Dangerous Driving Penalties

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone. It is good to see you presiding over our business this afternoon. I will certainly do my best to follow your stricture about time.

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). I congratulate him on securing the debate and on his continuing campaign on this issue. This is not the first time he has raised it, and he continues to lobby all of us to make sure that, if we can, we support him in his endeavour. He makes a powerful case that the punishment should fit the crime.

I look forward to hearing the Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), respond to the points that Members raise in the debate. It is good to see colleagues here, and I welcome them to their places.

The issue that underpins the question of penalties for dangerous driving is road safety. In itself, that is not controversial. There are no party politics involved in this issue; there may be differences of approach and emphasis, but we all want the same outcome: safer roads and fewer casualties.

When individuals break the law, the appropriateness of their punishment arises. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is not about vengeance or retribution, but about society making a statement. Attitudes to road safety have been changing. Drinking and driving used to be the norm; now it is socially unacceptable, but that took time. Getting people to wear seatbelts took even longer, and thousands of people were killed in the meantime.

The language around these issues is critical. In the fire service, in which I served, we used to talk about RTAs—road traffic accidents. They are now classified by the police and the fire service as RTCs—road traffic collisions. That language is important, because the majority of crashes, collisions and incidents have an avoidable cause: people drinking, taking drugs, speeding and using mobile phones. We are talking about deliberate decisions by human beings—drivers—that impact on innocent victims. In that sense, these are not accidents. Although some accidents do happen, the majority of fatalities and serious casualties are caused by people doing something deliberate. The word “accidents” is now passé for the emergency services, and, given how important language is, it should be passé for us too.

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and the Cyclists Touring Club—the national cycling charity—for their briefings for the debate. Both make what is for me the most important point: enforcement is the most effective deterrent. Penalties and tariffs are important, but enforcement is critical.

That takes me to the issue of policing. CTC’s briefing says:

“CTC’s Road Justice campaign has for several years been highlighting the fact that roads policing has suffered disproportionate cuts in recent years, compared with overall police numbers. Traffic police officer numbers fell by 37% from 2002/3-2013/14”.

This is not a party political point; these things have happened under different Governments. The CTC goes on to say that traffic police numbers have fallen

“from almost 7,000 uniformed officers down to just 4,356…total policing levels fluctuated a little from year to year, but not to this degree”—

overall police numbers fell by about 3.5%, but traffic police numbers are down by nearly 40%.

Both PACTS and CTC cite individual cases where the punishment does not fit the crime, and the hon. Gentleman movingly recounted many such cases, drawing on his own experience and that of other colleagues. Of the punishment, the CTC says that the length of the prison sentences and the length of the driving bans is totally inappropriate.

The CTC also raises the review the Government promised, which the hon. Gentleman also mentioned. The previous Justice Secretary announced a review of road traffic offences and sentencing. In a previous debate, also moved by the hon. Gentleman, the Minister’s predecessor promised widespread consultation on sentencing, but no word has been heard since. The hon. Gentleman asked the Minister for an update, and I am sure we would all be grateful for one.

I pay tribute to all the campaigning organisations, many of which have been founded by victims’ relatives and have campaigned for years, and even decades. When I was road safety Minister, I had my first request from a victim’s family for a meeting to discuss their relative’s death. I have huge regard for the civil service, but my civil servants said, “Don’t do it, Minister.” I asked why not, and they said, “If you meet one, you’ll have to meet them all.” My line was, “If I meet one, I will meet them all.”

These people have a lesson to teach the rest of us, and if we understand their suffering, we can use it to emotionally drive us to arrive at the right conclusions and to get the balance right between crime and punishment. They were some of the most moving meetings I ever had, and they were inspiring at the same time, because bereaved families want to make sure that no one else suffers as they did, as the hon. Member for Reading West explained. I look forward to the Minister’s updating us on the review.

Preventing road traffic collisions in the first place and protecting pedestrians, cyclists and other road users is essential, and enforcement is the key to that. We have all seen how road users behave near speed cameras, in average-speed camera zones and when a high-visibility police car is travelling on the same stretch of road that we are on. Their attitude is completely different from that of the minority of drivers who just do not care about the rest of us. The real deterrent is visibility and visible, effective policing.

I would like ordinary citizens to be able to empower the police more. Some constabularies operate a system by which if several members of the public report someone they have seen in the pub getting into their car, the police will send the driver a warning letter to say, “You have been reported to us; we are watching you.” That has an impact, and I have been told, and have read, evidence of that. I want ordinary citizens to be more empowered to report drivers they know are breaking the rules. That system might help to restrain the minority of selfish, dangerous and potentially killer drivers, before they ruin lives.

As to prosecutions, PACTS writes:

“There are reports that the reductions in CPS budgets and staff are impacting on the level of Dangerous and Careless Driving prosecutions.”

I should be grateful if the Minister commented on that observation, in the light of the evidence cited by the hon. Member for Reading West about reduced numbers of bans and the complications of concurrent bans. [Interruption.] I see the Minister’s officials nodding, so perhaps a note will be coming in a moment; I look forward to a response to what PACTS has asked.

The debate is about penalties for dangerous driving. All the evidence informing public opinion is that more could and should be done to prevent dangerous driving, but the social mood has changed about those cases where it happens and convictions are secured. The punishment should fit the crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Thank you for the efficient way in which you have chaired our proceedings.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing this important debate. The seriousness with which dangerous driving is taken is evident from the strength of feeling among Members on both sides of the House. I pay tribute to him for his persistence and for how he has brought this matter before the House. Indeed, I thank all hon. Members for the non-party political way in which these serious matters have been addressed.

My hon. Friend was right to say that it is not possible for us to imagine the pain of the families who have lost loved ones to such terrible experiences. I regularly meet victims, and I will continue to be available to do that to try to give myself the best possible idea of what they have been through. He mentioned the 102,000-signature petition, which is a significant achievement. I note that he has been to see the Prime Minister. The shadow Minister spoke about the Prime Minister’s supportive attitude on this matter.

I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), whose constituent, a teacher, was killed on account of someone browsing the internet while driving a lorry—an atrocious thing to have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West asked three particular questions and, yes, the five issues that he raised are being considered as part of the Government’s review. Secondly, I hope to be able to move to the public phase of the review soon, and we will do everything possible to attract the widest public attention. Thirdly, the reforms are likely to require legislation and so will be debated by Parliament. All hon. Members will have a chance, as they have had this afternoon, to put the views of their constituents in that debate.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister says that he hopes the review will move to its public phase soon. Can he be more specific about the definition of “soon”? When I was the Minister for a time, a civil servant drafted an answer for me that said, “The answer to the parliamentary question will be published in the autumn.” I asked, “When is the autumn?” They said, “23 December, Minister.” I said, “Well, that’s usually Christmas.” They said, “It’s the end of the autumn Session, Minister.”

The word “soon” is even less specific than “autumn” and certainly “this year.” It would be nice to know whether that means the calendar year or the parliamentary year.

[Andrew Selous]

The hon. Gentleman is a former Minister, and he knows how such things work. I am sorry that I am not able to be more specific, but I can tell him and every other Member here that I get it. There is clearly huge concern on both sides of the House about dangerous driving. A commitment has been made to have the review, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that my officials and others are working on that in earnest. I would be extremely grateful if he were good enough to accept that for now.

The hon. Gentleman made an excellent speech, and he is right that we all want safer roads. He spoke about the language we use in such matters, and I agree that using drink, drugs or phones does not make it an accident. Getting the language right matters, and I hugely agree that enforcement is critical, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West also said. As a former road safety Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) brings great experience and knowledge to this debate. The issue of prevention resonated most strongly with me, and the public reporting of drivers who break the rules is an interesting idea. He also said that the punishment should fit the crime.

I assure hon. Members that Ministers and officials in the Department for Transport will be sent the transcript of this debate so that they can study what has been said, because that is an important aspect of our proceedings. The hon. Gentleman specifically asked about prosecutions and, despite the increased number of cars on our roads, the number of incidents and, more significantly, the number of deaths on our roads have fallen very significantly. As a result, there are fewer prosecutions for causing death by dangerous driving, but the sentence length has increased, which is part of a long-term trend.

I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham). Safety near schools is incredibly important, and I commend her for continuing to campaign on that issue. She made an important point, which links to the point raised by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, about the need for effective enforcement. Again, I will ensure that that point is passed on to the Department for Transport.

The three Es mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West)—education, engineering and enforcement—are right. She also made a useful contribution to our proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) told us of a personal experience from his constituency. He speaks as a member of the Select Committee on Justice, so I welcome his contribution. I am struck that 63% of respondents in his constituency expressed a fear of road traffic crime. I agree that that is a significant finding, and one of which we should take note.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) on introducing the Bill. He does this House a great service, as did Lord Charlie Falconer in the other place, because this debate just has to happen. The courts have said that Parliament needs to review the law as it stands now after the decision of the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, to amend guidance on this matter. I pay tribute to the former DPP also for the meticulous way he and the Crown Prosecution Service felt their way forward after so many high-profile cases demonstrated that something had to change. He is now, of course, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, and he brings great authority to this place.

There are three key issues here: first, for those with terminal illness who are facing pain, suffering and indignity, it is about having the right to choose; secondly, it is about the need to protect the vulnerable against undue pressure and to legislate for safeguards; and, thirdly, it is about treating every citizen with the same degree of respect and dignity, and affording them the opportunity to access the best advice and professional help available.

On the right to choose, this—I should declare an interest—is personal. As many colleagues know, before being elected to this place I served in the London fire brigade for 23 years, during which time I worked with asbestos, as did the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench. Its heat-resistant properties meant that the fire service used it for all manner of things. For example, we used to wear asbestos helmets and gloves. I do not know how many people here have seen the terminal stages of asbestosis or mesothelioma. Not only is it not pretty, but it is damned ugly, and if that is what lies in store for me, I want to control my own exit.

Secondly, we need to protect the vulnerable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West said, there are 15 safeguards in this Bill compared with two existing safeguards. I would go through them, but he has covered them and time is against us. However, in The Times this week, Lord Finkelstein, not somebody whom I would normally quote, wrote:

“At the moment, you can press your relative to commit suicide, as long as you don’t get caught doing it. The investigation into the pressure that has been placed on the deceased doesn’t take place until after you are gone. By which point it is a little late. Far from increasing the chance of people dying because they have been press-ganged into it, a new law would protect them from this. Doctors would be involved, a judge too. And you would still be there to give evidence for yourself. This is all much safer, not less safe, than the current position.”

My final point is about fairness. I am a huge admirer and supporter of the hospice movement. Locally, Richard House hospice and St Joseph’s hospice care for residents in east London provide a magnificent service. Not everyone will want to be assisted to die. For those who do not, they should have the right to choose their own fate. Many will be so sedated that they may not be aware of their passing at the end.

Until the Crown Prosecution Service amended its advice, families or friends had been open to prosecution. But there still remains the huge obstacle of the lack of professional medical assistance. In his previous position, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras wrote:

“I have become increasingly concerned about two inherent limitations in the guidelines. The first is that although those who have reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to end their lives can now be confident of the compassionate assistance of loved ones without automatically exposing them to the criminal law. The only assistance they can be provided with is the amateur help of those nearest and dearest. They cannot be provided with professional medical assistance unless they traipse off to Dignitas in Switzerland.”

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman referred to the guidelines of the former Director of Public Prosecutions. Some would say that, having overseen those guidelines, the view that the former DPP now takes on assisted dying may be tainted by bias and that, like the United States, we should have an independent commission on bioethics so that an independent view can be reached.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I have great regard for the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he is impugning the integrity of the former DPP in reaching that decision and in his ability to speak for himself later on today.

Switzerland would be fine for people such as us or others in similar well-paid jobs or on decent pensions, but it is not an option that is available to many of our fellow citizens. Who wants to travel to Switzerland? Why should we have to? Why cannot we die at home, which is where most people want to die? The law needs to change; the law will change. Society is making decisions without this House’s agreement, but, ultimately, it is up to us to make much better legal provision.

This Bill should be sent to Committee and examined properly, because that will not happen today. The case is compelling. I wish to thank all those involved in the campaign organisation—the staff, supporters and patrons of Dignity in Dying—for assisting my hon. Friend and for giving us this opportunity today. Legislative opportunities on this stuff come around once every 20 years. Today we should make progress.

Shrewsbury 24 (Release of Papers)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, I will not give way. This was in the day of the flying pickets. These people would go around the country supporting trade unions that were engaged in that kind of intimidation, even though they themselves had absolutely nothing to do with the strike or industry in question.

The statistics make interesting reading, because it was at this time after the second world war that Britain was going substantially down the tubes. Successive Conservative Governments had failed not only to turn back but to arrest the ratchet of socialism that had driven through this country in the immediate post-war years. [Interruption.] I see that that has huge support on the Opposition Benches.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman is a Labour Member for whom I have an immense amount of time. He was a very good Transport Minister and it would give me enormous pleasure to give way to him.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will forgive me if I disagree with pretty much everything he has said so far, even though we do agree on certain aspects of life in politics. The motion calls for the publication of papers. It does not call for anybody to make judgments for and against; it asks for the papers to be published so that the public can make a judgment call. Some of us believe that those papers will show certain things and, obviously, Conservative colleagues think they might show something else, but surely we can agree on transparency in politics and the publication of documents.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I am slightly relieved to hear that he does not agree with what I have said, because that makes my life easier and it probably makes his life easier as well. I will not resile from my personal affection for the hon. Gentleman and I will address his point.

The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) was on his feet for about half an hour, during which he talked about the circumstances that prevailed at the time. We heard about the way in which the workers were being ground down by the employers and, of course, every possible opportunity was taken to associate those employers not only with the Conservative party, but with its fundraising efforts. It is important that there is a public understanding of the conditions that prevailed at the time and how it came about that these men were jailed.

I want to draw attention to the record of days lost to industrial action at the time. In 1970, when Ted Heath became Prime Minister, nearly 11 million days were lost. In 1971, the number of days lost was 13.5 million; in 1972—the year in question—it was nearly 24 million; in 1973 it was 7 million; and in 1974 it was 14.75 million. That illustrates just what was going on in the country at the time. [Interruption.] There was indeed a Tory Government. There was also a concerted effort by the trade union leaders, whom Margaret Thatcher described in her book as being first, second and third socialist politicians. They were not trade union leaders and they were not looking after the interests of their members. They were in pursuit of a political objective, which was to support the socialist party under the guise of the Labour party at the time. That is what they were trying to do. The Conservative Government at the time did not have a majority and, I submit, probably did not have the conviction to roll back socialism and tackle the trade union reform that was necessary, which was of course addressed by Margaret Thatcher and the 1979 Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and our other hon. Friends on securing this debate.

It is important to say, as all Members have said so far, that this is not about defending violence or picket line violence. It is about justice. This is about making the case to publish documents so that the truth can come out. I believe that case has been made overwhelmingly by Opposition colleagues who have spoken and it has even been agreed by Conservative colleagues. The only reason not to publish is that it would prove the political interference and perhaps the source of some of the evidence that was offered against the individuals.

It is important to remember that these were different times, different issues, different perspectives. The establishment was paranoid. It was not just the Tory establishment. Harold Wilson saw political manipulation in the NUS strike in the ’60s. That is when the NUS was the National Union of Seamen, not the National Union of Students. This is not just a Tory crisis, therefore. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) said this period saw the height of trade union membership and power, with working people trying to come to terms with the UK’s industrial decline and trying to hold on to what they had in the face of the establishment coming at them.

Times were difficult and the establishment felt threatened. The Shrewsbury 24 came in the wake of the Pentonville Five and the collapse of the industrial relations court. My hon. Friend mentioned Vic Turner. He was one of my councillors. He was mayor of Newham. When I knew him he was a very gentle and decent man, and he was one of the five who were locked up. Incidentally, for the information of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), I will say that when I was the secretary of the Scottish nationalist trade union association I issued a statement supporting the release of the Pentonville Five and was contacted by Edinburgh and told to withdraw the press release or be expelled from the SNP. That was the end of my romance with the Scottish National party.

In construction, the lack of a structured, organised business caused industrial carnage as many colleagues have mentioned, with nearly 600 dead on building sites in three years. The lump set worker against worker and kept the industry in the dark ages. They were dark times, indeed, not only for the country but for individuals thrust into the front-line—the Five, the 24 and others. The ’70s was a decade of massive industrial unrest; I am old enough to have been on strike in the ’70s with the fire service—against a Labour Government. It is surely time for the Government to come clean. The Government should publish the papers—I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say—so that these decent men and their families, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) has outlined, can understand what happened and why it happened and hopefully be able to put behind them what I believe will be shown to be another shameful part of our history.

Motor Insurance (Whiplash)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I had not anticipated being on this early—I see faces falling around the room—but it means that I have sufficient time to develop my argument. It is a shame that more Members are not taking part in the debate, because this is an important issue. The report that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) has just spoken to is important and authoritative, and it has had a significant impact for the good on Government policy.

As I will explain, there was a danger that the Government’s consultation on whiplash would be another stitch-up on behalf of the insurance industry, but what has emerged in their response is far less damaging and, in some ways, positive. I do not know whether the new Minister had a hand in developing it—I would like to think he did—but he brings a breath of fresh air with him. Having dealt with his two predecessors over the past three years, I have, sadly, become used to there being a lack of evidence to support the Government’s conclusions and to a disconnect between their policy and their soundbites, particularly on this issue.

I may be being over-optimistic as far as the Secretary of State, although not the Minister, is concerned. I say that because the Government response to the Select Committee report and the consultation was announced in a peculiar way—it was certainly new to me. The evening before it was announced, there was an embargoed press release, which then featured in the morning papers, before the report itself had been considered. Therefore, the report—rather like this debate—did not get the attention it perhaps deserved.

It is fairly clear why that happened. Suddenly, when he took up his post, the Secretary of State for Transport started talking about MOT prices and motorway fuel prices. The reason for that is that the centrepiece of the Government’s consultation, which they intended to adopt —the increase in the small claims limit from £1,000 to £5,000 for personal injury—had been jettisoned, primarily due to the evidence in the Select Committee’s report, and the Government were left with not very much to say on personal injury and whiplash.

In fact, the only thing the Government were left with to talk about were the medical panels. The medical panels are interesting, and I will come on to them a bit later, but they are hardly revolutionary—they are hardly going to make the major changes to personal injury law or the processing of claims that the Government, with the usual bombast that surrounds the Secretary of State, led us to believe they would. We had a bit of clever pre-spinning on this issue, but the substance, which we will talk about this afternoon, is that the Government simply backed off from a very unwise proposal.

As I said, I have had three years of having to deal with rhetoric that simply is not supported by the facts. “Compensation culture” is one of the buzz phrases the Government have used to mount a wholesale attack on personal injury law, despite the phrase being disowned by their own experts and reviews. It has been a cover for cherry-picking the Jackson reforms and implementing only those parts the insurance industry thought favourable. It has also been used as a cover for extending the portal scheme, which is not a bad scheme in itself, to cover higher amounts and to include public liability and employer liability to a high level. That was before we had really seen whether the scheme was working in relation to road traffic. All those factors have tipped the balance very much in favour of defendant insurers and away from claimant victims.

Whiplash is another catch phrase that has been used substantively to tarnish the reputation of all personal injury claimants, and particularly road traffic personal injury claimants. It was something of a cloak for the belated attempt—now abandoned—to raise the small claims threshold to £5,000. That would have taken at least 90% of personal injury claims on to the small claims track, so they would not have been subject to cost regimes or representation. Many victims, some of whom will have quite substantive injuries—a £5,000 general damages claim in a personal injury case represents quite a severe injury—would therefore be on their own, as litigants in person or as prey to insurers or claims management companies, in trying to settle a claim.

The evidence shows that those who are represented in such claims tend to get awards of about three times what they would have got if they had been unrepresented. The average whiplash claim that is paid out is about £3,000 for represented claimants and about £1,000 for unrepresented claimants. That is a significant difference.

It is clear that there are problems with whiplash. Soft tissue injuries will by definition be more subject to fraud than injuries where damage can be clearly seen and assessed. That fact, with insurance sector spin, becomes the view that all whiplash claims, or a very large number of them, are fraudulent, or even, effectively, that soft tissue injuries do not exist at all. That must be wrong.

I think I saw a figure in the report that estimates of the proportion of claims that were fraudulent ranged from less than 1% to 60%. The insurance industry’s own assessment is that about 7% are fraudulent. That is a significant number of claims, and it should cause us all to pause to think and worry, but let us not forget the 93% of claims that are genuine instances of people in pain and suffering, perhaps unable to work or with additional needs and costs. They are entitled to compensation.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) for missing the beginning of her speech.

Has the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), had a chance to make his own assessment of the accuracy of claims?

[Mr Slaughter]

It is difficult. There is a lot of rhetoric out there, and I have said what I want to say: that we should be concerned about fraud per se, and, in the context of personal injury actions, about soft tissue injuries, because it is easier to make fraudulent claims on them. The issue is how we deal with that.

I am delighted that the Committee’s report highlighted two issues. One of those is third-party capture, which is an open invitation to fraud. We know why insurance companies use it. They think they can settle a claim quickly and cheaply by offering a sum of money that is probably a fraction of what a genuine injury is worth. Usually because the victim does not know what it is worth, or needs money in a hurry, or perhaps because they do not want to have the case tested in court, they will settle for the sum—perhaps a few hundred pounds or £1,000—offered in an unsolicited phone call from the insurers. That must be wrong. Lawyers and medical experts have been saying that for a long time.

I am glad that the issue has been highlighted, and even more pleased that the Government appear to have accepted it. I hope that the Minister will say a bit more about what action will be taken. I have tabled parliamentary questions, and the Minister has answered some of them, but I do not think that he dealt with that issue, and it would be useful if he would.

The other issue that I was pleased to see highlighted in the report was how often fraud is pleaded by insurers defending claims. The answer is rarely. I cannot give a percentage, but from talking to practitioners—I do not think that this is denied—I understand it is rare to raise the issue of fraud in defence. If that is not being done, it is difficult for insurers to claim that they are aware of fraud.

Fraudulent claims can and should be challenged, and not only for the sake of the individual cases; if that happened more commonly it would, one might think, discourage fraud. What the insurance industry has been looking for, which the Government were going along with until recently, is a quick and dirty solution, which might deal with the problem but would throw out the baby with the bathwater. It would also prevent victims from getting fair compensation and encourage bad practice. It would encourage third-party capture and would also be likely to encourage the intervention of claims management companies.

Right hon. and hon. Members present will probably all be clear about the noxious effect that the claims management industry has had in its expansion in many areas of public life in the past few years. Having been restricted in some areas, it is looking for others to expand into, and it has its eye on the one that we are considering. If the small claims limit had been raised, with the result that claimants could no longer get representation, they would have been easy prey for claims management firms, who would say, “Let us handle it for you. We will take 30% or 50%,” and would purport to negotiate with the insurers on the claimant’s behalf. I hope that resisting the temptation to raise the limit will deal with that.

I have no particular problem with independent medical panels, if they work. However, I do not think that they will make a dramatic difference, and I am not sure that they are the simplest or right solution. Neither am I sure what evidence the Government have about fraudulent and dishonest practice by medical practitioners at the moment. The Minister might want to explain that.

When the panels have been used in other countries—Australia is the obvious example—they have rather become the captives of the insurance industry. I hope that that will not happen here and that they will be genuinely independent. Also, they seem like a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They will be a great new piece of bureaucracy and I am not sure that we could not have achieved the same objective of being sure we were getting reliable, robust and testing medical reports simply through registers of medical practitioners who were accredited as independent. That would have been cheaper, probably as effective or more effective, and more independent. We shall see where the approach leads.

There has been a progressive erosion of claimants’ rights in personal injury. I do not believe that personal injury claims, on the whole, can be brought by litigants in person. If 90% of claimants had been unable to get representation, it is likely that their claims would have been settled disadvantageously to them.

That is not just my opinion—that was the Government’s opinion last year, three months, I think, after they decided not to proceed with any change to the small claims limit for personal injury claims. They started a new consultation in April. I think it was in February that the previous report found against going ahead. The Government decided to go ahead and raise the limit to £10,000 for non-personal-injury cases, and that is probably right. We can argue about the exact figure, but it was somewhat overdue.

I do not think that, if the Government had decided, to allow for inflation, to raise the personal injury limit to £1,500 or £2,000, anyone would have had much of a quarrel. It is somewhat perverse that, having wanted to raise the limit to £5,000, they have now decided not to increase it at all; after they dismissed the matter in February there cannot really be any explanation for their proposing consultation in April, other than that they wanted to go ahead and have now been dissuaded.

However, it was not just that report: every report in the past 15 years, under the Labour Government as well as the present Government, that has considered small claims limits, as well as independent judicial reviews of the matter, found that it would not be sensible to increase the limit as the Government proposed. I think that, having got everything it wanted through the insurance summit at Downing street and so forth, the insurance industry decided it was on a roll. Having got the Jackson concessions and similar things, it was looking for an opportunity to go further. This was the prize that insurers really wanted, because they thought that it would almost entirely destroy the personal injury lawyers, save for catastrophic and major injuries.

If one looks at other countries to learn lessons, with Australia being the obvious example, one can see that such changes lead to wholesale restrictions on the rights of claimants. In Australia, there is something called whole-person impairment that has quite a high threshold below which no personal claims can be made. In other words, a person has to be substantially injured before they can bring a claim. There is also no-fault compensation, under which the onus is effectively passed to the state rather than being on insurers.

There is a proposal in Australia, not due to come in for another five or six years, simply to ban the common law right to sue for personal injury. I find it perverse that a Conservative Government might start to walk down that track. The losers would be not only the victims, but the state, which will end up picking up the tab through the increased costs of the NHS and benefits, and in other ways. The proposal would effectively nationalise the liability for personal injury.

The winners here are clearly the insurers, whose shareholders and profits are the major driving force. Are motorists winners? So far, there is no evidence that they are. Although the Minister’s predecessors said—it will be interesting to hear whether he repeats this—that insurance premiums will come down as a consequence of the measures, the insurance industry never says that. It says that it hopes that insurance premiums will come down. They have come down, I think, by 12%.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible and helpful point. I recognise the sense of what he says.

It is disappointing that on Second Reading and in Committee, the Government resisted dog control notices and said that community protection notices would be sufficient. I can only hope that, having read the Committee transcripts, the new Minister will bring fresh eyes to the issue and use fresh ears to listen to the experience of outside organisations, the victims of dog attacks and Members from all parts of the House who want tougher action.

The use of community protection notices, as advocated by the Government, is simply not sufficient. They are slow to serve, can be challenged in the courts, causing further delays, and have been described by one outside organisation as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Government had a perfect opportunity to show leadership on this issue. They could have led this House and this country to act to protect children and adults alike from further dog attacks. However, the powers in the Bill and the limited changes to which the Government are clinging are not sufficient—not even close.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for new clause 3. Does he agree that one of the successes of devolution is that we in Westminster can learn from the experiences of the devolved authorities in various matters and do not have to reinvent the wheel? Will he refer later in his speech to the experiences of Northern Ireland and Scotland?

[Mr Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reference to the situation in Scotland. Given that the experience of dog control notices in Scotland shows that they work effectively, it is all the more baffling that the Government refuse to support them. I hope that the House can persuade the Minister to change his position.

The position for which I am arguing is not just a Labour one. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which has a coalition majority, considered the Bill and concluded:

“We consider there to be strong evidence that targeted measures would be more effective in tackling dog-related problems than the general powers proposed under the Government’s anti-social behaviour and crime legislation…We recommend that the Government reconsider its rejection of our recommendation and legislate to introduce Dog Control Notices to provide law enforcers with tailored powers to tackle aggressive dogs before they injure people and other animals.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I rise to speak to amendments 140 and 141 in my name, which would increase the maximum sentence to 14 years for owners of an out-of-control dog that kills or injures a person or assistance dog. I am happy that the Government responded to the requests of the Committee and conducted a consultation over the summer. However, I am disappointed that the results are not available.

People have the right to see their representatives debate fully and vote on what sentences they feel are appropriate to be imposed on the owners of out-of-control dogs. Those people include the constituents of the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who has been an outstanding campaigner on behalf of her constituents and the victims of out-of-control dogs across the country. They include the families who have lost loved ones over the years, as hon. Members have mentioned in their speeches, and the 13-year-old boy who was attacked in Bradford a couple of months ago. As reported by the Daily Mail, he suffered a 10-minute attack which ended with the young boy saying, “I’m going to die, I’m going to die.” These people have the right to see us debate how we intend to increase sentences.

The Communication Workers Union has a lot on its plate these days, but like any good union it is thinking first and foremost about the safety and well-being of its members. Five thousand postal workers are attacked each year by dogs. They have the right to have the House debate the right sentence. It is important for the Minister to understand that the CWU supports a 14-year sentence for the killing of a person by an out-of-control dog. The police also have a right to see us debate and vote on this issue today. In their evidence to the Committee, they raised the total and utter inadequacy of the current legislation in dealing with the important and increasing problem of attacks by out-of-control dogs. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s comments. I do not want to hear any flim-flam from him about how he is not sure where this is going and how we should just trust the Government to get it right.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

rose—

[Richard Fuller]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way, because others want to get in.

I believe that 14 years is the right maximum penalty. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for saying that, in many ways, it is equivalent to the maximum penalty imposed for dangerous driving. I believe that 14 years would send a strong message that owners must now take responsibility, and not just assume that it lies with the dog, and to judges, who today, even with the inadequate maximum penalty available, are not handing out very significant sentences when they should.

I want us to provide reassurance that this would be a maximum penalty, not a mandatory penalty, and that we are not asking people to lock up their dogs, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) mentioned; we have to get the balance right. I will listen to the Minister, who is casting a fresh set of eyes on this, but let us not forget that at the moment the dog gets a death penalty, but the owner walks away pretty much scot-free. That is not responsible. The Government need to be responsible today and say what they intend to do.

Metropolitan Police Service

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on securing this debate. I want to raise a couple of local concerns, as well as an issue of which I think the Home Office and Government counter-terrorism should be aware.

I was on the pilot police parliamentary scheme with Jacqui Lait and Neil Gerrard in the late 1990s, and I am now doing the graduate police parliamentary scheme. If colleagues have not done it—I know that some have—I highly recommend it. I place on record my appreciation, which I am sure is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), of our borough commander, Chief Superintendent Dave Stringer, and his deputy superintendent, Robert Revill, for keeping us informed of all the developments throughout the consultation. Like other colleagues, we also appreciate all the staff of the Met—back-room staff, officers and support officers—for the great work that they do to protect us.

One local issue is the closure of stations. At the moment, we have six stations: two 24-hour stations, and four day stations. That will be reduced to one 24-hour and two day stations, although obviously, there must be rationalisation of some description. The reductions in numbers in safer neighbourhoods teams have been well documented by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West. Safer neighbourhoods teams were piloted in the Shadwell ward in my constituency before being rolled out to the rest of Tower Hamlets, the rest of London and then across the country, so we have seen the value of them for probably longer than anyone. The evidence in Tower Hamlets is that, for the six years after their introduction, there was a year-on-year reduction in crime. For the past two years, however, there has been an increase. There is therefore real concern about police presence, police visibility, safer neighbourhoods teams and access to police stations.

The second issue I want to raise is the future of the Wapping marine policing unit. It is based in the country’s oldest police station, and it was founded because of the docks in east London. That was before Peelers were introduced and walked the streets of this great capital city. It has been suggested that there will be a 40% reduction in staff, with the loss of night patrols. When I was a Transport Minister, one of the big security issues was the Thames. The attack in Mumbai, which came from the sea, adequately demonstrated the risk of sea-borne attacks. During the Olympics, HMS Ocean was based on the Thames at Greenwich to support marine units. That demonstrated that the risk was still there.

The problem for the Minister is that the Mayor of London’s police and crime plan—MOPAC—does not mention the River Thames or what will happen to Wapping. The Home Office has ring-fenced funding for the counter-terrorism unit and SO15, and, given the counter-terrorism role the Wapping unit performs, this is partly a Home Office matter. The question for the Minister, therefore, is whether staff numbers at the marine policing unit will be cut by 40%. That is what is rumoured, but we have no details. Will that result in there being no night-time patrols at all, which is the word that has been put out on the river? Where will the metropolitan marine policing unit be based when Wapping police station closes? Where will the museum of river police be relocated when the station closes?

Some of those matters are for the Home Office and some are clearly for the Mayor of London, and the Minister may want to deflect some of our inquiries and criticisms to the Mayor’s office. However, there is a counter-terrorism issue here, and the River Thames is very much London’s Achilles heel, so I hope the Home Office will be interested in making sure that we maintain our vigilance for the security of the city.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

The Government have refused to reduce base costs for lawyers, which would be the obvious way to stop inflated costs. Instead, they are going after victims’ damages. The beneficiaries of all this will be the defendants and their insurers. They will have significantly reduced liabilities if they lose. Insurance companies will also benefit, because the Government are promoting a new market in legal expenses insurance—a tax on all citizens worth billions to the industry—although how they expect people to insure against industrial disease I do not know.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The dangers of asbestos and the risks of asbestosis and mesothelioma have been known since the 1920s. Successive Governments of both persuasions have ignored them. In the London fire brigade, in which I served for 23 years, we used asbestos equipment regularly. Every firefighter who worked with the London fire brigade or any other fire brigade has had their personal files annotated with “Exposed to asbestos”. The Government—whichever Government—have a responsibility to those workers, because we have failed to protect them. Is my hon. Friend saying that, in rejecting Lords amendment 31, the Government are not accepting their responsibility to people who have been exposed?

[Mr Slaughter]

That is exactly what is happening.