Oral Answers to Questions
Justin Madders Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Freer
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we would not dream of forgetting about him. We have seen an increase, particularly on special educational needs and disabilities, of over 300% in receipts, and with the increased number of judges and panel members, we are seeing a 37% increase in disposals this year. We are trying to address the issue of SEND with the Department for Education, and if my hon. Friend thinks there is a problem in this area, I am more than happy to meet him to discuss it.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Mike Freer
The hon. Gentleman is comparing apples with oranges. The two fees are completely different, in terms of quantum. A £55 claim issue fee is a small contribution towards the tribunals, which cost us £80 million a year to run. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
Prison Capacity
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend has been a practitioner in the courts, so he understands, as all practitioners do, that there are offenders who, I am afraid, show themselves unwilling to abide by the order of the court, or incapable of doing so, and even if the court is prepared to say, “There should be a suspended sentence in your case,” they will breach it. In those circumstances, magistrates and judges must have the power, in the final analysis, to send that person to immediate custody. We will always ensure that they have that power. That is important for the rule of law and to send the message that there will be consequences if a person flouts an order of the court.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I want to ask about licence conditions, and particularly those that prohibit the offender from contacting certain people or entering certain postcodes. It is obvious that such conditions are about protecting victims and their families. My concern is that the Lord Chancellor’s statement did not make it absolutely clear that breaching such conditions will lead to a return to custody. It is important for victims to hear that those kinds of transgressions will result in an immediate return to custody.
Summerland Fire: 50th Anniversary
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is our duty in Parliament not to hide from the past but to learn from it. The Summerland fire has never before been the subject of a debate in this House and, as we approach the 50th anniversary of the fire, it is time that changed.
I take the House back to 2 August 1973, when my constituent’s life and the lives of so many others changed forever. Heather Lea was enjoying the start of married life with her husband, Reg, while her parents and little sister, June, were on holiday on the Isle of Man, a place that held special memories for them all. Sadly, those memories are all Heather has left, because on that day her mother, Elizabeth, her father, Richard, and her little sister, June, were among the 50 people who lost their lives in the Summerland fire. As we will hear, the disaster could have been avoided yet, despite this fact, the bereaved families are still fighting for recognition and an apology. Sadly, the chances of there ever being justice appear to have long gone. Heather tells me:
“Fifty years is a long time but the burden has never diminished, and it never will.”
The Summerland leisure centre in Douglas on the Isle of Man was state of the art when it opened, two years before that fateful day, and offered a Mediterranean climate in a British seaside resort encompassing a swimming pool, amusement arcades, an underground disco, restaurants and bars. On the evening of 2 August, a fire was started in an unused kiosk on the crazy golf course outside the complex. The kiosk caught fire, collapsing against the exterior wall of Summerland. Due to the materials the architects used in the structure, the fire quickly spread.
The architects of Summerland had opted to use Galbestos in its construction. Galbestos is a plastic-coated metal cladding with limited fire resistance and, in combination with the use of decalin, which burns rapidly, for the internal walls, created the perfect cocktail for a disaster.
The fire broke through the highly combustible surface and burned undetected for a whole 10 minutes before bursting into the ground floor of the leisure building, igniting the Oroglas acrylic panels used on the walls and roof. The open-plan design aided the spread of the fire, with the internal spaces acting as chimneys to spread the fire. The terror that those in the building must have felt is unthinkable; survivors described mass panic, with the building appearing to melt before their eyes. One survivor said:
“There were fireballs coming down. It was like raining fire. There was no way to get away from it.”
The fire was the deadliest on land since the second world war. I realise as I say these words just how difficult it must be for the loved ones of those who were there to hear them.
Just over a month after the disaster, the lieutenant governor of the Isle of Man appointed a commission to investigate the Summerland fire, under its chair, the hon. Mr Justice Joseph Cantley OBE. The Summerland fire Commission identified several factors in the high number of deaths, including the construction of the building and the evacuation process, which was described as “delayed, unorganised and difficult” with a number of exits locked. It became clear that the materials used in the construction were known to be a safety risk. Either through the ignorance of professionals who ought to have known better or as a result of downright deception, they were still permitted for use. It is clear that regulations were bent to allow that to happen. The original inquiry in 1973 refers to the drawings submitted as unclear, with no dimensions and minimal details, including a serious error where the composition of the sixth floor was incorrectly labelled.
Significant changes were then made to the design to keep costs down, which the report said did not illicit any “particular discussion or anxiety’, despite replacing reinforced concrete walls with Galbestos, which was already known to have limited fire- resistance. The planning submissions relating to Summerland contravened a number of building byelaws and failed to meet the requirement that external walls of any building were to have fire resistance of at least two hours and for ceilings to provide adequate protection against the spread of fire. Permitting the use of both Galbestos and Oroglas contravened such byelaws. However, a waiver was agreed, as permitted under the local government building byelaws legislation of 1950.
The inquiry reported that the borough engineer had been orally informed by the architect of the corporation that Oroglas was non-combustible. Although the chief fire staff officer made it clear that Oroglas was combustible and offered no fire resistance, he raised no objection to the planning committee, which was tasked with reaching a decision on the waiver. Correspondence between the various architects made it clear that the design of the centre could not be delivered in any other way, as it said:
“Unless we are granted”—
an Oroglas waiver—
“we shall be in the soup as I cannot suggest an alternative.”
Compensatory safety measures should still have been taken, such as more exits and a sprinkler system, but no sprinklers were installed.
Oroglas was blamed for the disaster. Although it burned with frightening speed, the main culprit was Galbestos, which was used instead of reinforced concrete, but the fire resistance of that material was never even considered. The failure to consider the properties of materials was not isolated to those in the authorities. The decision to substitute decalin for plasterboard without understanding that it was also combustible, thus giving risk to a combustible void, is described by the inquiry as what
“may well have been the biggest single structural contribution to the disaster of the fire”.
Given the time constraints, I am able to provide only a brief overview of the concerns in the processes that resulted in permission being granted to Summerland. However, just from what I have said, it is clear that there were multiple failings across the board, any one of which could have been disastrous on its own; put together, it is sadly all too clear how this tragedy unfolded. Even using the standards of the time, though, it is difficult to see how the judgment of death by misadventure, which the inquiry reached, can stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I rise on behalf of my constituent Jackie, who came to tell me what happened to her last year. I had not heard about Summerland before, but she was in Summerland with her mother and her best friend. They both died, but she survived. I know that the hon. Gentleman is going to come on to what we can do now, but, having talked about the fire deficiencies, does he agree that 50 years on we need an apology for those deficiencies? Does he agree that we also need an apology for and recognition of the suffering caused to the survivors? Thirdly, and most importantly, does he agree that we should request that the Isle of Man Government have another review of the death by misadventure verdict?
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for the support he has given to the campaign. As I will go on to say, the Apologise for Summerland campaign has made those requests, which I will talk about in more detail later in my speech.
Taking the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, death by misadventure equates to an accidental death caused by a risk that is taken voluntarily. The 50 people who lost their lives did not voluntarily walk into a building comprised of materials that offered limited or no fire resistance. They were on holiday and they trusted that those involved in building Summerland would not knowingly have used dangerous materials. They believed that the building they were entering was safe. I do not think there is anyone who would think that that is not a reasonable position to take. That is why, among many other reasons, death by misadventure is such an inappropriate verdict to find.
The lack of clarity over the fire protections and precautions at Summerland is a huge concern. No schedule of the means of escape existed for Summerland. Enclosed staircases had no ventilation. Openings were not all fire-resisting or self-closing and contained materials that were not fire-resistant. The physical shortcomings of the construction were clear, but the organisation of emergency procedures was also sorely lacking. Some members of staff who were part of the “fire-fighting party” were not aware of their membership of it, demonstrating the absence of satisfactory training.
There had also been unapproved changes to the fire alarm system, creating a delay before the alarms sounded and the fire station was alerted. The automatic fire alarm from Summerland alerted the fire service at 8.05 pm. However, the public alarms at the leisure centre were still yet to sound. The inquiry concluded that
“no organised system of staff training existed....no member of the staff was given any duty or any instruction whatsoever as to his or her actions in the event of a fire”.
It is plain to see why there was mass panic when the fire started.
The lack of training is sadly borne out in the events following the discovery of the fire. One of the most startling and troubling parts of the account I have read—it is a very troubling read—is when the organist, who was playing at the time the fire was discovered, was asked to continue playing to prevent panic breaking out. Only two minutes after he was given that instruction, he reported that the fire was clearly visible at the back of the amusement arcade. Evacuation began only at that point, when the flames had become visible to the visitors, causing mass panic and undoubtedly making matters worse.
Around 20 minutes prior to that, staff had been unsuccessful in dealing with the fire or in notifying the fire service via the automatic alarm system. The inquiry concluded that the building, and by inference the lives of those lost, could have been saved if the fire service had been called shortly after it was found that the firefighting efforts of the staff had failed.
While there was some guidance and a document had been drawn up in 1971 in regard to evacuation, knowledge among managers and staff was limited. There was no evacuation procedure in place and drills had not been carried out. Those in management were unclear as to who was responsible, but failed to make enquiries to clarify that. Staff were not properly trained and there was no one exerting overall control. Had there been, the necessary alerts could have been made and evacuation processes could have been carried out. Instead, some exit doors remained locked, despite the fire service complaining to management about this previously; the escalator remained on, preventing a safe means of escape; and the generators failed to provide the emergency lighting that was needed.
The inquiry concluded that there were failures by the Douglas Corporation and the local government board in terms of providing and scrutinising plans and a lack of inter-communication. The choice of architects was also criticised, with the inquiry exposing their lack of scientific understanding and a failure to focus on fire safety. The inquiry said there was a lack of design management and a continual failure to examine the development of plans. That is important, because that could have highlighted the flaws, resulting in errors being identified.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on bringing forward the debate. As it happens, I was in the Isle of Man last week, as a guest of the President of Tynwald and the Speaker of the House of Keys. One of the official guests was a lady called Ruth McQuillan-Wilson, who has written a number of books about the Summerland fire; she herself was a survivor. I want to put on record a tribute to Ruth, who described the events of the evening to me and the events that have subsequently followed, as the hon. Gentleman has outlined.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I echo the support that he has given to the many campaigners who have fought for more than 50 years to bring this matter to light.
The structure, once it was built, did not have proper technical inspections, which would have been yet another stage at which issues could have been raised. The chief fire officer did not consider issues of firefighting on receiving the original plans and was then not consulted on significant changes to those plans. The certification for the building, and indeed the processes in general, are said not to have been stringent or rigorous, and there was an absence of fire safety and evacuation plans.
It was a litany of failings. Despite that, the inquiry concluded that “there were no villains”. I think we can see, beyond doubt, that that conclusion was wrong. There were clear failures in the plans by the authorities, the fire service and the management of Summerland. The inquiry made 34 recommendations, demonstrating how many flaws there were, yet there remains to this day a lack of accountability.
Three young boys appeared before the juvenile court for damage to a kiosk, but apart from that nobody took responsibility or blame—whatever you want to call it—for the failings. I do not know whether it was because there were so many people and organisations that could have been found to be at fault. Perhaps it was the grossly inappropriate finding of misadventure that led to that lack of accountability. Perhaps, given the times that we were in then, accountability was just a little bit harder to find. Whatever it was, once the inquiry finished that was more or less it. Perhaps this failure to hold the authorities or individuals to account is why recognition of the disaster is so limited.
My constituent describes the memorial near to the Summerland site as “insignificant and insulting”, drawing comparisons with a stone bought from a garden centre. She has recently discovered that it is only her family who are mentioned in the remembrance book at the crematorium on the island, and that is only because they paid for their entry in it. I find that disappointing. In fact, I find it appalling and disrespectful. The families lost so much on that day, and recognition of such should not be reliant on payment. That is something that we expect and hope will change.
The original memorial was replaced with something more fitting in 2013, on the 40th anniversary, but we must question why, for the preceding 40 years, those in charge felt that the loss of 50 people did not warrant a proper memorial that would offer a space for reflection and solace. Heather tells me that even at the memorial event in 2013, the dignitaries who attended failed to approach any of the family members present, which she describes as incredibly hurtful for those visiting the place where their loved ones had perished.
After speaking to Heather and Reg and learning more about the disaster, I approached the Isle of Man Government to ask them whether they would commit to a full inquiry, similar in structure to the Hillsborough inquiry—we have a blueprint that could be followed. I accept that, perhaps, given the length of time that has passed it might be a little bit unrealistic to expect that, but I still expected more than the response I received, which simply directed me to the inquiry of 1973. However, the impending anniversary, and perhaps the publicity surrounding this debate, has perhaps focused minds a little more, as I have this morning received from the Chief Minister an email indicating that there will be a national service of remembrance on 30 July, and that he will be holding a private reception prior to that where he has indicated his wish to hear directly from the survivors and victims’ families. That certainly feels as if he has heard the concerns about what happened at the 40th anniversary. He has also indicated that he will be holding an event to thank those from the emergency services who responded to the fire.
The Chief Minister has also said that he will be making a formal statement about the disaster to the Isle of Man’s Parliament next week. Although we do not know what he will say in that statement, I want to use this debate to encourage the Minister to formally write on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to indicate their support for the requests made by the Apologise for Summerland campaign, which, as we have heard, are a public apology from the Isle of Man Government for the
“disregard for basic fire safety in favour of saving money and speedy construction;
a public apology for
“the pain and suffering for the last 50 years”;
and a public admission that the death by misadventure verdict was inappropriate.
I appreciate that this Parliament cannot tell another Parliament what to do, but I hope that the Minister will be able, diplomatically and sincerely, to make those requests and convey the feelings expressed by Members in the House tonight. It is clear that the conclusions of the inquiry fell short of the standards that we would expect, and fell short of providing genuine accountability. There is a need for an apology from the Isle of Man Government for their role in the disaster.
I hope that the Minister will be able to convey on our behalf that, as we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the disaster, an apology is long overdue. The knowledge of the bereaved families that the loss of their loved ones could have been avoided is still incredibly painful, but the fact that their deaths are still legally categorised as misadventure only exacerbates that pain. I pay tribute to the bereaved families, who have never given up their fight for justice; to the Apologise for Summerland campaign for all that it has done to give a voice to the families; and to Grenfell United, which is standing side by side with the Summerland families. Grenfell United has said:
“The similarities between Summerland and Grenfell are chilling”.
We will never know whether true accountability for Summerland might have prevented the Grenfell tragedy from happening. Sadly, there are far too many what ifs, which must torment all involved. I will finish with a few words from Heather, which echo that point. She says:
“We don’t feel that it’s ever been recognised that 50 people lost their lives. I’ve lost 50 years of having my sister…It was a fire that should never have happened. I feel so sorry for the people of Grenfell. If the reports had been acted upon from the Summerland fire, Grenfell probably wouldn’t have happened. You can’t brush something like that under the carpet anymore.”
I hope that following today’s debate we can build on the cross-party support that we have had to date, and that through the advocacy of the UK Government, families will receive the recognition, apology and accountability that they deserve. I appreciate that the passage of time makes true accountability difficult, but I am certain that they deserve better than they have had so far.
Cammell Laird Workers Imprisoned in 1984
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) for securing this debate and for an excellent and forensic introduction to why this is such an important issue and why justice needs to be done. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB trade union. I also add my tribute to all the others that have been made to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for his tireless work campaigning on what is clearly a very important issue to him personally. I know he would have been here if he were able. But this issue should be important to anyone who cares about justice, truth and accountability. We have to ask ourselves a fundamental question: how did an industrial dispute end up with the arrests and imprisonment of 37 men? Let us not forget that, in its origins, this was a civil dispute—the criminal courts did not need to get involved—and it was no different to thousands of other disputes that have happened over many decades in the history of this country.
The men who were arrested were not told why. Is that not a basic tenet of our law? Who even did the arresting? The official position is that the police and bailiffs were involved in the eviction, but some have said that it was members of the SAS or the SBS—the Special Air Service or Special Boat Service—who were engaged. I do not know how accurate that is, but it is an important question, and if there is a grain of truth in it, it points to a much deeper level of Government involvement than has so far been admitted. That is an important reason why we need to look at the issue in more detail.
As we have heard already, the Thatcher Government were intent on placing Liverpool into a state of managed decline. I do not think that was a secret to the people living on Merseyside at the time; they certainly felt the effects of it every single day. We know that one of the papers released under the 30-year rule showed how Sir Geoffrey Howe urged the Prime Minister not to spend any public money in Merseyside, because he described it as “stony ground”.
We do not need reminding of how the decade was characterised by the Government’s war against trade unions, driven by an ideological determination to weaken workers’ rights to organise collectively and to take industrial action. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West very clearly set out, the decision to re-tender the contract after it had already been awarded to Cammell Laird was clearly part of that political attack and managed decline strategy.
Frankly, we should not be left to speculate and have questions left up in the air. We need full transparency. I think if the Government have been interfering in industrial disputes to the extent of getting the special forces involved or re-tendering contracts that have already been awarded, that is something that we all ought to be concerned about, wherever we come from on the political spectrum. It certainly would not be out of keeping with the Government approach at the time.
We have also heard that the men did not receive any redundancy payments. I believe they were told by the management that they were deemed to have dismissed themselves—complete legal nonsense. It was a nonsense in 1984 and it is a nonsense now, but, importantly, it means that the men were denied their redundancy payments, which lawfully they should have been entitled to.
We also have to raise the question of judicial impartiality. Since the Taff Vale case, the courts have had a reputation of being pretty unsympathetic to the ability of working people to organise collectively. Lord Justice Lawton, at the opening of the appeal, said that
“you cannot really expect any leniency to be shown unless and until each and every one of these men signs a piece of paper apologising for what happened, and expresses some regret”.
I think it is pretty clear that any idea of judicial impartiality was thrown out of the window that day.
How can anyone expect a fair hearing if they are told they should apologise before the case has even started? Why was it necessary to rub salt into the wounds of the eviction by adding 30-day prison sentences to the charges? A legal assessment of the strike commented that imprisonment is usually avoided because it inflames industrial disputes rather than terminates them. It is clear to me that putting those 37 men in prison was a clear statement of intent—one that strikes me as calculated, excessively punitive and almost certainly political in its origin. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West stated, imprisonment was not the normal punishment in disputes of this nature. There have been hundreds of similar disputes over many decades where imprisonment was not sought, so why was it insisted upon on this occasion? Given that, it is little wonder that the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions ruled in 2014 that the response to the occupation was disproportionate, and that the Government should release all documentation relating to the dispute and apologise to the men. I know the Government generally do not like things that come out of Europe, but they should listen to that ruling. I believe that when Labour is in office, we will honour it.
The stock response that we will hear from the Minister to our request for an inquiry is that this is not a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but I believe it is a question of justice. It is also a question of accountability and transparency. If the Ministry of Justice is not responsible for dealing with this matter, will the Minister please tell us where the campaigners and the hon. Members who have been fighting for this cause for so long should take their request?
Those men, who were thrown in prison and then blacklisted for taking industrial action, have not received any form of justice whatever in nearly 40 years. At the very least, they deserve an explanation from the Government, and the questions that we have asked today should be answered properly. Those in power really ought to know by now that the people of Merseyside do not rest until justice is done and the truth is uncovered.
Ten-Year Drugs Strategy
Justin Madders Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kit Malthouse
As my hon. Friend may know, alcohol-related crime is of deep interest to me. That interest was behind my 10-year campaign to bring in sobriety ankle bracelets, which are having an enormous impact across the country with 97% compliance. While this strategy is drug-focused, it is worth pointing out that, as I am sure he knows, quite a number of people have an addiction both to drugs and to alcohol. The provision of treatment services that are primarily for their drug addiction will have a spill-over effect on their alcohol addiction; I hope that he will see an improvement in that as well.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
One of the frustrations that my constituents have is that if they live in a flat and someone else in the block is a persistent cannabis smoker, the whole block can reek of cannabis. It affects their health; it affects their children’s health. They go to the landlord, but the landlord says, “We won’t get involved unless there’s a police prosecution”—and more often than not, the police will not prosecute people for smoking in their own home. Is there anything in the strategy that will put an end to the misery that people experience in that situation?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point—a good counterpoint to issues that others have raised. As part of our strategy, in the next year we will produce a White Paper that we hope will contain a new system for changing such behaviour and deterring individuals from such casual, thoughtless and often cruel drug consumption, which not only interferes with his constituents’ happiness and enjoyment of their home, but drives an enormous amount of violence on the streets.
Hillsborough: Collapse of Trials
Justin Madders Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Buckland
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes an important point about the archive. There is a general point to be made here which goes back to the initial question. The ongoing criminal procedure meant that a lot of material, for example, material on existing websites, had to be taken down. Obviously, I want that to change—I want it all to go back. Indeed, more work needs to be done to ensure that documents and material are in the public domain. So my answer is: yes, I absolutely will undertake to work with her, because I think it is important that everybody has access to the truth, so that the full story is known by generations yet to come.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It represents a complete failure of the state, does it not, that 96 people were unlawfully killed and then there was a cover-up, for which no one has been held to account because of what amounts to a technicality 32 years later on? So does the Lord Chancellor agree that, to the families of the bereaved, the idea about statements submitted by the police to an inquiry headed by a Lord Justice that was not in the “course of public justice” is a cruel absurdity, on top of all the other injustices that they have suffered? Does he consider that anything could have been done to close this loophole long before we got to this point?
Robert Buckland
I listened carefully to the careful question from the hon. Gentleman. He appreciates that with regard to criminal procedure the law applicable at the time is the law that is then used with regard to the evidence and whether individuals might be guilty or not guilty of allegations. I have made it very clear that the Inquiries Act 2005, which of course was passed many years after the Taylor inquiry, covers the major public inquiries that we are all very familiar with, the ongoing ones that we have and indeed the future covid inquiry. I have also made it clear that that common law offence of perverting the course of justice would cover those types of inquiries, but clearly as part of the work we are doing, we will look carefully to make sure that there are not any inadvertent loopholes, while remembering the important point that there will be certain procedures that must be conducted in a spirit of openness and honesty which will benefit from being less adversarial and more fact-finding, and that of course includes the essence of the inquest process itself. We must be very mindful of getting that balance right when we look at these things.
Oral Answers to Questions
Justin Madders Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on animal welfare. I am, of course, delighted that Finn’s law reached the statute book last year, and increasing the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years is a manifesto commitment which we intend to deliver as quickly as possible. It builds on the fact that—I am proud to say—this country has among the world’s best animal welfare provisions, including a tough ivory ban, CCTV in slaughterhouses, and a ban on the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Following the 2017 Unison case, employment tribunal fees are due to be refunded. The programme is under way, and many tens of thousands of fees have already been refunded. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Ministry of Justice is looking carefully at the position to ensure that everyone who is eligible for a refund does indeed receive one.
Oral Answers to Questions
Justin Madders Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the role of the armed forces. They have a huge offer to make, and I will talk to him further about those points.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Wendy Morton)
I fully understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. It is fundamental to our legal and justice system that everyone has the right to a fair trial. None the less, it is important that we give our utmost support for bereaved families. I am determined to do all that I can to ensure that bereaved families are at the heart of the coronial process, and we are working across the Government to achieve this.
Legal Aid for Inquests
Justin Madders Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) on securing this incredibly important debate. As she has said, access to justice is a fundamental issue. Inquests where families are properly legally represented are important not only for the families’ sakes, but because they perform a wider public service to ensure that lessons are learnt so that things change for other people and so that lives may be saved in future. That is achieved by ventilating the issues in public and putting those potentially responsible for the deaths under proper scrutiny.
If the families are not fully involved to press to ensure that such lessons are learnt, an inquest is far less likely to result in the wider reform and lesson-learning from which we all benefit. It is naive to expect that an inquest in which the family is not legally represented, but in which the agencies of the state are fully represented, will approach an investigation into a death with a genuine desire to uncover failings. On the contrary, state agencies approach inquests with the express objective of, at best, damage limitation and, at worst, to undermine and downplay the concerns of families. I urge the Minister to look at the submission made by Liberty on the review of legal aid eligibility and the exchange that took place between counsel for Surrey police and the father of one of those who died at Deepcut barracks to see probably one of the worst, most callous and distressing lines of questioning imaginable. Although there was legal representation on that occasion, it is concerning to think that a family member could be faced with such cross-examination without any support at all.
I mention Deepcut because in 2002 one of my constituents, Yvonne Heath, tragically lost her son, James Collinson, to gunshot wounds there. She is among four families who have been looking for answers ever since. The other three families have had or are in the middle of inquests, and there is no doubt that it is in the public interest for there to be one into James’s death as well. I understand that the other families have all had to face what has been described to me as a tortuous and intrusive process just to get legal aid granted. It should be absolutely self-evident that the families need representation at the inquests, so I put the Minister on notice that should my constituent face similar obstacles to obtaining legal aid to the previous families, she can expect regular representations from me until the right thing is done.
I have no doubt about the value that representation can provide at an inquest. I have previously spoken in a debate here about the sad case of Ronald Volante, whose daughter, Rita Cuthell, is a constituent of mine. Ronald died in tragic circumstances when an ambulance call made via a community alarm service led to his call not receiving the priority needed. When the ambulance turned up two hours later, it was too late. We had various meetings following that debate and improvements have been made to procedures, but one area where there has not been any change relates to the experience that my constituent had at the inquest. There is no doubt that she would have benefited enormously from legal representation. I know how distressing and bewildering it was, and how she did not feel that the process gave her the answers that she needed.
If the Minister needs any more persuasion on the importance of the issue, there are many examples of how improvements were made and lessons learned that would not have happened but for the involvement of legally aided, represented families cross-examining witnesses and pressing for change. Such examples include the inquest into the death of Corporal Anne-Marie Ellement, who died after reporting rape and bullying in the Army. The inquest led to recommendations that a special kind of victim support be made available to soldiers who complain of sexual assault against other soldiers, as well as improvements in mental health training and procedures. It also led to soldiers being given information about non-military sources of support and help in the aftermath of sexual assault.
The inquest into the death of Sean Benton, who died at Deepcut in 1995, finally revealed the true extent of the abuses and assaults that trainees had suffered at the camp and has led the police to open a criminal investigation. That would not have happened had the family not been legally represented to press for it. The inquest also led to the Army’s undertaking to the coroner that it would ensure that in future all trainee soldiers would be informed that if they were the victim of a criminal offence they could approach the civilian, as opposed to just the military, police. That happened only as a consequence of the family pressing for it at the inquest. I doubt whether it would have happened had they not been legally represented.
A cursory glance at the relevant pages of summaries of inquest findings demonstrates the enormous potential of inquests to identify and learn from failings when people have died where there is state involvement. For example, a jury found that failings in the immigration detention centre system had contributed to the killing of Tarek Chowdhury, and another inquest found serious failures at Sodexo-run HM Prison Peterborough, which contributed to the death of a prisoner, Annabella Landsberg. An inquest found that failings by South West London and St George’s Mental Health Trust had caused the death of Charlotte Ball. Finally, an inquest found there was neglect involved in the death of 18-year-old Connor Sparrowhawk, which resulted in the coroner making various formal recommendations.
In all those cases the families were legally represented, which demonstrates the enormous public interest and value in ensuring that lessons are learned from the most tragic cases. That can be achieved only if families are represented on an equal footing against state bodies. It is a basic tenet of justice that everyone is equal before the law. When well resourced public bodies are legally represented at inquests it is only right that the bereaved families seeking answers should be represented as well.
Bailiffs: Regulatory Reform
Justin Madders Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on securing this important debate and on the way in which she introduced the subject. As we have heard, we have all had many constituents contact us when they have received a bailiff’s letter or had a bailiff turn up at the door. Although we would want our constituents to contact us as soon as possible, when things might be a little easier to resolve, we have to remember that quite often a Member of Parliament is not the first port of call for someone facing a debt situation.
There is the question of household debt, the availability of easy credit and, as we have heard, the way in which a seemingly small debt can spiral out of control once an enforcement process begins, so we need to think about what more we can do to stop debt becoming the debilitating and all-consuming terror that it often is. To paraphrase a former Prime Minister, we should be not just tough on bailiffs, but tough on the causes of bailiffs, but that is perhaps a wider debate for another time.
I appreciate that there are important distinctions between the powers of a bailiff appointed by the court and a debt collector, but are those differences apparent to the public, particularly when someone knocks on the door unexpectedly demanding money? We know bailiffs must provide evidence upon request by the debtors, as well as sight of a warrant providing them with authority to enter, but how many people in such a pressurised situation will have the presence of mind to ask for those things?
We know that, as part of national standards, bailiffs are expected to treat the debtor fairly at all times. However, one recent example that I came across concerned a constituent who was unable to keep up with the payment plan they had previously agreed because they were in poor health and had been unable to work. The bailiff’s demand in those circumstances was to actually request that the monthly repayment be doubled. How is that a reasonable request? How is that treating the debtor fairly at all times? The national standards are not legally binding, which is presumably why we see such outrageous behaviour.
Justin Madders
I am sorry; other people want to speak, so we have to move on.
An even worse example was when a constituent had agreed a payment plan with bailiffs, which she was paying on time and in full. She then received a letter from the bailiffs requesting that the repayment increase by £30 a week. There never was and has not been any justification given for that proposal. Following that request, and despite the constituent asking for an income and expenditure form to demonstrate that she could not afford the increase, she then received a letter asking that the full debt be repaid within 24 hours or goods would be removed. There then followed the threatening phone calls and visits to the property that we have often heard about. Such despicable behaviour cannot be justified, but in this instance, as in many, the original creditor had washed their hands of the whole business. They do not seem to care how unreasonable, threatening or intimidating the bailiffs get. They just want their money back. Even if they are outsourcing responsibility to recover the debt, they should not outsource their responsibility to ensure that the debt is recovered in a responsible manner.
Demands for unaffordable payment plans are probably the most commonly occurring issue that we get. We often find that bailiffs are unwilling to negotiate and then ask for the full amount owed. They even suggest that debtors should borrow more money to repay the debt. As we have heard, the situation is exacerbated by adding hundreds of pounds to the debt once a visit has been made by a bailiff, which can lead to punitive increases that are often totally disproportionate to the original sum being recovered. I appreciate that those wishing to recover the debts need to recover their own costs as well, but the fees, which are then treated as part of the debt, cannot make it any easier for the individual to repay the debt.
In conclusion, I support Citizens Advice’s call for the Government to report annually on the debt to Government and essential service providers, and for the introduction of an independent regulator for the bailiff industry. It is time we gave people confidence that the difficult issue of debt enforcement will be given the same checks and balances that we rightly expect in many other areas of our lives.
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
If hon. Members aim for the three-minute mark, perhaps we will be able to get in everyone who wants to speak.