of the payment of referral fees.

Many people were caught by surprise by this week’s revelations by insurance companies. They were shocked to hear that profits were being made from the sale of personal information, but some of us have been complaining vigorously about this practice for many years. The failure to ban referral fees is yet another example of the double standards that operate.

No legitimate claimant should be deterred from bringing a claim, and with no win, no fee no sensible lawyer would pursue a claim they did not have a reasonable prospect of winning. Make no mistake: this presents a huge struggle between the access rights of the injured person and the interests of those who have a financial interest in the outcome for the employer or third party who injured them. It also affects all Members’ constituents who find their ability to protect themselves and their families diminished by the savage cuts to legal aid.

What does the Bill do to address the delay caused by the unnecessary cost of defending the undefendable? It removes the claimant’s eligibility to legal aid to pursue a legitimate claim, leaving the weakest and most vulnerable in a much weaker position in investigating their claim or commencing proceedings.

Along with other organisations, the trade union movement sees that these changes will have a severe impact on health and safety. The employer who injures the employee will have no sanction imposed on him if the employee is discouraged or prevented from pursuing a legitimate claim for injury caused by the employer’s negligence. It is ironic that we are debating this on the day the Health and Safety Executive announced a huge increase—more than 170 in the past year—in workplace deaths. The trade union movement has a long and proven history of protecting its members, but that will be adversely affected by the Bill’s proposed changes.

Members have spoken about mediation, in respect of which there is cross-party support. The Government’s preferred option is not suitable for all, but it is an important tool in dealing with family breakdown. The Justice Committee and the family justice review have warned of the impact on vulnerable people, specifically those affected by domestic violence.

[Mrs Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that mediation is not suitable in all cases, especially those involving domestic violence, for which legal aid will remain available?

[Ian Lavery]

If the hon. Lady had been present earlier in the debate she would have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House discuss that point.

The cuts to legal aid are likely to provide no real saving to the public purse but will lead to courts struggling to cope as the weak and vulnerable struggle to represent themselves. Should not the weakest and most vulnerable have the same access to justice as those with plenty of finance behind them? The Bill fails to ensure fairness across the board and is, as many Members have said, an utter shambles.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has worked with me on public service reform in the past. I am glad he shares our objective because, as he says, it saves the economy substantial amounts and reduces the number of victims and further crimes if a higher proportion of those who finish their sentence do not go on to reoffend and get convicted again. The approach that we are adopting to improving the reoffending reduction programmes, which is to pay by results and make it quite clear that charitable and ethical investors can get a return on their capital if they succeed in delivering that objective, is a valuable and innovative way of trying to achieve real results rather than strive needlessly.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Mr Dean, a constituent of mine, is still waiting after three years for full payment of a compensation award from a persistent offender. What action are the Government taking, and what action will they take, against persistent non-payment of compensation awards by persistent offenders?

[Mr Blunt]

I am afraid that we inherited a criminal injuries compensation scheme that was £765 million in debt. That is why we have inadequate funds to pay compensation, and why the payment of compensation in many cases has, regrettably, been delayed. We are trying to repair a system that was bust when we inherited it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

The Ministry of Justice is in discussions with the Duchy of Lancaster, which owns the castle, regarding its future use after its closure as a prison. All staff at Lancaster Castle will be either redeployed to other establishments, retained at the prison to provide ongoing maintenance or offered the opportunity to leave the service on voluntary exit terms.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell the House what proposals his Government have for the future market testing of existing prisons in the UK?

[Mr Blunt]

We inherited a competition strategy from the last Administration, which is continuing. The strategy is being applied to prisons that are currently in the public sector, particularly Birmingham.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to explain the fact that we aim to improve the coroner system in line with most of the policy in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. However, the purpose of abolishing the chief coroner post is, first, to save the £10 million start-up costs and then the £6.5 million running costs, but also so that some of the chief coroner’s leadership and operational functions can be transferred to an alternative body.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that prisoners held within the prison estate are still allowed to smoke tobacco. Does the Secretary of State agree that that presents a huge health risk to Prison Service employees, and are the Government considering the matter?

[Mr Blunt]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the prisoner’s cell is regarded as his home for the purposes of the smoking legislation, and that is what gives them their rights in that regard.

Police Grant Report

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I am going to make a little more progress.

Of course, the challenge of tackling the deficit does not end this year; as we go forward, it will be vital for the police to deliver better value for money. The Government’s spending review will report in October, and we will not know until then what future police funding will look like. However, the Chancellor made it clear that unprotected Departments, including the Home Office, will face spending reductions, implying an average real cut of around 25% over the next four years. Whatever the outcome of the spending review, value for money considerations will become a new imperative for police authorities and forces.

We have been working constructively with the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss how forces can meet the considerable challenge of reducing spending on this scale. Our joint ambition is to do everything possible to protect front-line services. We appreciate the importance of police functions that the public do not always see. Those can still be front-line services, but as I have repeated to chief constables, the people’s priority is to maintain visible and available policing, and that is what we must all strive to protect.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The Northumbria police force is expected to make in-year cuts in the region of £3.5 million this year, which causes great concern to people in my constituency. We all experienced the massive manhunt in Northumberland only last week, which ended on Saturday morning. It has cost Northumbria police something in the region of £3 million, making a double whammy of about £6.5 million. Does the Minister agree that that is unsustainable, and will he review the initial £3.5 million cut?

[Nick Herbert]

I do not think it would be appropriate to review the spending reduction that we are asking every force to make on an equitable basis, which we announced some weeks ago subject to the approval of the House. However, there are special arrangements that can apply in relation to unforeseen expenditure by police forces. Northumbria police and its authority are well aware of that, and we will happily discuss the matter with them.

The Government’s view is that more can be done to achieve greater value for money in policing through national procurement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes suggested, and through sharing services, outsourcing and working more efficiently. If 43 forces can buy equipment more cheaply together, we can no longer allow anything to stand in the way of that. If tasks can be performed just as well or better by civilian staff, and so reduce costs and release sworn officers for other duties, ideology should not stand in the way. If some forces can use modern systems to improve business processes, so can others, and if some forces can show that collaborating with each other or with other local agencies delivers savings, others can take the same path. We need to see new solutions, innovation and strong local leadership. The first resort must be to drive out cost and the last resort must be reductions in police numbers.