Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Insolvency Service on the viability of insolvency litigation following the implementation of the reforms proposed by Lord Justice Jackson.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Department has received many representations about different aspects of implementing the reforms proposed by Lord Justice Jackson, which we are taking forward in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. I and my officials continue to have discussions with Government Departments and others on implementation generally, including with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Insolvency Service in relation to insolvency proceedings.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

In June, the Minister said that he was discussing with HMRC and the Insolvency Service the specific implications of the Jackson reform for the punishment of dodgy directors of insolvent companies, with a view to reaching a satisfactory conclusion. Three months down the line, what conclusion has been reached?

[Mr Djanogly]

Our current position is not to depart from Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations on recoverability, with the sole exception that we have outlined in the Bill. However, the Government are aware of the particular issues concerning the impact of abolishing conditional fee agreement recoverability in relation to insolvency and related proceedings. I and my officials will continue to assess and discuss the implications.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Will the Minister find time to meet me to discuss the case of a company based in Staffordshire that sold hot tubs and which defrauded many of my constituents? It took their money, went into insolvency and became a phoenix company.

[Mr Djanogly]

I shall listen to the circumstances of my hon. Friend’s case, but it might be one for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills rather than the Ministry of Justice. If it is relevant to my Department, however, I will be happy to meet him.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

2. What recent progress he has made in making prisoners work while in custody; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

19. Whether his Department has undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of the implementation of the office of the chief coroner.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

An impact assessment for part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 was published by the Ministry of Justice in December 2008. It summarised the full costs and benefits of implementing the coroner provisions in the Act.

[Gavin Shuker]

I am grateful for that answer. Baroness Finlay, working with the president of the Royal College of Pathologists, proposed a model with much lower running costs—just £300,000—than those that the Government are talking about. So will the Minister accept that the costs for the office he is proposing could be reduced?

[Mr Djanogly]

I have met and discussed this point with Baroness Finlay on a number of occasions. The previous Government said that the set-up costs were going to be £10.9 million and the running costs would be £6.6 million a year. We looked at that those figures and we agree with them. The problem is that as we have to maintain the independence of the judiciary, the chief coroner—if there were to be one—could, unfortunately, not be based in the Ministry of Justice, as Baroness Finlay wanted.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The delays and current practice in the coroner system is having a direct impact on bereaved families, particularly in the Teesside area. What costs to the UK health services arise as a result of the current coroner system?

[Mr Djanogly]

We remain committed to fundamental reform of the coronial system. I know that there are particular issues to address in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and they are being dealt with. Implementing the office of the chief coroner would require new funding, which simply is not available in the current economic climate. Our proposals will allow us to deliver those reforms, but without those additional costs.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a much cheaper and more cost-effective way of raising professional standards and creating a head of the coronial profession? That would involve designating a serving coroner as chief coroner and giving just minimal assistance to support him in that role.

[Mr Djanogly]

Unfortunately, the existing legislation would not allow that; the job would have to be done by a High Court judge or a circuit judge. The point of the matter is that we are putting in place a ministerial committee, which will answer to Parliament in a way that a chief coroner never could.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

As the repatriation of fallen soldiers through RAF Lyneham and Wootton Bassett in my constituency comes to an end, I know that the Minister will wish to join me in paying tribute to the first-class work done by the Wiltshire coroner over some four or five years. Will the Minister also now work closely with the Royal British Legion to ensure that the maximum possible support is available for bereaved families as these inquests proceed?

[Mr Djanogly]

I certainly congratulate the coroner on his work in tough circumstances. I also wish to tell my hon. Friend that I have met representatives of the RBL on a number of occasions. I believe that our reforms will improve the situation for the armed forces tremendously, through the national charter that we are providing and the ability to train coroners to military standards.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

There is a long list of organisations that wish to see a chief coroner in post and just the Minister who thinks he knows better. The Government’s fragmented proposals for the coronial system contain no mechanism to improve the appeals and complaints process—that was to be a key function of the chief coroner’s office. Nobody really believes that the proposed coronial board, reporting to Ministers, will fulfil that role. Does he think it acceptable to expect families to have to continue to pursue expensive judicial reviews and litigation in respect of coronial decisions, at great cost also to the taxpayer, and have no way of holding to account those coroners who do not deliver for bereaved families?

[Mr Djanogly]

As I have said, the Government are committed to urgent reform of the coronial service, and this is exactly what we are going to be doing. We are putting in place all the provisions under the 2009 Act, except the appeal process, which was going to cost £2.2 million a year. We feel that the existing processes are adequate.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

6. What recent representations he has received from people with mesothelioma and mesothelioma support groups on the potential implications of his proposed reforms to legal aid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

Legal aid for personal injury claims was abolished by the previous Administration in 1999, so I take the hon. Gentleman to be referring to the proposed reforms to civil litigation funding and costs, and will answer on that basis. I have received several letters from MPs and others about the potential impact on mesothelioma sufferers. The Government’s package of reforms includes a number of measures to help claimants. We believe that valid claims will still be brought under the new regime but will be resolved at more proportionate cost.

[Toby Perkins]

Mesothelioma victims are often in the last year of their life by the time they are diagnosed and many are already too ill to seek redress. The proposals to prevent their being able to recover afterwards from the insurance premiums will mean a big up-front cost for many people. Derbyshire asbestos support team is very concerned that they and their families will miss out on access to justice because of these proposals. What can the Minister do to ensure that those people, who are very ill and who do not have trivial claims, have access to justice?

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We recognise that reducing the time from diagnosis of the disease to settlement of the claim without the need for litigation would be preferable. Proposals to introduce a scheme that will incorporate a fixed time scale and cost each stage of the claim so that only the most complex cases reach litigation are being considered.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

8. What decisions he has reached on implementing the recommendation of the review by Lord Justice Jackson to abolish referral fees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

12. What steps he is taking to improve the functioning of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is kept under regular review. There are no present plans to change current arrangements.

[Mr Leigh]

Too often immigration cases are deliberately spun out using never-ending reviews and ever-upwards appeals. What steps will the Minister take to protect the much-needed immigration reforms proposed by the Government from such delaying tactics?

[Mr Djanogly]

Parliament has on previous occasions decided against the ousting of the High Court’s judicial review jurisdiction. The Supreme Court recently indicated that it considered it would not be appropriate for the Government to take that route. However, improvements are being made. The legal aid reforms currently before Parliament seek to remove legal aid from repeat applications for judicial review in immigration and asylum cases.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

13. What recent progress he has made in implementing his policy of payment by results to reduce the rate of reoffending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), defended the Government’s narrow definition of domestic violence in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill with these words:

“We are concerned that to include admission to a refuge in the criteria would be to rely on self-reporting…We are not persuaded that medical professionals would be best placed to assess whether domestic violence has occurred. Although they may witness injuries…nor would the fact of a police investigation without more evidence provide sufficient evidence”.––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2011; c. 359-60.]

Women in this country will be appalled by those remarks. Would the Under-Secretary like to take them back, and also change his definition in the Bill?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

It is not a question of taking them back; it is a question of making them in a very transparent way in our consultation. Having looked at the consultation, we came back and reassessed the definition of domestic violence, broadened what is included, and we are prepared to debate it in Committee. That is the process that is under way, and the Government stand by that.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

T4. I fully support the plans to introduce television cameras in courts to improve transparency. What plans are there to improve transparency in the Prison Service so that we can see exactly what work and activity have been undertaken in each prison so that justice can be seen to be done?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

T3. Using a restricted definition of domestic violence, as discussed a moment ago, will penalise victims of domestic violence, many of whom suffer for long periods before they begin to report incidents to the police. Will the Minister, given that he appears to be in some difficulty over this, consider meeting organisations working on domestic violence to work out how to make that definition work?

[Mr Djanogly]

I have met organisations and we have consulted on the issue. I am always prepared to meet organisations. I have to tell the hon. Lady that the key issue is having tests that are objective, and that is what we are trying to achieve.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

T6. Does the Minister agree that it is a scandal that so many drugs are swilling around prisons? It is crucial that we ensure that those who arrive in prison clean do not leave as addicts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I will meet my hon. Friend. The court closed in April this year and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is progressing the disposal of the courthouse. As part of that process it is due to meet officials from both Cambridgeshire district council and Fenland district council later this month.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

T7. In the aftermath of the riots that so rocked the country last month, what lessons does the Justice Secretary think can be learned about the need to respond swiftly to public outrage at the actions of a lawless minority, balanced with the need to deliver justice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

An appeal to the special educational needs and disability tribunal listed today will not be heard until late February 2012. Does the Minister agree that that is wholly unacceptable and that a much quicker process is needed in order to resolve some of the cases relating to special needs?

[Mr Djanogly]

If my hon. Friend would like to write to me, I will look into that.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Can the Secretary of State inform the House what efforts he is making to ensure that sentencing policy and practice is consistent across all parts of the United Kingdom for rioters, and that rioters in Rasharkin and Belfast who try to kill police officers and damage property will face the same swift, certain and good judgment faced by rioters in England?

Personal Injury Cases (Referral Fees)

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I am today announcing the Government’s intention to ban referral fees in personal injury cases. This complements our wider plans for civil litigation funding and costs, including fundamental reforms to “no win, no fee” conditional fee agreements.

Referral fees are usually paid by solicitors to third parties, usually claims management companies or insurers, who “refer” business to them. But current arrangements have led to the growth of an industry that actively encourages individuals to bring cases, regardless of the merits of their claim.

The Government strongly believe that it is not in the public interest for potential claimants to be sought out and encouraged to make claims by people who profit from their claims being pursued. We believe that referral fees add to the high costs and volume of personal injury litigation, one of the factors underpinning increases in insurance premiums. As my right hon. Friend Lord Young recognised in his report, “Common Sense, Common Safety” last year, referral fees also contribute to the risk of a corrosive compensation culture.

Lord Justice Jackson, in his review of civil litigation funding and costs which was published last year, recommended that referral fees should be banned or capped in personal injury cases.

Our aim is to reform the system to end the abuses that have occurred while ensuring that victims who have suffered a personal injury through someone else’s negligence remain able to make a claim for damages where they have an appropriate case. Alongside the planned reforms to conditional fee agreements, the ban on referral fees will contribute to the Government’s plans to tackle the compensation culture by discouraging unmeritorious claims and controlling the disproportionate costs of personal injury claims, without denying access to justice.

Access to a Lawyer

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11497/11 and Addenda 1 and 2 relating to the Draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest; and supports the Government’s recommendation not to opt into the Directive in accordance with Protocol (No. 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

I commend the European Scrutiny Committee for calling this debate. As set out in the coalition agreement, the Government approach criminal justice legislation case by case, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. The Government recommend that the UK should not opt into this proposed measure at the start of negotiations, not because we do not think that minimum standards of defence rights, including access to a lawyer, and the right to communicate on arrest, including with consular authorities, are important—of course, we do—and not because we disagree in principle with the setting of common, minimum standards across the EU in respect of certain aspects of criminal proceedings. On the contrary, we see the benefit of appropriate minimum standards. For that reason, the UK opted into the first two measures on the procedural rights road map on interpretation and translation and the right to information in criminal proceedings. We are not making this recommendation because we fear that our law does not meet the minimum standards required by the European convention on human rights—it does.

The reason we do not propose to opt into this measure at the outset of negotiations is that we think that the directive as published by the Commission would have an adverse effect on our ability to investigate and prosecute offences effectively. It is important that action is taken to ensure that the standards of procedural rights across the EU are adequate. That is necessary for two reasons: first, to ensure that, as people travel through the EU, they can be confident that in the event that they are unfortunate enough to become subject to the criminal justice system of another member state, they will be dealt with fairly and in accordance with robust minimum standards; and, secondly, the EU has chosen to develop a series of mutual recognition measures designed to promote security by helping to combat crime and ensuring that suspected offenders cannot use European borders as a way to escape justice.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Minister has twice used the words, “at the outset of proceedings”. Being something of an old hand at this sort of thing, I wonder whether that means that he proposes to opt in later. Perhaps he will bear in mind the problem that some other member states have judicial systems that are, quite frankly, below par.

[Mr Djanogly]

Indeed they do have systems that are below par, which is why we are keen for the measure to proceed across the EU. We will decide at a later date whether Britain opts in, subject to the negotiations that will take place. If my hon. Friend listens to what I have to say a bit further, he will hear how we propose to look at that process.

This is a good, practical idea that has delivered some notable results, provided that it does not put suspects at risk of less-than-adequate criminal proceedings. Such instruments of mutual recognition were never intended to operate on their own. It was intended that they should be supported by a series of criminal procedural rights, enforceable at EU level, that would build on the rights already guaranteed by the ECHR and provide additional reassurance that the rights were being given practical effect in all member states. These standards will not only protect British nationals when they are arrested elsewhere in the EU but will provide greater trust and confidence among the courts of all EU states that judgments handed down, which they may be expected to recognise, have been made on the basis of sound procedural standards.

Standards of procedural rights are high in the UK. The right of access to a lawyer, both before and during police interview, has been provided in England and Wales and Northern Ireland since the mid 1980s. A similar right was provided for in Scotland last year. However, despite the fact that we see value in the Commission tabling such a measure, we have considerable concerns about the detail of the directive and the impact its drafting would have on the UK’s criminal justice systems.

The procedural rights directives are intended to draw on the jurisprudence of the ECHR and to flesh out what those rights mean in practice. Certain provisions of the Commission’s proposal, however, go far beyond the minimum standards that stem from the convention. While there is no problem in principle with going beyond the standards of the convention if there are good practical and policy reasons to do so, we do not see such reasons in this case. On the contrary, we think that there would be some quite adverse and costly impacts on the ability effectively to investigate and prosecute offenders were the Commission proposal to be adopted.

Examples of that include the fact that the directive as drafted by the Commission may require access to a lawyer to be provided in some stages in the investigatory process where currently a lawyer is not provided, such as at a police search of a property or where a person’s fingerprints are taken when they are booked into a custody suite. We do not consider it necessary or proportionate to provide a lawyer in those situations.

In addition, the directive requires that a person should always be able to meet his lawyer face to face, whereas we provide, in some minor cases, for telephone access, which detained persons often prefer as it can mean that they are held for a shorter period as it is not necessary to wait for a lawyer.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Minister has covered the point that I want to make. We permit defendants to telephone for immediate advice from a lawyer. It is quick, cheap, easy and very accessible for defendants.

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is exactly the case, and if it is to be under threat we should be concerned.

The directive also requires absolute confidentiality of meetings and communications between a lawyer and a suspected or accused person. While confidentiality of such discussions is of course a fundamental principle, there are some limited circumstances in which confidentiality should not be guaranteed. The most obvious example is where the authorities have reason to believe that the meeting or correspondence is being abused to further criminal activity. In such circumstances, which are exceptional but none the less extremely serious, the communications ought not to be privileged and the authorities might need to monitor them.

We also believe that member states should be allowed to derogate from other rights set out in the directive, in certain exceptional circumstances. For example, it might not be appropriate to allow a person in custody to contact a particular individual if the police might have reason to believe that he will ask that person to conceal or destroy evidence. The ECHR case law has been clear that restrictions can be imposed on access to a lawyer for an accused person if there are compelling reasons to do so.

We do not think that the drafting allows enough discretion for judges to decide case by case whether evidence should be admissible if it has been obtained in breach of any of the rights set out in the directive.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In some of the documentation and information that Members received before the debate, there seemed to be a question about whether citizens of the United Kingdom would be disadvantaged with regard to the high level of legal representation that they have compared with that in the other 26 EU countries, which seem to have agreed on a method and the way forward. As a Member of the House, I would have to ensure that my constituents had that high level of legal representation, such that it was equal to that in the rest of the EU and that we were in no way disadvantaged.

[Mr Djanogly]

The straightforward answer is that if the other states were to go ahead with the directive and we did not opt in, British subjects travelling abroad would, I suppose, have the advantage of the minimum standards whereas other EU citizens would not have the benefits in this country. However, that is not the basis on which we are negotiating, because it would not be a good position from which to negotiate. That is the technical position.

The changes that the directive in its current drafting would require us to make to our domestic law would not only be unnecessary, but would be highly resource- intensive. Our initial analysis suggests that the directive as drafted by the Commission could cost upwards of approximately £32 million to £34 million per year. I stress that the UK is not alone in having these concerns about the directive. The early negotiations made it clear that our concerns are shared by a good many other member states. The incumbent Polish presidency is taking a sensible and pragmatic approach to negotiations, and we can expect that the final product may be very different from the text we are looking at now and that many of the concerns that we have highlighted will be dealt with.

Because of that, and because of the value we attach to ensuring fair trial rights across the EU, we intend to work very closely with other EU partners to develop a text that takes greater account of the practical realities of investigation and prosecution and allows for greater flexibility in meeting the requirements of ECHR jurisprudence. Given the extent of our concerns with the current text, we cannot at this stage be entirely confident that all of them will be taken into account, and it is for that reason that we are seeking not to opt in at the outset. However—I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in direct reply to his question—if our concerns are taken into account in the process of negotiation, we will be able to consider opting in at a later stage, as our protocol allows. Given the importance that we attach to this dossier, that is something to which we will give serious thought.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is setting out the situation with great care and extremely competently. If we were to take the decision to opt into the directive, would we then be subject to the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction in respect of what he described as very wide ranging matters to which we had opted in?

[Mr Djanogly]

The European Court of Justice has jurisdiction in determining how European law is to be applied, but it is not an appeal court so it would not constitute any type of court of appeal.

I look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members on this recommendation and I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

This has been a constructive debate, and it has provided a timely opportunity to place the Government’s position on the record. Let me reconfirm, not least for my hon. Friends the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), that we believe it is important that action is taken to ensure that the standards of criminal procedural rights across the EU are adequate—I stress the word “adequate”. That will help to ensure that British nationals in other member states receive the rights that underpin a fair trial. It will also help to provide the level of mutual trust necessary to support European legal instruments that require competent authorities to accept and act upon decisions or judgments given in other member states.

The Government see clear benefit in setting minimum standards across the EU in respect of certain aspects of criminal procedure. As many Members have noted, standards of criminal procedure in relation to access to a lawyer and the right to communicate upon arrest are high in the UK. We see benefit in an effective and workable directive which would raise standards in this area.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), asked a number of questions. He asked why the UK had opted in to the previous two directives on the procedural rights road map, but not this one. The Government believe it is important that action is taken to ensure that the standards of criminal procedural rights across the EU are adequate. The previous Government opted in to the directive on interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, and this Government opted in to the victims directive. The hon. Gentleman asked why we opted in to that directive, but not this one as well. The Government have decided to opt in to the victims directive establishing minimum standards for the rights, support and protections of victims of crime because it meets the criteria set out in the coalition agreement with regard to EU justice and home affairs measures and is more in line with existing UK practice. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we currently intend to retain free legal advice in police stations, as I have said publicly in the past, and he will hear more on that in Committee tomorrow.

The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone mentioned individual examples of process, on which the Government cannot comment. However, I noted the disappointment of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) about the fact that we do not intend to opt in at the outset.

I also understand the disappointment of Members who have set out the difficulties faced by constituents who have faced trial in certain other EU member states. However, the directive as published by the Commission goes very much beyond what we see as the minimum standards of the European convention on human rights and would have an adverse and exceptionally costly impact on our ability to investigate and prosecute offences effectively. We do not think it would be sensible to opt in to the directive at this stage because it is not possible to be completely confident that all these difficulties could be mitigated through negotiation.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for his supportive remarks, and I can confirm that we intend to negotiate and win on our positions. In order to do so, we intend to work very closely with our European partners—that work is already under way—to develop a text that takes greater account of the practical realities of criminal investigations and prosecutions. We are not alone in our concerns, and we are optimistic that the directive that is finally adopted might look rather different from that published by the Commission.

Our aim during negotiations will be to amend the text constructively, so that the UK might be in a position to contemplate participating in the final directive, and we have three months from the proposal in which to opt in. We can be part of the negotiations if we do not opt in, but we would not have a vote, so we intend to participate in, and influence, negotiations to make the directive better. We would opt in post-adoption only if our criteria were met, and following appropriate consultation in Parliament. I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone that there is no inevitability to opting in, and I understand many of the concerns he raised. At the same time, I have to tell him that there is no presumption against opting in unless there are profound reasons for doing so, such as he suggested.

[Mr Clappison]

If the decision is taken to opt in—which I would regret, for reasons I have explained—I hope it will be made clear that our Government are opting in to a major piece of criminal justice legislation and choosing to hand over to the EU and the European Court of Justice jurisdiction over a wide swathe of our criminal procedure.

[Mr Djanogly]

We will still have jurisdiction over criminal procedure, and subsidiarity would apply as well, but my hon. Friend makes his point.

Any decision to opt in at a future date will be taken on the basis that the Government approach legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. Any decision to opt in at a future date would also be subject to scrutiny in Parliament.

Question put.

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 14 September (Standing Order No. 41A).

Cohabitation: Financial Consequences

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I wish to make the following statement to the House announcing the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s report “Cohabitation: the financial consequences of relationship breakdown”.

The Law Commission published its report on 31 July 2007 but no action was taken by the previous Administration who wished to first seek research findings on the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006. This Government have now carefully considered the recommendations of this thorough report, together with the outcomes of research on the 2006 Act.

The findings of the research into the Scottish legislation do not provide us with a sufficient basis for a change in the law. Furthermore, the family justice system is in a transitional period, with major reforms already on the horizon. We do not therefore intend to take forward the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform of cohabitation law in this parliamentary term.

Deaths of Service Personnel Overseas (Inquests)

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

My hon. friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I wish to make the latest of our quarterly statements to the House with details of the inquests of service personnel who have died overseas. As always, we wish to express the Government’s deep and abiding gratitude to all of our service personnel who have served, or are now serving, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Once again we also extend our sincere condolences to the families of those service personnel who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country in connection with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in particular the 11 service personnel who have died since our last statement. Our thoughts remain with all of the families.

Today we are announcing the current status of inquests conducted by the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner, and other coroners in England and Wales. This statement gives the position at 8 July 2011.

To supplement this statement I have placed tables in the Libraries of both Houses, which outline the status of all cases and the date of death in each case. The tables include information about cases where a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been held.

Our Departments will continue to work closely together to improve our processes. We will continue the Government’s support for coroners conducting inquests into operational deaths. We remain grateful to them and their staff for their dedication, together with those people who are providing support and information throughout the inquest process and afterwards.

Since October 2007 both Departments have provided additional resources for operational inquests. These resources have been provided to the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner, Mr David Ridley, due to the repatriation of service personnel at RAF Lyneham. These measures have been provided to ensure that there is not a backlog of operational inquests. As I confirmed in the last statement, we will again provide additional resources to the Oxfordshire coroner, Mr Nicholas Gardiner, when repatriation ceremonies for those killed on operations overseas move to RAF Brize Norton within his district. The move will take place on 1 September 2011.

Current status of inquests

Since the last statement there have been 23 inquests into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.

A total of 476 inquests have been held into the deaths of service personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, including 12 service personnel who died in the UK of their injuries. In three further cases, no formal inquest was held. In two of these cases the deaths were taken into consideration during inquest proceedings for those who died in the same incident. In the third case, where the serviceman died of his injuries in Scotland, it was decided not to hold a fatal accident inquiry.

Open inquests

Fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan

There are currently 75 open inquests to be concluded into the deaths of service personnel who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Twenty-one of these involve deaths in the last six months. The Wiltshire and Swindon coroner has retained 28 of the remaining open inquests, and 35 are being conducted by coroners closer to the next-of-kin. Hearing dates have been set in 13 cases.

There is one remaining open inquest into deaths from operations in Iraq.

Inquests into the deaths of service personnel who returned home injured

Twelve inquests remain to be held of service personnel who returned home injured and subsequently died of their injuries. Two hearing dates have been set. The remaining 10 cases will be listed for hearing when the continuing investigations are completed.

We shall continue to inform the House of progress with the remaining inquests.

Immigration Advisory Service

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

It is with regret that the trustees of the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) decided that the organisation had to enter into administration on Friday 8 July 2011.

This is clearly a sad situation for all involved. The Legal Services Commission (LSC) has worked closely with IAS over the last few years and IAS has received substantial support to help them manage their cash flow and run its business within the LSC’s contracted payment system. When LSC took over responsibility in 2004 for funding IAS, the LSC agreed to more favourable transitional arrangements with IAS than were agreed with other not-for-profit organisations.

However, a recent contract compliance audit by the Legal Services Commission, has provisionally identified that a material proportion (amounting to several millions of pounds) of the £15 million paid annually to IAS is over or misclaimed work. This is often where the work carried out does not have appropriate documentation to prove its validity, most commonly where there is a lack of evidence confirming clients’ eligibility. As well as this, work was conducted which was not within the scope of public funding. The LSC, as a responsible public body, is rightly seeking to recoup this money. It is of course crucial that the Government achieve value for public money and the LSC must be able to demonstrate to the Comptroller and Auditor General that it is in control of the funds it administers and takes appropriate action where the terms of its contracts are not complied with.

There have been extensive efforts on the parts of both IAS and the LSC to negotiate a solution to the current financial position, but the scale of the debt, coupled with projected income levels, has led the trustees to conclude that placing the organisation in administration is a necessary step. The current position reflects the company’s past financial management and claims irregularities and is not a direct consequence of the proposed legal aid reforms, not least because these reforms have yet to be implemented.

The primary concern for the Government and the LSC is now to ensure clients of IAS continue to get the help they need. The LSC expects that the administration of IAS will allow a managed close down process of IAS’s activities and an orderly transfer of clients to new providers. Provisional arrangements have been made to ensure that any emergency cases are dealt with speedily, meanwhile the LSC is identifying alternative advice provision in the areas affected and arrangements for case transfer will follow as soon as possible.

There is a significant long-term interest in this work from other providers, both not for profit organisations and private solicitor firms. The LSC ran a tender round for new immigration and asylum contracts in October last year and there was an increase in the number of offices that applied to do the work and bids for more than double the amount of cases that were available. All immigration and asylum providers are expected to meet the same high-quality standards which include compulsory accreditation schemes for all advisers and supervisors, and as such I believe the interests of the clients being transferred will be protected.

Matrimonial Property and Registered Partnership Property Regimes

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, has made the following written ministerial statement:

The Government have today decided not to opt in to the European Commission’s proposals on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships.

The Commission’s proposals aim to regulate jurisdiction and applicable law as they apply both to the daily management of the property of spouses and registered partners (which would include civil partnerships registered in the UK) and to how disputes relating to the distribution of assets in cross-border situations are handled following the ending of a couple’s relationship through divorce or dissolution of the partnership, separation or death.

The broad balance of opinion from the Government’s consultation was that it would not be in the UK’s interests to participate in these proposals. A number of difficulties were identified. First, the concept of a matrimonial property regime (or equivalent for civil partners) does not exist in the UK in the sense understood in most other member states. Currently our courts take a wide view of the capital resources available to the parties on divorce or dissolution (including maintenance). Many of these issues are not included in traditional matrimonial property regimes. If the UK was to opt in it would be more difficult for our courts to deal with all aspects of the financial provision of international couples on divorce or dissolution in cases which fall within the scope of these proposals.

Concerns were raised about how the use of foreign law could drive up costs and complicate the resolution of disputes in the family courts and create uncertainty for third-parties who enter into a legal relationship with the couple. There was also considered to be uncertainty about the interaction with succession law.

Both the House of Lords European Union Select Committee and the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee have recommended the UK should not opt-in.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that if we are not careful, the country will become an advice desert for the poor and the vulnerable as a result of that policy.

The previous Labour Government always strove to protect social welfare legal aid. Our March 2010 proposals, which have been strangely ignored by this Government, would have generated savings sufficient to protect social welfare legal aid. The Justice Secretary’s changes will have a huge impact on the viability of many law centres, CABs and high street practices up and down the country that do an enormous amount to provide access to justice for some of our most deprived citizens. Do hon. Members know what the irony of that is? It is that this is the time when they need that advice most. A whole swathe of society is losing the ability to exercise its legal rights, with women particularly affected. The Lord Chief Justice has warned that the proposals will damage access to justice, and Citizens Advice has warned that the cuts will leave hundreds of thousands with nowhere to turn for help and has demonstrated the savings to the taxpayer down the line from early intervention: £1 of legal expenditure on housing advice will save the state £2.34, and on benefits advice the saving is £8.80. So there is a moral as well as an economic case for not cutting in this way. As the Justice Secretary knows, the Lord Chief Justice warned that legal aid cuts risked a surge in litigants in person, with all the associated increase in stress and costs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

rose—

[Sadiq Khan]

The Minister will have a chance to wind up the debate later, but we now have less than four hours remaining, so I will not give way.

The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) mentioned clause 12, which is of real concern and seeks to loosen the systems that guarantee free access to a solicitor upon arrest, which were established in the 1980s, when the Justice Secretary was in government—although it was a Labour idea—on the back of a number of high-profile miscarriages of justice. However, he has failed to justify to the House why he is seeking the change in clause 12, which we think should be deleted from the Bill. When the Minister winds up, I hope he will say that it will be deleted before we reach our deliberations in Committee.

The Government’s proposals on civil litigation are driven primarily by their zeal to fix the so-called compensation culture. However, by cherry-picking the Jackson report recommendations, the Bill runs the risk of undermining access to justice, which is something that the introduction of no win, no fee sought to guarantee. We will scrutinise those clauses closely.

[Mr Djanogly]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

I will not.

The Justice Secretary never had a credible strategy for achieving his rehabilitation revolution. His plans are fatally flawed and always were, and he has demonstrated that he is not on the side of victims. His use of language on rape sentencing, his original 50% sentence reduction proposals and the reduction in the use of remand in custody show that in no sense does he understand that victims and witnesses need to have confidence in the justice system and feel that it is safe in his hands. By taking from judges the ability to remand people in custody in cases they think appropriate, and by abolishing IPPs, he has not explained how he will give judges the tools they need to keep communities safe and to cut crime.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will keep my comments brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I think that it was the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) who said that she detected a theme in the contributions from coalition Members: I detect a theme in the contributions of Opposition Members. They criticise the Government for the action that we are taking, acknowledge that they would have done something about legal aid funding themselves, but completely fail to articulate what that alternative would be—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) says that we should look at Hansard. We will do so, but I can assure hon. Members that it will say absolutely nothing about what Labour would have done as an alternative.

What Labour’s proposals amount to is a £65 million cut from legal aid and a significant reduction in the number of firms that could practise legal aid. That would have a very heavy impact on the accessibility and availability of legal aid around the country. When the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) replies to the debate, I hope that he will confirm that that would have been the impact of Labour’s proposals.

It is clear that the legal aid reforms will have a significant impact, and there is no doubt that the changes will have an impact on existing legal aid users. That is why I am pleased that in Justice questions the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), confirmed that the Government have commissioned research on the ability of people on low incomes to access the courts, the availability of appropriately qualified lawyers prepared to undertake publicly funded work and the sustainability of legal services provided by bodies such as Citizens Advice. I hope that that research will become available very soon, so that we can assess the impact.

We need to keep these matters under review, especially in relation to litigants in person—an issue that the NSPCC raised with me, as I am sure it and other organisations have raised it with many other hon. Members. In a debate in the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) raised the issue of litigants in person—[Interruption.] He has woken up and is back with us. Given that exchange, I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary also said that a report is being commissioned at the moment on litigants in person, and he may be able to use this opportunity to confirm when that report will be published and whether it will include significant proposals on how we can ensure that the court process is simplified.

[Mr Djanogly]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

It would be more appropriate for the Minister to respond at the end.

Clearly, we are pleased that the concerns over the definition of domestic violence have been taken on board. I would have liked to have covered many other areas, including drug recovery wings, prisoner working and, as a starting point, prisoner volunteering—the listener schemes are very effective in that respect. I would also have liked to discuss the support that is provided to prisoners on release. Certainly there are some good organisations involved in that work, including Vision Housing, which is based in my constituency. It provides not only housing for ex-offenders but the support to ensure that they do not reoffend.

Finally, it is entirely appropriate for the Government to undertake a review of indeterminate sentences. The issue was identified many years ago by, among others, Lord Carlile, whom Opposition Members like to quote. In relation to IPPs, he said:

“The consequence of the IPP provision has been unpredicted, remains unpredictable and is shocking to many.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 2007; Vol. 697, c. 189.]

The views of Lord Carlile in 2007 are likely to be repeated by many Members today.

I would have also liked to touch on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, restorative justice schemes and the age of criminal responsibility, which I suspect might have been somewhat controversial.

In conclusion, this Bill contains many sound proposals. It is in good shape, but it is not perfectly formed yet. There are issues that we will need to address in Committee, but the Bill is making headway on our priorities, including tackling the scandal of reoffending and ensuring that providers are paid for by results, which will have a huge impact on the success of rehabilitation and on our ability to deliver a justice system that works.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

We have listened to many considered and knowledgeable speeches today. The breadth of debate has only confirmed the importance of the issues before the House. The Bill contains provisions that would make a significant contribution to our reform of the justice system, and those reforms will deliver justice effectively and affordably, provide value for money for the taxpayer, protect the public from serious and violent offenders and tackle the over-reliance on courts and lawyers.

The Bill will also make an important contribution to the Ministry’s deficit reduction commitment, worth £2 billion by 2014-15. I can confirm that we have engaged widely on the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) recognised. Most of the Bill’s proposals have been subject to three major consultations published last year, and they have been widely debated in the House—indeed, we have had no fewer than nine debates on our justice reforms since December last year. There have been hundreds of oral and written parliamentary questions and legal aid has been the subject of one Justice Committee inquiry and one report. I am looking forward to the Public Bill Committee, where we will continue these debates.

Many important issues have been raised and I shall refer to a number of them. The point about getting a balance between sentencing and punishment was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). In that context, I note that the length of sentence is important, but what happens within the sentence is just as important for punishment and rehabilitation.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) noted, for too long prisoners have spent their time in prison lying around and doing nothing. We want to make criminals work hard, an issue discussed very well by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire. Prisoners, some of whom hardly know the meaning of work, will face the tough discipline of a regular working week of up to 40 hours. As we refocus prison regimes around work, we will create more opportunities to make prisoners pay back to their victims. The Bill includes a new power to take a portion of money earned by offenders to help victims. Offenders serving community sentences will work longer and harder on unpaid work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) spoke strongly in favour of rehabilitation. Her points about private prisons were well taken, although the savings involved will depend on the prisons concerned. To answer the point made by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) about knives, the Bill will send a clear message that those who possess a knife to threaten and endanger can expect to face a minimum prison sentence. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate spoke strongly about that; I agree that we must check its interaction with other offences. That point was also made in a different way by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander). I note, however, that this is not an all-embracing review of knife crime; it is filling a gap in existing legislation. We will be looking at the practical issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell).

Indeterminate sentences were a contentious issue for a number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman). Others, such as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, supported the proposals. We will review indeterminate sentences with a view to replacing them with a clear, tough, predictable system of long, determinate sentences—the best way to punish criminals for their crimes and reform them so that, on release, they are no longer a danger to the public. We will complete the review by the autumn and bring forward our proposals for reform.

The right hon. Member for Tooting said that Labour would limit the use of indeterminate public protection sentences, but in reality by the time Labour had left power, those had gone out of control, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) explained in his excellent contribution. The Bill will also change the law to allow courts to hand down tougher punishments when prison is not an option. As part of community sentences, courts will be able to impose tougher curfews for longer periods, detaining offenders in their own homes with electronic tags to help enforce those curfews.

I am pleased to confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley that we are not introducing a new requirement on courts directing that the periods that offenders spend tagged on bail should count towards a subsequent prison sentence. As part of the community sentence, courts will also be able to ban offenders from going abroad. We strongly support help for victims, and I tell the hon. Member for Darlington that we will change the law to encourage courts to make more offenders pay compensation directly to their victims.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate spoke up on the important need to support victims, as did the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), who also used his speech to promote the Youth Justice Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) spoke up for child victims very strongly.

Fines will not be a soft option. We are launching two schemes, in Norfolk and Cheshire, to seize prized possessions such as cars, TVs and other valuable items from criminals who ignore their fines.

My hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury spoke on means-testing for advice given at police stations. I am pleased to be able to confirm that we do not intend to stop paying for police station advice.

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley about suspended sentences, a number of judges have asked if the custodial sentence that is suspendable could be increased from 12 months to two years. That would add to judges’ discretion, but it is not a requirement to suspend in cases of offences that could attract two-year sentences.

I can confirm to my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and for Battersea (Jane Ellison) that we intend to get more offenders off drugs for good by using drug recovery wings and by cracking down on the use of illicit drugs in prison. Many hon. Members made strong points about that. We also want to create a more transparent sentencing framework, which was elaborated on very well by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips).

Turning to our reforms of legal aid, I would like to thank hon. Members for their contributions.

[Mr Straw]

Before the Minister turns to legal aid, will he deal with the central proposal in respect of sentencing, which is to restrict the ability of the courts to remand defendants in custody in advance of trial? He skated lightly over that, saying absolutely nothing. Will he confirm what it says on page 166 of the Bill, which is that even where a defendant fails to surrender to bail, that defendant cannot be remanded in custody unless there is a “real prospect” of a custodial sentence? Is that what is intended?

[Mr Djanogly]

I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman. My understanding is that he is wrong on the issue.

Turning to legal aid, I thank hon. Members who have contributed today and those who have responded to the consultation, along with some 5,000 other people. The Bill sets out those elements of the reform that will require primary legislation. We received a number of detailed alternative proposals from respondents to our consultation, including the Law Society.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is not making a speech or addressing the House; he is reading something into the record.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a point not of order but of frustration.

[Mr Djanogly]

We carefully considered those points in our consultation response, but we are clear that the proposals put forward by respondents do not, overall, represent a realistic alternative to our programme of reform. We can all agree on the need for greater efficiency. That point was made strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and we already plan to deliver £1 billion of the Ministry’s savings through efficiencies. The Justice for All campaign also asked us to improve alternatives to legal processes instead of cutting legal help. The Government seized the point, which is why we are increasing the funding available for mediation by £10 million. Some 50% of the proposals suggested by the Law Society amounted to new taxation, but legal aid is primarily funded out of general taxation, and the Government are seeking to reduce the amount of public spending overall. The deficit is also shared across government, and suggestions of cost shifting will not address the overall financial position.

As the Lord Chancellor said earlier, we have the most expensive legal aid system in the world, except for Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, the Opposition have been quick to criticise but they have offered no viable alternative. They profess to want to cut legal aid without saying what they would do. They propose to spend £65 million more on social welfare. Does the right hon. Member for Tooting mean to say that he would cut criminal legal aid? If so, by how much would he cut it? By the way, we have looked into the proposals of 20 March 2010, and they were on criminal competitive tendering, so where will the right hon. Gentleman get his savings? This is an unsustainable level of expenditure. In some cases the system encourages people to bring issues before courts where other solutions might be better. In others, it enables people to pursue litigation that they would not contemplate were they paying for it from their own pockets.

I firmly believe that the range of cases identified for inclusion within the scope of civil legal aid reflects the desire—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is quite a lot of chuntering in the Chamber. I am sure that the Minister will want to speak up a bit so that everyone can hear him

[Mr Djanogly]

We must make tough choices and target scarce legal aid on those who need it most. I am sorry to tell the hon. Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and the right hon. Member for Manchester Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) that legal aid has never been available for all cases and that we simply need to prioritise our spending. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central said that everyone deserves their day in court. That might be so, but mediation can sometimes be more appropriate.

The Bill’s reforms are not limited to public funding but extend to provisions to implement a fundamental reform of privately funded no win, no fee conditional fee agreements. The changes we propose will rebalance the CFA regime.

The right hon. Member for Tooting, incredibly, refused to say whether he supports our attack on the compensation culture. Under current arrangements, claimants can bring cases without any financial risk. Risk-free litigation encourages unnecessary or avoidable claims to be pursued and puts businesses and other defendants under pressure of excessive legal costs. Under our changes, claimants using CFAs will have to think carefully about whether it is necessary to pursue their claim. I confirm to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that CFAs will still be available for group actions against multinational companies.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed rightly mentioned fixed costs and referral fees, which we need to look at. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) mentioned the disgraceful episode involving referral fees in relation to miners’ compensation. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) felt strongly about referral fees and made a number of valid suggestions that are outwith the direct scope of the Bill but do, I agree, need to be looked at.

We are aware of the strong concern that the payment of referral fees in personal injury cases adds to the costs of civil litigation. We are considering the issue and will announce the way forward in due course. I point out, however, that in 1999 claimant costs represented 50% of damages but that by 2010 the figure had risen to 150%. The previous Government lost control of the situation. Under the relevant provisions in the Bill, the legal costs of all defendants facing CFA-funded claims will reduce. That said, we recognise that there are complex and difficult cases, such as clinical negligence cases, which the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury and for Mid Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) raised. Our Jackson and legal aid reforms will address such cases. CFAs are a viable alternative to legal aid for these cases and the Bill will, exceptionally, enable the recovery of after-the-event insurance premiums for expert reports in clinical negligence cases, in recognition of the fact that they are important.

[Bridget Phillipson]

Will the Minister answer the question I asked the Lord Chancellor earlier about whether the Government will rethink their proposals to scrap legal aid for women applying for indefinite leave to remain under the domestic violence rule? It is a very small number of women.

[Mr Djanogly]

It is a small number but it is a complicated point, so I shall write to the hon. Lady.

Taken together, this is a balanced and sensible package of reforms of the kind that the Government were determined to achieve when we published our proposals. The overall effect will be to achieve significant savings while protecting fundamental rights of access to justice.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

11. What steps he is taking to reduce the sums spent from the public purse on repeated appeals in immigration tribunals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

As announced in our response to the consultation “Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales”, published on 21 June, we are removing most immigration cases, including appeals, from the scope of legal aid. We are also removing legal aid for certain repeat judicial reviews in immigration and asylum cases, subject to certain exceptions. We expect those measures to save more than £20 million a year. The Government have also consulted on introducing fees for appeals to the immigration and asylum chamber of the tribunal.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Many of my constituents are becoming increasingly exasperated at the fact that some solicitors seem to exploit changes in circumstances and decisions, such as those on article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, simply to string out cases for as long as possible. What is he doing to ensure that legal aid is spent appropriately? What conversations has he had with the Immigration Minister on the reform of the immigration decision process?

[Mr Djanogly]

I can confirm that we are removing legal aid from most immigration cases. That will mean that the taxpayer is no longer funding those cases, which we think are relatively low priority. My hon. Friend has also spoken about cross-departmental co-operation, and we have had a number of discussions with the Home Office about our legal aid proposals, which go in the same direction as its proposals—for example, on making changes to the rules on how relatives of migrants are allowed to come into the UK. That close working will continue.

[Gordon Henderson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the coalition Government inherited an immigration appeals process that is slow, unwieldy and routinely abused by applicants and their legal advisers? Does he further agree that the system needs a root-and-branch overhaul to make it fit for function?

[Mr Djanogly]

A number of the consultations did address this issue, including those with the judges, so we are acting to contain an avenue for abuse which my hon. Friend identifies. The Government intend to remove legal aid for immigration and asylum judicial reviews, where there has been an appeal or judicial review to a tribunal or court on the same issue or a substantially similar issue within a period of one year, as well as for judicial reviews challenging removal directions, subject to certain exceptions.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

As we are talking about immigration appeals and judicial reviews, what message does it send out to the law-abiding member of the public when someone such as Phillip Machemedze, that appalling Zimbabwean who was responsible for torturing, killing and doing dreadful things in Zimbabwe, is told by a judge that he cannot be sent back because he might be tortured or his human rights might be affected? Surely immigration and asylum is about people who have behaved well and are running away from tyranny, and not about people who are part of that tyranny.

[Mr Djanogly]

Where human rights are concerned and where someone risks being terrorised in their country of origin—I am not saying that it is right or wrong that they should go back—it is right that they receive legal aid to defend their interests.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

2. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on steps to remove foreign national prisoners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. Which organisations his Department consulted on its decision not to establish the office of chief coroner.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I have discussed our proposals with a number of interested parties, including peers, MPs and civil society groups such as Inquest and the Royal British Legion. We have, where possible, sought to take into account those discussions in developing the proposals announced on 14 June to transfer a number of the functions of the chief coroner while retaining the office on the statute book. We believe that represents the fastest and most efficient way of delivering reform of the coronial system, although we accept that some stakeholders would prefer us to proceed with full implementation of the office of the chief coroner.

[Mrs Moon]

I am still concerned about how, without the office of the chief coroner, we are going to ensure that there is greater consistency in the recording of verdicts, because having that consistency would mean that information was available that provided research capability and informed service development, so that we could prevent future deaths.

[Mr Djanogly]

I have had a number of discussions with the hon. Lady on a number of matters appertaining to coroners and chief coroners and I know that she takes a great interest in this area. The new arrangements we announced on 14 June, coupled with the draft charter for the coroner service, which we published for consultation on 19 May, will deliver proper oversight of the non-judicial aspects of the coroner system and will help to drive up standards of service across England and Wales. The national charter, with its uniform expectations of what those coming into contact with the system should expect, will be key in helping to ensure a greater level of consistency. At the same time, a new ministerial board will be able to consider national statistics gathered from across the coroner service and to consider what action could be taken to address any shortcomings.

[Chris Evans]

I wonder whether the Minister has spoken to Cardiac Risk in the Young, which believes that replacing the chief coroner’s office with a ministerial board will not deliver the improvements necessary for the 21st century.

[Mr Djanogly]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the absolute priority as far as we were concerned was to put the reforms in the legislation into practice but in a way that was not going to incur the cost that I am afraid we cannot afford at the current time. That is what I believe our proposals will do.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Following the Secretary of State’s most recent announcement in June, Chris Simpkins, director general of the Royal British Legion, has said:

“Ensuring there’s a functioning Chief Coroner is the least we can do to honour the ultimate sacrifice made by our Armed Forces and to ease the pain those left behind will always feel.”

Helen Shaw, co-director of Inquest, has said that instead of having a chief coroner,

“the government proposes to dismantle the office of the Chief Coroner and add yet another layer to the current, fragmented structure where lines of accountability are opaque and clear leadership is absent.”

How many organisations that, unlike the ministerial team, actually know what they are talking about will the Secretary of State ignore? As he is in the mood to do U-turns, will he do the right thing and leave the chief coroner out of the Public Bodies Bill?

[Mr Djanogly]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the RBL manifesto he will see that we are meeting most of its requests for reform without having a chief coroner. If we were simply leaving the office on the statute book and not implementing any changes, I would agree with that claim. However, regulations about training for coroners, including for service personnel cases, will be possible for the first time under our proposals. We will be implementing powers to transfer cases more easily within England and Wales—and for the first time to Scotland—when required for cases involving the deaths of service personnel abroad. Those are real and significant improvements to the system that will directly improve the experience of service personnel families who come into contact with the coroner system.

[Mr Speaker]

One of the difficulties with these long answers is that Ministers are reading out great screeds that have been written for them. On the whole, it is better to keep that for the long winter evenings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on group action litigation against multinational corporations of his proposals for reform to civil litigation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Government introduced the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill on 21 June. The Bill contains provisions to take forward a fundamental reform of no win, no fee conditional fee agreements, as recommended by Lord Justice Jackson. I believe that strong claims, including those against multinational corporations, could still be brought under conditional fee agreements, or CFAs. The Government are also proposing the use of damages-based agreements, or DBAs, in all civil litigation, which might be particularly suited to funding group action litigation.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

An array of human rights experts, including several non-governmental organisations, human rights lawyers and the UN special representative on business and human rights, have all criticised the Government’s reforms of civil litigation. On what basis can the Minister assure the House that his proposals to reform civil litigation will not impact negatively on access to justice for victims of human rights abuse?

[Mr Djanogly]

I have been in correspondence with many of the people whom the hon. Lady mentions, and I repeat that the Government believe that it will still be possible to bring claims against multinational companies once our reforms are implemented.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to change incentives for claiming compensation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Government introduced the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill on 21 June. The Bill contains provisions to take forward a fundamental reform of no win, no fee conditional fee agreements, as recommended by Lord Justice Jackson. These changes will encourage claimants to take an interest in the costs being incurred on their behalf, and will deter frivolous or unmeritorious claims from progressing to court.

[John Howell]

Does the Minister believe that implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals will clamp down on bloated compensation payments, given that in the past some solicitors have profited from cherry-picking claims and are claiming high success fees from defendants, particularly public authorities?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the position of public-funded authorities such as the NHS Litigation Authority and local councils, which currently have to pay substantial additional legal costs to conditional fee agreement claimants. We believe that our proposals will ameliorate that position.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

But will the Minister acknowledge that what is in the Bill that comes before the House tomorrow implements only part of Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations; that, critically, the Minister has failed in that legislation to tackle at all the scandal of referral fees paid all the way along the chain, from the informant who passes on individuals’ details up the line to insurance companies, where it is then also paid by the insurance companies; and that this scandal will continue, notwithstanding any changes to be introduced in the structure of ownership of solicitors firms, until he and his colleagues implement in full Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations, which are to abandon and outlaw referral fees altogether?

[Mr Djanogly]

It was Labour who brought in the ability to recover success fees and ATE—after the event—insurance premiums in 1999. This became the key mechanism of the rotten compensation culture, of which referral fees are a symptom. Claimant costs represented 56% of damages in 1999, but by 2010 they represented 142% of damages—and yes, we are looking at referral fees in the context of the reforms as a whole.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Why does the Minister not merely look at referral fees, but give us a clear commitment that that outrage will be removed under the Bill?

[Mr Djanogly]

The Legal Services Board reported on that only a matter of weeks ago. We are looking at its recommendations, which go much further than a ban and, in particular, deal with transparency, which was what the Select Committee on Transport focused on. We will look carefully at all these issues.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

9. What consideration he has given to those responses to his Department’s consultation on legal aid that raised concerns about his Department’s definition of domestic violence.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

13. What his policy is on the provision of legal aid support for victims of domestic violence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

We published the Government’s response to the consultation on 21 June. Legal aid will remain available for applications for protective injunctions, as at present. However, for disputes about children or finance following the breakdown of a relationship, legal aid will be available for victims of domestic violence where there is objective evidence of the need for protection.

[Caroline Nokes]

Will the Minister give an assurance that, in cases where domestic violence has been a factor in family breakdown, all other associated costs incurred in bringing about a resolution will be covered by legal aid?

[Mr Djanogly]

For family matters, including disputes about finance or children arising from the breakdown of a relationship, legal aid will be available for victims of domestic violence where there is evidence of a need for protection. Of course, we will also provide civil legal aid for victims of domestic violence to apply for protective injunctions, such as non-molestation orders.

[Alun Cairns]

It is reassuring that victims of domestic violence will remain eligible for legal aid under the changes, but the evidence is not always clear, because many victims will not report domestic violence to the police. What sort of evidence is the Minister expecting to see in order for people to qualify for legal aid?

[Mr Djanogly]

We listened to the concerns expressed in the consultation that our criteria for evidence of domestic violence were too narrow and we have expanded them. The key issue is that the triggers must be objective.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

In the light of the ongoing debate on this matter, does the Minister share the concerns expressed by the Westminster Public Accounts Committee about the dilution of the quality of Crown representation in all these cases, or does he take the view of the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which states that there is a lack of transparency in how the fees are calculated for taking on such cases?

[Mr Djanogly]

We are certainly concerned about the transparency of fees and how they are calculated. We are looking at this very carefully as part of our overall reform of legal aid, particularly for the Legal Services Commission.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Women are often at risk of domestic violence when relationships break down, even when there is no previous history of it. According to the Association of Chief Police Officers, attempts to end a relationship are strongly linked to partner homicide and a higher risk of physical violence and sexual assault. Now no legal aid is proposed for divorce or child custody cases, and the definition of domestic violence is still very narrow and requires a history of complaints. How will the Minister ensure the safety of women now that they have to negotiate face to face with potentially violent partners?

[Mr Djanogly]

I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the present system. At the moment, perpetrators rarely receive legal aid; it is the victims of domestic violence who receive it. That means that in the current system the victims face the perpetrators of the crime. The reality is that on a day-to-day basis the judiciary are having to deal with this and have set procedures that they go through to make the process as good as possible for the victims.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

10. What the reason is for the time taken to implement agreements on the compensation of victims of terrorism overseas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

T9. In the light of the Ministry of Justice’s own impact assessment, which says that increased criminality, less social cohesion and increased costs are all likely to result from the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, have the costs to other Government Departments been considered and costed? If so, what are they?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

We have worked closely with other Departments to examine the impact of our proposals, and that is ongoing.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

T8. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to reducing reoffending rates. Does he agree that increasing the scope of judicial discretion, as outlined in the Bill, will go a long way to help to achieve that?

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that in October last year, Citizens Advice in Manchester signed a three-year contract with the Legal Services Commission for the provision of community legal services, which involves four new advice centres, one of which is in my constituency. On the strength of that, Citizens Advice entered into a series of leasing and employment obligations. Will he cut through the increasing uncertainty and confirm this afternoon that that contract will be honoured in full?

[Mr Djanogly]

That is, of course, a matter for the Legal Services Commission, with which the contract was agreed—but about 50% of CABs have legal aid contracts, which last for different periods. The proposals will work through over the period of the contracts.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

Given the costs of delay when court papers do not turn up on time, what are the Government doing to expand the use of e-mail to deliver court judgments and papers?

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Can the Minister update the House as to what discussions he has had with the Minister of Justice in the devolved Administration concerning proposed changes to the legal aid system?

[Mr Djanogly]

I can confirm that I have had discussions, correspondence and a meeting with the devolved Administration to discuss the implications for legal aid and to ensure that we are all moving in the same direction.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

Following the Milly Dowler trial, does the Secretary of State agree that measures need to be taken to protect the families of the victims of crime from intensive questioning in court? If a footballer can be afforded privacy from the public arena, cannot the father of a murdered child?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

We have just commissioned research on those topics, and there will also be a post-impact assessment within three years.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Further to Question 7, will the changes to civil litigation make it easier or more difficult to take action against multinational companies? The consensus among non-governmental organisations is that it will be more difficult.

[Mr Djanogly]

People will still be able to be assessed by solicitors to decide whether they are prepared to represent them in multinational actions.

Court of Protection (Authorised Court Officers)

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Government have today published a consultation paper on proposals that some straightforward applications to the Court of Protection should be delegated to authorised court officers.

At present, all applications to the court have to be decided by a judge, even when the issue involved is straightforward and non-contentious—such as an undisputed application to become a property and affairs deputy. Judges will continue to take all decisions which relate to health and welfare issues, but some types of application for property and affairs deputyships (which form a large proportion of the court’s work) could be dealt with by authorised court officers. This would free up judicial time to focus on the more difficult and sensitive issues the court has to deal with, and reduce the time it takes to deal with routine matters, thereby improving the service to users.

The consultation runs until 20 September 2011. Copies have been placed in the House Libraries, and the paper is also available on the Ministry of Justice website at http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/decisions-court-protection.htm.