Sentencing Bill

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We have had a good debate on the Bill, started by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood).

There have been a number of interesting contributions, starting with the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who made a typically thoughtful contribution to our proceedings. He is against politicising the issue of sentencing, but I am sure that he would agree that that does not mean that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition should not scrutinise the Bill in depth, or look in detail, as we intend to do in Committee, at the matter of early release of offenders involved in crimes such as domestic abuse and sexual offences. He accepted, I think, that the prison estate had been allowed to deteriorate so far that, in its current state, rehabilitation has, in his words, become almost “impossible”. His suggestion of a statutory “purposes of prison” definition was an interesting one that we in the Opposition would certainly be interested in discussing with him further.

That was followed by a speech from the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who I thought also made an extremely thoughtful contribution to the debate. She agreed on some points with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, and we would very much be interested in exploring that further with her as the Bill progresses, particularly the issue of which offenders are listed for early release.

We then had a contribution from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—he and I are old jousting partners from the days when he was on the Opposition Benches and I was on the other side—who described the Bill as “lamentable” and said that he was in despair about it. He said that, when it came to crime and punishment, he was on the retribution side and was less committed to the rehabilitation side of the argument. I know that he is a big fan of poetry, so I am sure that he will recognise a bit of poetry if I quote it at him:

“I never saw a man who looked

With such a wistful eye

Upon that little tent of blue

Which prisoners call the sky”.

Prisoners go to prison as punishment, in our view, not for punishment. We might not see eye to eye with the right hon. Gentleman on what he said but, as ever, it was an interesting and thoughtful contribution.

We heard a contribution from the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis), who quoted Churchill extensively and said that the language was “a bit Edwardian”. I wasn’t sure whether he pointed that out because it was a bit too modern for him. He went on to say that 20,000 prison places have been created. We challenge that. I will not go into it in great depth, but in our view it will be only 8,000 by 2025 in net terms, which is 60% short of the Government’s plans.

The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) was critical of the methodology the Government have used to justify the presumption of suspended sentences for under 12 months. He admitted that people were spending too long on remand in prison, which is a source of a lot of problems in the prison estate. Many of those people turn out to be not guilty at the end of the process. That is a particularly pernicious fact, and it is a result of the Government’s failure to deal with the backlog in the courts.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) called for visible community service and expressed concern that taxpayers’ money was being wasted on many of the current schemes because of the failure to operationalise them properly. Ministers will have heard her remarks.

The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) said that he was concerned about the presumption of suspended sentences for under 12 months because of pressure on the probation service. He is right about that. If the probation service cannot provide a full service to those who are allowed out on early release, it is difficult to see how the measure will help to reduce crime. He called for the return of national service and borstals. We used to call them colleges of crime when I was growing up. He provided anecdotal evidence for their being an effective means of dealing with youth justice. I would be interested to see harder scientific evidence in that regard. In his very last remark, he said that something has gone seriously wrong with our criminal justice system.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) made an extremely thoughtful contribution and told us of his experience from 12 years as a magistrate and from serving on the Sentencing Council. He said that sentencing is an art, not a science. His expertise showed in his contribution, which was interesting to listen to. He told us about his short time as a Justice Minister. That might be the only example of a decision by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), that should not have been reversed after her departure. Given the quality of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, he was possibly the best ministerial appointment during her short tenure.

The hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly)—again, he brought great experience to the debate—said that he had sympathy with some of the points the Opposition are making about short sentences and so on. I agree with him that we should focus on the early years. We used to say when we were in government,

“tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”.

He is absolutely right—until we get into the weeds of the causes of crime, we will never break the offending cycle.

The hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) said that the danger of short-term sentences was that they would turn small-scale offenders into greater offenders. He cited evidence for that in his very effective contribution.

The hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) told us of his experience as a magistrate and of the need to break the cycle of reoffending. He asked for reassurance that there will be additional prison officers in his local open prison when numbers are expanded there, and he was quite right to do so.

Another day, another Department of Justice Bill before the House—or, as I call it, the Department of Justice Delayed. As our debate draws to a close, let us consider the gravity of the task at hand. This Bill is supposed to be rectifying problems in our criminal justice system, which is beleaguered by overcrowded prisons, an overstretched probation service and the dire consequences of the past 13 years of mismanagement. Over those 13 years under the current Government, we have observed the unfolding of what can only be described as a penal catastrophe. For over a decade, they have promised a robust and rigorous approach to law and order, but when it comes to justice it is the evidence that matters, and the evidence is clear beyond reasonable doubt.

We were assured that there would be 20,000 new prison places by the mid-2020s, but as of today, less than half are on track to meet that deadline, and the totality of that pledge will not see fruition before 2030. The prison estate is at 99% capacity because the Government have failed time and again to act on warnings about capacity and overcrowding, and now they are using this rushed Bill as a sticking plaster over a gaping wound. The job is certainly not done: the situation has reached the desperate state where judges are compelled to delay sentencing hearings for people on bail, leaving convicted criminals to roam our streets. The Bill is not a proactive measure, but a reactive one—a response to a crisis that has been foretold and ignored. It seeks to introduce a presumption that sentences of 12 months or less will be suspended; as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood said, that is something we will explore in great detail in Committee.

I will not detain the House much longer, because I know there is a statement to follow, but the Government’s narrative is one of a pivot towards rehabilitation and community sentencing. However, the reality is a narrative of necessity. The Government’s own impact assessment estimates an increased caseload of 1,700 to 6,800 cases due to more suspended sentences, and at least 850 due to the expansion of the home detention curfew, yet there is no corresponding increase in support for the probation service, which is already on its knees. How can we expect a system to rehabilitate people when that system itself is in need of urgent repair?

The proposed changes to short sentences raise grave concerns. No offences have been ruled out of scope, regardless of their nature. That means that even known stalkers, sex offenders and domestic abusers could be managed in the community, posing a risk to new and past victims alike—as my hon. Friend the shadow Justice Secretary rightly pointed out, it could be new victims who are targeted by those offenders. That is not what justice looks like. My hon. Friend mentioned cases of violent offenders who could avoid being locked up under this proposed legislation. I will add another example: that of John Gallagher, who strangled his partner and punched her in the head several times. She was screaming, thinking that she was going to die. He said to her, “If I can’t have you, no one can,” before trapping her in a bathroom overnight. This man received a nine-month sentence; under the proposed legislation, thanks to this Government, violent offenders just like him could avoid prison.

The Government have been quick to proclaim their commitment to protecting the public from serious offenders. They speak of extending whole-life orders and ensuring that those convicted of the most serious crimes serve their full sentences. Those are measures that we can support, but beneath the veneer of the tough rhetoric, there is an inconvenient truth: the prisons that are required to house those offenders are not materialising. The Government have not just moved the goalposts, but taken them down entirely. In their place, we are being offered a vision of electronic monitoring and home detention curfews—a vision in which serious offenders could be released up to six months early. The Government assure us that violent offenders and those convicted of sexual offences will be excluded, yet fail to provide clarity on what constitutes “suitable” for release. The ambiguity surrounding this crucial definition is not just a matter of semantics; it is a matter of public safety. What does it say about our commitment to victims and to public safety that those who have inflicted great harm could be deemed “suitable” for early release?

Now we learn of the Government’s scheme to release offenders early on compassionate grounds, but it is a policy shrouded in secrecy, lacking the scrutiny of this House. This clandestine approach to justice is unacceptable. The British public deserve transparency, especially on matters that will have a direct impact on their safety and wellbeing. Let us not forget the Government’s botched privatisation and subsequent renationalisation of the probation service, which has done nothing but exacerbate the problems in our justice system. Probation is in such a dire state that of the 31 inspections by HM inspectorate of probation since reunification in 2021, only one has received a good rating. That is a damning indictment of the current Government’s ability to protect the public and rehabilitate offenders.

The Labour party offers a different path—one of strategic foresight, and one that ensures that decisions about the running of prisons and probation services are driven by public safety, not political expediency. We take a different view from the Government. We believe in a justice system that is fair, robust and, above all, transparent. We recognise that to break the cycle of reoffending we must invest in our probation service and make it a beacon of rehabilitation. We understand that to truly protect the public, we must ensure that prisons are places where offenders can be securely housed and effectively reformed, within a justice system that stands as a testament to our values, not a monument to failure.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Kevin Brennan, the House can see how many Members are standing. The first few to be called should not be thinking about speaking for longer than six minutes. That limit is very likely to be reduced. I do not want to put the mockers on people intervening on one another—it is a debate—but please be mindful that it will eat into other people’s time.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name and will refer to others. The Opposition acknowledge the significance of the Bill, but even if the new Government amendments that the Minister has just outlined are adopted, we cannot escape the reality that the Bill nevertheless remains a skeletal framework that requires substantial enhancement. For too long—over a period of eight years and an octet of Justice Secretaries, which is an average of one per year—the promise of a comprehensive victims Bill has been dangled before us, yet still we are here trying to fill in its gaps. That provides little comfort for the victims of crime across the country.

Having picked up the Bill since it was considered in Committee, I wish to pay tribute to my colleagues who worked on it through that stage and did all the heavy lifting: in particular, my predecessors on the Front Bench, my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is in her place on the Back Benches. I also pay tribute to those who have engaged from the Opposition Back Benches, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and my hon. Friends the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). I also thank those who have tabled amendments for consideration today, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). That really shows the amount of interest in the Bill right across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member who is about to intervene.

[Maria Eagle]

New clause 14 is much better than the Government’s provision in the Criminal Justice Bill, which relates to producing codes of practice only for the police. Does my hon. Friend agree that his new clause would be a vital part of implementing a full Hillsborough law, which is what our party calls for?

[Kevin Brennan]

In all candour, I agree. The need for the new clause could not be more urgent. It is rooted in a simple expectation that those in public service, from health to policing, must not only act diligently but expose and challenge dangerous practices. The duty of candour would be not just a guideline but a legal obligation, and it would be particularly vital in tragedies like Hillsborough. I commend my right hon. Friend’s campaigning over many years on that subject and on terrible tragedies such as the Grenfell Tower fire.

New clause 14 aims to shift from a culture of defensiveness to one of openness, and would support those who wish to contribute to inquiries but feel pressured to remain silent. The NHS duty of candour has been a step in the right direction, but we need to go further for all public authorities if we are to end the cycle of institutional defensiveness that not only delays justice but fails to safeguard the lives of our citizens.

The new clause seeks to break down those barriers of evasiveness and foster a culture of accountability, where seeking the truth becomes paramount. A statutory duty of candour would circumvent all such issues and direct investigations towards the most pertinent matters promptly and efficiently. Most important of all, it would bring justice to the victims and their families who, for far too long, have been let down by public bodies that are meant to do the right thing.

I turn to amendment 33, which again stands in my name. The Bill intends to improve protections for victims, but it neglects a significant group, which the Minister made reference to in his remarks: individuals plagued by the menace of persistent antisocial behaviour, who are often living in fear in their own homes. The amendment seeks to rectify that oversight by ensuring that the definition of “victim” includes those tormented by antisocial behaviour such that they meet the threshold for an antisocial behaviour case review. There is no good reason why that group of people should have to deal with all the same agencies as other victims without the benefit of the same rights, so they should be added to the victims code.

Members across the House will know of many people in their constituencies suffering from that kind of antisocial behaviour. It is a daily battle for them. It is not the mark of a just society that they should not be included in the code. Currently, those victims are left without the protections and support that the Bill extends to other victims. That is an unacceptable gap in the legislation. We must extend support to those affected by persistent antisocial behaviour. It is our duty to ensure that no victim is left behind. The Bill must demonstrate that our support for those victims is unwavering and our commitment to all victims is absolute. We must ensure that every member of our society can live in dignity and peace, to which they have a right. I heard what the Minister said on this matter, but it is not good enough.

I turn amendments 154 and 155, though I will not dwell on them. They seek to maintain Welsh Ministers’ responsibility for issuing guidance to independent domestic violence advocates and independent sexual violence advocates in Wales. In the Bill, the Secretary of State is slated to provide guidance to outline their roles, the services to victims, and collaboration with the criminal justice system and other victim support entities. We support enhanced victim support, but our concern pertains to the Secretary of State assuming responsibility for the guidance in Wales. The Welsh Senedd did not grant legislative consent to the Bill due to its reservations about the role of the Secretary of State for Justice. Welfare and safeguarding are devolved matters.

I will not go into great detail because of time, but whether by oversight or design, the UK Government’s assumption of responsibility creates a dual system with varying authorities responsible for victim support providers based on the nature of the assistance rendered. That cannot be the right approach for victims in Wales. Elsewhere, the Government have shown a disregard for devolution. I am not sure that it is deliberate in this case, and I genuinely hope that it is an oversight. The Minister’s raised eyebrows suggest that I might be wrong about that, and that I am being too generous to him and the Government. As he has displayed some willingness to amend the Bill in our direction in other areas, I hope that he will reconsider the drafting to prevent further encroachment on devolved powers and, more importantly, to avoid less clarity for those helping victims in Wales and for victims themselves. If he is not willing to support our amendment on Report, I would welcome at least a commitment from him—I hope he is listening—to give further consideration to this matter when the Bill arrives in the other place.

New clause 38 on independent legal advocates is also significant. It seeks to recognise that the criminal justice system as it stands does not provide an adequate means of upholding the rights of rape victims, who so often feel that they are on trial. The provision of free independent legal advocates for rape victims is not merely beneficial but fundamentally necessary. For far too long, sexual violence victims have navigated the treacherous waters of the criminal justice system alone, often retraumatised by the very process that seeks to deliver justice.

The new clause aims to change that reality, and by tabling it we aim to go further than simply leaving it to the police to ensure that they seek victims’ personal records only when really necessary. The new clause would give victims a real and reliable opportunity to challenge those sorts of requests when they go too far, by having an experienced advocate by their side. The new clause would fundamentally change a centuries-old legal system without endangering the rights of defendants. In doing so, it aims to rebuild the trust of victims—women and girls in particular—because our justice system will cease to function if people do not feel able come forward and report crime.

I turn to new clause 42 in my name and new clause 27 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North. I pay tribute to her incredible campaigning on this matter over many years and that of other Members who have campaigned alongside her. We have all been moved by the appalling infected blood tragedy. The Labour party wants to help ensure that justice and compensation for victims and their families are delivered urgently. I applaud campaigning advocacy organisations, alongside the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, which have worked so tirelessly to secure justice.

This issue has spanned many years and several Parliaments. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), set up the inquiry. Many Members and former Members—including Andy Burnham and the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, when they were Health Secretaries—advocated for such an independent inquiry. The Government have accepted that there is a moral case for compensation. The interim payments to a number of victims is an important recognition of that. I am sure that the Minister has seen the letter that the shadow Chancellor wrote over the weekend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter.

New clause 27 provides a chance to show that the Commons supports the principle of delivering a compensation scheme and understands the urgency of delivering justice. New clause 42 relates to that, and would establish a deadline of 25 sitting days from the publication of the final report on infected blood for an oral statement to this House setting out how victims can access the scheme and what steps will be taken to establish a compensation body.

I hope that the Government will accept both new clauses tonight. The aim is to ensure that the Government move urgently after the final report is published. This evening’s vote is an important opportunity, and we are willing to work with the Government to ensure that a fair scheme can be set up and administered quickly. There is time before the Bill goes to the Lords for us to work further on that. It is a hugely complex matter. We are keen to work on a cross-party basis to shape a final compensation scheme that can deliver justice urgently. We await the final findings of the independent infected blood inquiry chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff. However, there is no reason for the Government not to move forward, especially as the King’s Speech committed to action.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that the Government are saying it is not possible to set up the compensation scheme and make payments at this time, because we do not have the final report? For the Post Office Horizon scandal, they are already making payments, ahead of the final report of the public inquiry.

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, and the answer to the last line of my right hon. Friend’s intervention is, “What is the difference here?” That is a very pertinent question, which I know the Minister will want to answer when he gets to the Dispatch Box to reply to the debate.

I wish to pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff and the inquiry team for their work and their unstinting commitment to deliver justice for those infected. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on what work the Government have been doing since the publication of the report. I accept that that is part of the Cabinet Office’s responsibility, but it sits with us this evening and, of course, Governments are supposed to be joined up. I know the House would also be grateful for an update on the expected timing of the publication of Sir Brian’s final report, as this issue affects Members across the House. In that spirit, let us try to rise to the occasion and find a way to work constructively on a cross-party basis, but crucially at speed. To be clear, I urge my hon. Friends to support new clause 27, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, should it be pressed to a Division.

New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and he is absolutely right that it concerns a very serious matter. Unfortunately, given the impact of the Government’s effective destruction of the criminal justice system, we lack the infrastructure and resources to keep the public safe, should his new clause be implemented immediately. Our priority is, and always must be, the safety of the British public. We are concerned that if new clause 1 were enacted without provisioning for significant improvements in probation and parole, we would potentially significantly increase the risk to the public and to the prisoners themselves. The Government’s movement on this issue is a welcome first step. I look forward to seeing what further progress can be made by our colleagues in the other place.

On parole, I express our disappointment, generally, regarding part 3 of the Bill, the addition of which diverts attention away from the Bill being a victims Bill. However, I recognise the Government’s acceptance of the basis of our argument, which is contained in new clauses 15 and 16. Those new clauses, tabled in my name, would prevent a Justice Secretary from overturning Parole Board decisions and redirect appeals for an independent decision. I emphasise the critical need for the Government to fulfil their duty to protect citizens, rather than pursuing political gains or attempting to exert control over independent quasi-judicial entities.

The Government are right in recognising the gravity of the substantial challenges in parole, many of which, I am afraid, stem from 13 years of their own misrule, marked by systematic underfunding and undermining of our criminal justice system. We are devoted to upholding law and order, pledging to enhance the Parole Board’s effectiveness and to reinvest in our criminal justice system. We extend an invitation to the Government to align with our endeavours and aspire to foster improvements for victims and prisoners alike.

On the Government’s amendments, there are a lot of them. It is not always the case that the Government are willing to table substantive amendments in the House of Commons. I think it is the right thing to do, rather than keeping them until the Bill arrives in another place. Quite a few of the amendments represent the Government’s alignment with our previous amendments, so it would be churlish of me not to welcome them. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit!

[Kevin Brennan]

I know the hon. Gentleman is an expert on that subject.

New clauses 22 and 23 represent movement by the Government towards our long-standing campaign for a Hillsborough law. They introduce a statutory definition of “major incident” and “victims”, and legislate for a permanent advocate on the side of victims to speak to their best interests and the treatment they receive from public bodies. Ministers will be all too familiar with our commitment to bring in a Hillsborough law. We tabled new clause 14 to push the duty of candour, which we have already discussed.

I understand there is a possibility the House might divide on new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). The Conservatives’ failure to prevent illegal sewage leaks has led to a drastic increase in illegal discharges, trashing nature, damaging tourism and putting people’s health at risk. They promised us the affluent society; they gave us the effluent society. Labour believes that when Ofwat concludes that the water companies are inflicting the damage, the cost must be paid by the offending companies and not the taxpayer. The polluter should pay.

Finally, I want to refer to Jade’s law and the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside. His campaigning, along with Jade Ward’s family and the community, has been incredible; they have fought to ensure that no family endures what that family did ever again. My right hon. Friend stood by his constituents, who fought their campaign in an incredible and exemplary manner. It is welcome news that the Government will protect children where one parent murdered the other. I must state some disappointment that elements of the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge tabled in Committee were not carried over, too. None the less, it is a celebratory event for Jade Ward’s family and the community, and for my right hon. Friend. We should offer them our thanks and congratulations.

The Government have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a real change for victims. I urge them not to waste it. I hope they will support our amendments on that basis, and I hope they continue their trend in following in our footsteps.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s emergency early release scheme is meant to tackle a capacity crisis that is entirely of this Government’s making, and it excludes only serious violence. Surely domestic abuse and stalking are serious offences, yet they are not excluded from early release. What kind of signal does that give to victims, the public, and indeed perpetrators of violence against women and girls?

[Alex Chalk]

We are proud that under this Government sentences for offences such as rape have gone up by a third. We have a situation in which charges are up, the conviction rate is higher and sentences are longer—and, unlike under the Labour Government, people are spending a higher proportion of those sentences in custody. We think that is the right thing to do. To the hon. Member’s point, the exclusions in place go beyond what he indicated, so he is factually incorrect; they also include sex offences and terrorist offences. Here is a really important point: where the custodial authorities are satisfied that there is a specific risk, there is an opportunity to ensure that release is blocked. That is important, because we will always stand up for victims of crime.

[Kevin Brennan]

Argument weak? Go long and do not answer the question—the classic response from this Government. The truth is that without any Government announcement of a start date, prisons began releasing offenders over a month ago. These men are already walking our streets, but the Government will not tell us how many, or why they were behind bars in the first place. Why do the Government not believe that the public deserve to know who is being released back into the community when a court decided that they should be in prison?

[Alex Chalk]

We will make whatever appropriate announcements in due course; we will not demur from that. We will also not apologise for having, under this Government, a higher custodial population than before. We are taking robust steps to ensure that the public are protected, which means unashamedly that those who commit the most serious offences—those such as murder in the context of sexual or sadistic conduct—go to prison for the rest of their lives. Will the hon. Member support that? I wonder. We are also using the evidence so that those capable of rehabilitation are rehabilitated. One thing that we will not ever put at risk is the threat to women and girls. As the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), indicated, we have taken steps to ensure that victims of domestic abuse will be properly protected under the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Minister, Kevin Brennan. It will be quieter on the Back Benches but no doubt he will make up for it on the Front Bench.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I suspect the Minister might anticipate what I am going to ask him because I am beginning to think the Department should be renamed the Department for Justice Delayed. Labour proposed that we change the law on attending sentencing back in 2022, and just last month the Leader of the Opposition said that we were prepared to amend the relevant legislation if there was no action, so why is it taking so long for the Government to intervene on behalf of victims and their families?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and may I take the opportunity to welcome him to his place? I suspect there will occasionally be to-and-fros across this Chamber, but I hope there will also be opportunities, where we are in agreement, to work constructively together. We have been clear on our intention to bring forward appropriate legislation to reinforce the existing powers the judiciary has in this respect, but it is important that we get this right and that it builds in that degree of judicial discretion, because there may be some circumstances where victims would not wish to see the offender in court for sentencing because it would be deeply distressing or deeply disruptive. So it is important that we get this right. We are determined to do that, but we will work through the detail to make sure it is robust and effective.

Probation Service: Chief Inspector’s Reviews into Serious Further Offences

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He raised a number of points. In terms of link-ups, it is correct that we need to look outside the criminal justice system. One of the things I have outlined today is how we are now receiving intelligence not just on what people are convicted for or even formally accused of, but on child safeguarding issues, for example. We can do that only by working closely with children’s services and local authorities. More broadly, his point about linking up with education, youth provision and so on is well made.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I do not for one second doubt the Minister’s sincerity, but I do doubt the veracity of the Government’s position that they are doing everything in their power to ensure that this kind of tragedy can never happen again. Can he tell us whether, as we speak, there are any offenders out there who may have been categorised improperly, as happened in this case? Are there any of them walking around now with the capacity and the likelihood to commit that kind of horrendous crime?

[Damian Hinds]

We seek to ensure that the categorisation and risk assessment of every individual is as accurate as it can be. In truth, in humanity there is no neat high, medium and low distinction between different individuals. Those who have been relatively low risk can become relatively high risk. We see that with many people over time. I am focused on making sure that within the service, there is the facility, the information, the intelligence sharing and the joint working to make sure that people can make the best possible assessments of risk and that we have the most appropriate regimes in place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that there are ongoing proceedings, including in the civil courts, and the extradition proceedings may be subject to further appeals, so it would not be right for me to comment directly on that case. The SFO is superintended by the Law Officers. However, I undertake to talk to him about the general issues of concern that he properly raises.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

T4. The Secretary of State spoke earlier about pets being sold from garage forecourts. Just this week, on 10 September, the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff introduced a new regulation that makes it an offence to sell a puppy or kitten that the seller has not bred themselves. Crucially, it also requires the seller to have bred the puppy or kitten on the premises, which puts a stop to transportation of the type he condemned. Will he undertake to bring forward similar regulations?

[Robert Buckland]

I am always keen, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to make sure that the law in England and Wales is consistent. I will, of course, look carefully at that particular issue. The report is welcome as we particularly looked at a read-across to scrap metal and the way in which we banned cash payments there. The evidence is emerging, and we are gathering it as quickly as possible. We will do everything we can, consistent with an appropriate approach, to deal with this type of illegitimate trade in defenceless animals.

Sentencing White Paper

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Lord Chancellor knows that I will welcome the work being done on neurodivergent people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. May I encourage him not only to keep working with Autism Injustice, which was founded by some of my constituents, but to ensure that the Home Office is on board with this?

On death by dangerous driving, I remind the House that it was on 17 October 2017 that the now Foreign Secretary made a commitment to me to introduce the change that has now been announced in the White Paper, and I have been chasing him for the past three years to get on with it. I am glad that it is in the White Paper, but can we have that legislation as soon as possible? Grave injustice is still being suffered, including by the parents of my constituent Sophie Taylor, who was killed in a terrible case.

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman knows that his constituency is very familiar to me having been part of the criminal justice community in Cardiff for many years. I assure him that matters relating to causing death by dangerous driving will be introduced in a Bill in this Session, which means that we can get on with this important job.

On neurodivergence, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents for their tireless work. It is vital that their experience, and those of others like them, is not repeated time and again and that we actually learn from that experience and incorporate it into our mechanisms and make that change.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

My right hon. Friend leads me back to the serious core of this debate. It will be disastrous if we do not get it right on this important matter—the question how precisely the Bill sets out the timing of the departure that is going to take place.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I will in a second. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am trying to be brief.

I made this point once in an intervention, but it is an extremely serious matter. When the Government produced this technical Bill to stop the legal hiatus, they saw no reason to put any reference in it to our departure date from the Union. They had reason: there was no reason to put it in. Article 50, supported—despite my vote against—by a large majority of the House of Commons, sets the date of 29 March 2019, and the whole Bill proceeded on that basis. But in the past few days, partly in response to the new clause of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), the Government have suddenly produced the most precise amendments, tying down our departure to the second.

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, his new clause could easily have been defeated: the Labour party would have voted against it; I would have voted against it, for what it is worth; and the Scot nats and the Liberals would have voted against it. Even the Government trying to apply their Whips to get it carried—if they had been foolish enough to do so—would have had a job getting a majority for his new clause. So I do not think that it was fear of the right hon. Gentleman, despite his formidable oratory, that caused the Government to table their amendments. What has happened is that they tried to make a concession to the pro-Europeans—the more moderate Government Back Benchers—by conceding the obvious common sense that, when we get there, we will have to have a meaningful, lawful vote on whatever deal is produced and that we will have to have legislation to move to the final period. It is not a great concession.

With great respect, the Government have not quite got it right yet, as we discovered the other day. All these great processes could take place after we have already left, particularly if the Government’s amendments are passed, which increase that risk. But they made what might have been seen by some as a dreadful concession to—of all people—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). Shock! Horror! What kind of press would that produce; what kind of reaction from the fourth row below the Gangway behind me? So somebody was urged to bring something that could be thrown as a sop to the Foreign Secretary and the Environment Secretary, and produced this ridiculous Government amendment. But it is not just ridiculous and unnecessary; it could be positively harmful to the national interest.

[Kevin Brennan]

Despite what the right hon. and learned Gentleman just said, is not it fortunate that the Government have time to rethink this? It has already been made clear that the Government and the Opposition will oppose the new clause of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). The Government amendment on the matter will not be considered until the eighth day in Committee. Therefore, is not there ample time for the Government—without losing face—to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s good sense and withdraw their amendment before that time?

[Mr Clarke]

I will not try to emulate the hon. Gentleman’s eminently sensible advice. By the time the Government have to concede this point, which I trust they will, we will all have forgotten the slightly odd circumstances in which this amendment was produced. He sums up the situation.

It is quite unnecessary to close down our options as severely as we are with this amendment, when we do not know yet what will happen. It is perfectly possible, on all precedents, that there is a mutually beneficial European and British need to keep the negotiations going for a time longer to get them settled and not to fall into the problems this Bill was designed to address.

Dangerous Driving involving Death: Sentencing

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sentencing in cases of dangerous driving involving death.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your wise chairmanship as ever, Mr Hollobone. As hon. Members and the Minister will know, this debate is timely, given the publication on 16 October of the response to the Government’s consultation on maximum sentences for particular driving offences. Our debate today is inevitably and rightly informed by the changes that the Government announced yesterday, but like many other Members, I sought this debate in response to a case in my constituency in which the perpetrator was convicted after pleading guilty to causing death by dangerous driving. As a former Minister, I understand and sympathise with the fact that the Minister will not be able to comment on individual cases, but my aim is to use this tragic case as an example to question whether the current sentencing regime is fit for purpose, to discuss some of the Government’s proposals and changes, and to discuss how this case and ones like it need to lead to a change in policy.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I am sure that many will know of the sad case of four-year-old Violet-Grace Youens, who was killed this year and whose grandmother was left seriously injured when they were returning from their nursery. A stolen car crashed into them at 80 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone in St Helens. Two young men were in the car, one driving and one not. One of them ran past dying Violet-Grace laughing, making his getaway. The other posted a video from his prison cell celebrating his birthday; it depicts drug-taking and misbehaviour in prison. One will understand why Violet-Grace’s parents are deeply distressed and have no faith in our justice system. The boy who was celebrating his birthday received a 10-day extension to his sentence for posting the video. I have read these proposals with interest and welcome them, but please consider those who may not have been on drugs and drink at the time.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Obviously, that is a horrendous case and a great deal needs to be done on our prisons policy. It is not for us to debate that here today, but there is much to be done to improve the current state of affairs in our prisons, and I sympathise with her constituents and their families.

I want to talk about Sophie Taylor, a 22-year-old constituent of mine; she was a young woman in the prime of her life, with much to look forward to. She was described by her distraught mother, Jackie, as a loving and caring individual. I pay tribute to Jackie for somehow finding the strength to come and talk to me about the case, and to talk to the media about her horrific loss and her subsequent experience of the criminal justice and court system.

During the early hours of the morning of 22 August 2016, Sophie and her friend, Joshua Deguara, were chased through the streets of Cardiff by her ex-boyfriend, Michael Wheeler, and another driver. I will not comment on the case of the second driver, because elements of that case might still be sub judice, but I will focus on the actions and sentencing of Michael Wheeler, who entered a guilty plea and whose case is not subject to appeal.

During the chase, Sophie called 999 because she was scared and felt unsafe. She was on the phone, talking to an operator for 24 minutes. As that duration shows, the chase was a sustained and deliberate action by Mr Wheeler. During that time, his car reached speeds of up to 56 mph as he chased Sophie and Joshua into narrow residential streets. Then, he turned his car to the left into Sophie’s, causing her car to crash into a block of flats. The collision caused Sophie a catastrophic brain injury, which led to her death. Joshua suffered life-changing injuries, including a brain bleed, a shattered pelvis and an injury to his leg that has since led to its amputation. News reports stated that Mr Wheeler drove away after the crash before parking nearby, where he was arrested.

The judge who heard the case at Cardiff Crown court described what happened that night as

“nothing more than a pack chasing its prey”.

He added:

“You were trying to ram her off the road and you did”.

It is also worth noting that Sophie had made several reports to the police and visited the police station in the weeks leading up to her death about the problems she was experiencing with Mr Wheeler. The chase was an act of decisive, prolonged and co-ordinated aggression, and in my view, one which should have led to an even more serious charge than causing death by dangerous driving, but the judge was clear, saying

“you were consumed by a self-righteous and jealous rage, chasing her down to frighten her and teach her a lesson”.

We can only imagine Sophie’s family’s loss and the stress and torment that they have endured throughout the legal process. As I said, I met her mother, Jackie. Understandably, she is absolutely devastated by what happened, but she is equally determined to do what she can to prevent other families having to go through what her family has suffered.

As I said, I completely understand that the Minister cannot comment on individual cases. However, the details of the case that I have outlined are extremely pertinent in discussing the sentencing of cases of death by dangerous driving.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Members might know of an incident that happened in Penge last year, when two of my constituents, Makayah McDermott—a 10-year old boy and aspiring young actor—and his aunt, Rozanne Cooper, were killed when a stolen vehicle was travelling at 55 miles per hour in a residential area just opposite a playpark. That case is particularly close to my heart because I was at school with the mother of the boy and his aunt, both of whom died. Does my hon. Friend agree that the disparity between sentences for manslaughter and sentences for death by dangerous driving has long been unjust?

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes I do, as a matter of fact, and I extend my sympathies to my hon. Friend and her constituents in relation to that tragic case. The case I will try to develop in my argument is that it is not enough just to get parity of sentence. We need to look at what sentences are being handed out and why, and whether justice is being served by the system, whatever ultimate maximum tariff the Government decide is appropriate for this offence.

The details of this case are pertinent. As hon. Members know, the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving has been raised in recent years to 14 years in custody. I note that in its guidelines, the Sentencing Council characterises a level 1 conviction for causing death by dangerous driving as

“a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others.”

Given that Sophie was deliberately and persistently chased through the streets of Cardiff and forced off the road in a way that ultimately led to her death, it seems to me that a level 1 sentence would have to apply in this case. However, although the starting point for a level 1 conviction is eight years in custody, Wheeler was sentenced to seven and a half years, which is just over half the maximum sentence available. My constituent Jackie Taylor’s understanding is that the guidelines available to the judge did not allow for the maximum sentence to be given, despite the obvious aggressive and aggravating factors in this particular case.

The Justice Secretary said in reply to a letter that I sent to him about this case that the courts must follow sentencing guidelines

“unless it is not in the interest of justice to do so”.

That leads to an obvious question: how could it be in the interests of justice to opt for a shorter sentence in a case such as the one that I have outlined? The sentence following Sophie Taylor’s death poses questions about the current frequency and circumstances of use of the maximum sentence that are particularly timely, given the Government’s announcement that they intend to increase the maximum sentence from 14 years to life in cases of death by dangerous driving.

The first issue is how often the maximum sentence is used. In my previous correspondence on the matter with the Justice Secretary, I asked how many maximum sentences for causing death by dangerous driving had been handed out in recent years. I noted that the Government press release yesterday containing the announcement on the maximum sentence said that 157 people were sentenced in 2016 for causing death by dangerous driving. In his response to the question I asked in my letter, the Justice Secretary—it is not like him not to respond to my direct question—simply said that the maximum sentence was rarely used. When the Minister responds, can he give us that figure? I looked carefully at the Government’s press release to see whether it was there, but it was not.

I say gently to him that such sensitive matters should be carefully proofread. The final point of the notes to editors in the press release says:

“The government will give further consideration to increasing minimum driving bans for those convicted of causing serious death.”

I know that that is an error, but an error so crass is not really acceptable in something so sensitive.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is getting to the fundamental point. This week, Merseyside Road Safety Partnership announced a strategy to reduce road deaths dramatically by 2020, but I am sure he will agree that preventive measures are useful and good only if those who cause death by dangerous driving know that they will be dealt with harshly by the law.

[Kevin Brennan]

Justice should be served by the right sentence being given for the offence. There should also be an anticipation that offenders are likely to be caught and justice served upon them. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: if that is not clear, such offences will continue.

I hope that the Minister can at least give us that figure. The public are entitled to know. When my constituent, Jackie Taylor, read the Justice Secretary’s response, she said:

“I note that the right hon. David Lidington, CBE, MP mentions about the government in consultation on driving offences and penalties relating to causing death and serious injury, possibly increasing to life imprisonment. This will only deem as a deterrent, not deal with the offence committed. If 14 years has never been passed down to any individual for this charge, why would life imprisonment ever be used? If the Sentencing Council control what the judges can serve, and are recommending low guidelines in the criteria that the judges work with, then what difference would it make if it’s life?”

That is a reasonable question for my constituent, as a victim of this crime, to pose to the Government. I hope that the Minister can deal with it in his response to this debate.

Obviously, I am interested in how often the maximum sentence is given, as the Government’s consultation showed that 70% of respondents did not feel that the current maximum of 14 years was long enough. The Minister will understand that if the sentence of 14 years is hardly ever used, it raises the question how a new increased maximum would be used and why it was found to be necessary. Have the Government estimated how often they estimate the new maximum sentence is likely to be given, based on current experience and their consultation? Likewise, what effect does he think the new maximum will have on the average sentence for causing death by dangerous driving? If there is no answer to those questions, the obvious next question is what is the point of the proposed change.

In 2015, with a maximum sentence of 14 years, the average custodial sentence length was 57.1 months. Is it projected, as the Government anticipated, that that will increase in line with the new maximum? The second issue is the circumstances in which the maximum penalty is used. Maximum sentences and sentences of a similarly lengthy duration are rightly reserved for the most heinous crimes. I have outlined the horrible circumstances of my constituent’s death. Given that Wheeler was sentenced to just over half the maximum time in custody, the victim’s mother’s question is what someone would have to do for the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving to be available, if it was not available in this case. How will that change as the Government change the maximum sentence?

As I mentioned, my constituent understands that the sentencing guidelines prevented the judge from giving Wheeler the maximum sentence; indeed, it was reduced by six months from the eight-year starting point. Sophie’s mother is concerned about how the sentencing guidelines operate. What assessment has the Minister made of how accountable the Sentencing Council is? I know that it is independent, but it should still be accountable for how it draws up its guidelines.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

I will give way briefly, but I want to give the Minister a chance to respond.

[Alex Chalk]

The Sentencing Council does important and valuable work, but does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that in some of its guidelines—for the sake of argument, let us say assault occasioning actual bodily harm, for which the maximum is five years—the range that the Sentencing Council imposes for the most heinous offence stops well short of the maximum, effectively sending a steer to the judges that says, “Don’t ever sentence for the maximum”? Does he agree that that is a concern?

[Kevin Brennan]

I do, and I think that there are similar concerns in relation to the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. I do not advocate not having proper guidelines—we want consistency in sentencing—but it sometimes seems to victims that the sentence they are told the perpetrator is likely to get is a bit of a fiction, and that the tariff actually served is nothing like the maximum, even in a case such as the one I have discussed, in which there are horrific aggravating factors. Can the Minister address the questions posed by Sophie Taylor’s case about the frequency and circumstances in which a maximum sentence is given?

I want to make it clear that this is not about revenge; it is about justice. In the case that I am discussing, sentencing guidelines led to an outcome that outraged not only the victims’ families but the wider community. The Government need to be clearer about what they are doing to deter such crime. Knowing that a life sentence is a real possibility would be a start, as would increasing the likelihood of getting caught by funding the police properly; that is a vital part of it. The prospect that sentences could be increased on appeal when judges are too lenient is also important. I understand that out of 713 such requests in recent years, 136 have resulted in longer sentences, but not one has been for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.

Sophie Taylor’s death was a horrible tragedy. Nothing will relieve her family’s loss. However, the perception that justice was not done because the maximum sentence is unreachable adds another burden for them to bear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is right. I remember his tenacious campaign on that subject from my early days as a Justice Minister. As well as empowering the courts, the change sends a message that will have an effect, right through the system, on the raw power available to a sentencing court. It will have a knock-on effect on the Sentencing Council and its ability to assess and consider whether further guidelines need to be provided. At the appeal level, there is also the ULS scheme.

In the time available, I will address the other key proposals. The second proposal is to raise the maximum penalty for the separate offence of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. We recognise that although the driving in such cases may not amount to dangerous driving, the overall seriousness of the offence is the same, because of the combination of careless driving and the irresponsible decision to get behind the wheel under the influence of drink or drugs. Again, for the worst cases, we propose that the maximum sentence be life imprisonment.

Our third proposal will close a gap in the law. At the moment, if a driver who is driving carelessly injures another road user, passenger or pedestrian, the maximum penalty is a fine, even if the incident results in the victim being left with serious, debilitating or permanent injuries. The case that particularly struck me was that of Sophie Wilkinson, who was left in a coma with a life-changing set of injuries after a horror crash in 2007. We need the criminal law to cover careless driving that results in such severe harm and injury, so we will introduce a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. That offence will carry a custodial penalty and will sit alongside the existing offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

Those are the three key areas of reform that we plan to implement as soon as parliamentary time allows. We will incorporate any further changes that emerge from the review of cycling safety announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport last month, so that we have a consistent overarching framework for sentencing people who kill or cause serious injury on our roads. I am grateful for the time and effort that so many people, including the hon. Member for Cardiff West and the campaigning families, put into their responses to the consultation. No punishment in these cases can make up for the loss of a loved one, but we can make sure that justice is properly done.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister says that three sentences longer than 10 years have been imposed in the last couple of years, but he did not say that the maximum 14-year sentence had been used. I hope he wants to signal that that maximum sentence should be used more frequently.

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As we develop these proposals, I look forward to working with him and other hon. Members across the House. It is the very least that the victims and their families deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors: Property Act Receiverships

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the regulatory role of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Law of Property Act receiverships.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hollobone. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is the professional body that accredits some 125,000 professionals in the land, property and construction sectors worldwide. The RICS banner slogan is “Confidence through professional standards”, and a mission statement proudly announces:

“We regulate and promote the profession, maintain the highest educational and professional standards, protect clients and consumers via a strict code of ethics, and provide impartial advice and guidance.”

That statement embodies the key principle that although a professional body has responsibilities to its members, such as setting standards, training and interpretation of legislation, its overriding responsibility is to the public at large—its members’ clients and customers—to provide assurance and confidence that RICS members are behaving entirely professionally to those third parties.

Self-regulation, which is what that represents, leads RICS to its immediate conflict of interest. On the one hand, it represents the interests of members, who fund the organisation; on the other hand, it has an overriding responsibility to the public at large. The issue becomes how RICS manages that conflict and whether RICS is achieving the appropriate balance in judging the actions of its members. That is the crux of what today’s debate is about.

RICS, naturally, claims that everything is in order. On its website it states:

“We assure competence and enhance our professionals’ status by providing confidence to consumers and markets”,

and:

“We are proud of our reputation and we guard it fiercely, so clients who work with an RICS registered professional can have confidence in the quality and ethics of the services they receive.”

No self-regulator will ever say otherwise, but the question is whether RICS is delivering on that commitment in practice. Unfortunately, in the experience of my constituent Mr Shabir and many others, the answer is emphatically no.

RICS has entirely misdirected itself in Mr Shabir’s case and should issue a revised decision that accords with RICS’s mission statement and the facts of his case. A further concern to me is that public pronouncements by RICS, specifically those made to the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), seem wholly virtuous and bear no relationship to RICS’s interpretation of its own standards when it responds to complaints such as those of Mr Shabir.

Turning to the Law of Property Act 1925, it is unfortunate that although the LPA or the relevant mortgage deed provides for a lender to appoint a receiver, section 109(2) of the Act defines the receiver as the “agent” of the borrower. That creates an immediate conflict, since a bank or other lender, when faced with claims of unreasonable behaviour on behalf of the receiver whom it has appointed and whose remuneration it has agreed, will shelter behind the fact that the receiver acts as the agent of the borrower. Most commentators acknowledge, however, that that is not the reality. The receiver’s first and often only loyalty is to his appointer, and the impecuniosity of the borrower, often as a consequence of the very actions of the bank or other lender, will deny the borrower the ability to defend himself. In such circumstances—for example, when a RICS member is acting in, or in association with, a receivership capacity—it is essential for RICS to set the bar for acceptable behaviour at the very highest possible standard.

On 16 September 2015, I led a debate in Westminster Hall about the case of Mr Shabir and that of Alun Richards, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore). I will not repeat the details of the case, but in summary, as a consequence of the financial crash in 2007-08, Lloyds bank took the opportunity to reassess its relationship with customers who were borrowing large sums of money at low rates of interest above base. Those customers were known as fine margin customers. Faced with the significantly increased costs of funds in the money markets, Lloyds sought to improve its position by eliminating fine margin customers from its portfolio. The mechanism to achieve that was systematic down-valuation of a customer’s property in order to engineer a shortfall in the key loan-to-value ratio. Once that term was breached, Lloyds could pass the customer in question to the Bristol recoveries department—from which it was confirmed there was no escape—and resist all proposals for restructuring.

The Bristol recoveries department was in effect the graveyard of Lloyds, because no business came out of it alive. It has become infamous as the centre of the malpractice and it has dealt with cases from all over the country. Once a business was with the recoveries department, receivers were appointed. They then eliminated the customer and met Lloyds’s objective. Any shortfall for Lloyds was met by the Government under the taxpayer bailout arrangement. To add credibility to that manoeuvre, Lloyds needed the support of a professional firm with apparent independence and full RICS endorsement. In Mr Shabir’s case the firm was Alder King, which had at one time been owned by Lloyds. The advantages to Alder King were all too obvious: a significant source of extremely profitable consultancy and receivership work, much of which was unnecessary and would not normally have arisen were it not for the position that had been artificially created.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I give her my full support. What she is presenting is the tip of the iceberg. I cannot name a constituent of mine in a similar case because he wishes to remain anonymous, owing to confidentiality agreements negotiated around the malpractice. Suffice to say, he is a victim of exactly the same kind of malpractice by Lloyds as she is describing.

[Jo Stevens]

My hon. Friend is right. We have the names of people who have been affected, but many cannot identify themselves because of gagging agreements in the settlement of disputes.

As far as Mr Shabir and others similarly affected are concerned, the Lloyds manoeuvre was not simply an esoteric exercise. The practices employed have destroyed perfectly viable businesses and sources of livelihood for their owners—Mr Shabir had a business worth about £10 million. Recognition of such practices is widespread, including in the Tomlinson report and the financial press, and there is much sympathy for those who have suffered financial loss. Redress, however, remains elusive, not least as a consequence of the prohibitive cost of litigation. This really is a David against Goliath situation.

At a time when RICS’s support might be decisive, it remains in denial about the malpractice that lies at the heart of this matter. What, therefore, was the malpractice? Mr Jonathan Miles, a partner in Alder King, was embedded in the Lloyds recovery department in Bristol. He was given a Lloyds email address, telephone and business card, and his true identity as a partner in Alder King was concealed. Mr Julian Smith, another Alder King partner, was not only instructed to do the valuation of Mr Shabir’s business—in reality, the down-valuation by Lloyds—but appointed receiver over his property. Mr Smith had significant involvement with Lloyds and he, too, was provided with a Lloyds email address and had access to confidential customer data. Disturbingly, RICS has confirmed that during that whole period Mr Smith was on a part-time secondment to Lloyds. That is about as obvious a conflict of interest as we will ever see. Mr Smith was acting as judge, jury and executioner.

The terms of those involvements—in particular Mr Miles’s full-time secondment, which lasted several years—were to act in an executive capacity within Lloyds. The relevant financial arrangements have never been disclosed, which raises doubts about whether they even existed. In that executive capacity, Mr Miles was threatening customers, making receivership appointments to his own firm and signing property sale completion documents as a senior authorised Lloyds official. The valuations produced by Alder King were up to 50% less than comparable valuations produced by valuers with a national profile. Furthermore, once appointed, Mr Smith acted in blatant disregard of Mr Shabir’s interests. Mr Shabir has been left with arrears of rates, service charges and utilities’ services, some of which have become the subject of county court judgments against him. An attempt was even made by Alder King to sell one property from Mr Shabir’s portfolio to Mr Julian Smith’s personal assistant at Alder King.

It goes without saying that each of those matters appears to raise serious concerns when placed in the context of RICS’s literature and professional standards. Naturally, therefore, Mr Shabir made a complaint to RICS. That was on 29 June 2011. It drew an extraordinarily disappointing response, which contained a list of reasons for doing nothing and, in particular, a denial that the issue had anything to do with ethics and conduct. A second approach in July 2011 did not even attract the courtesy of a response, and a further approach in April 2014 led to completely inconclusive dialogue for five months. RICS finally agreed to receive a formal presentation on 13 November 2014, but although all the complaints that had been given in were evidenced, three months passed, and in February 2015 RICS concluded in a letter to Mr Shabir that

“there is no evidence of misconduct by Alder King or the members in question”.

The letter also added that the matter could be referred to an independent reviewer—appointed by RICS—to review RICS’s procedures, but not the actual decision.

As might be expected, the issue of conflict of interest features widely in professional standards literature published by RICS. Doing something that secures an unreasonable pecuniary advantage to the detriment of others is so obviously irregular that there is not even any reference to it in that literature. On 4 March 2015, RICS’s public position was defined by Ms Eve Salomon, then chair of RICS Regulation, in evidence to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West, during an inquiry into the regulation and policies of the insolvency sector. Ms Salomon said in her evidence, in response to questions 20 and 21, that

“secondment…is subject to an arm’s-length contractual agreement between the secondee and his or her firm and the employing organisation.”

She went on to say that

“where somebody might be a secondee in a bank…and then subsequently…is appointed as a fixed-charge receiver, that could potentially raise issues of conflicts of interest, but those matters are dealt with by professional codes”.

She also said:

“If we found evidence that, say, a secondee had given advice on the expectation that the matter would be leading into receivership and that that particular chartered surveyor would be appointed as a receiver, then we would see problems.”

Ms Salomon’s colleague at RICS, Mr Graham Stockey, added:

“At that stage, provided it is at arm’s length and the contract that is set up clearly limits the involvement of the secondee, the conflict could be managed. We look very closely at what the terms of the contract would be and what the terms of the appointment are, and it is up to the firm to be able to show RICS Regulation that there is no conflict. This is something that we look at really closely.”

His comments were endorsed in the evidence session by Mr Julian Healey, who is the chief executive of NARA—the Association of Property and Fixed Charge Receivers. In response to question 19, he said:

“Yes, there is conflict between a fixed-charge receiver going into a bank and advising on matters and then saying, ‘I have identified this as a distressed property. What a good idea. I’”—

or my firm—

“‘shall now go and act as fixed-charge receiver’.”

Those comments were also endorsed by Mr Phillip Sykes of R3, who said in response to question 85 that it would represent an unacceptable conflict of interest if that secondee individual or his firm

“was then to go on and take the insolvency appointment…In my experience, certainly, the banks take enormous care to ensure that if a secondee is working on a particular case then their firm will have no part in any enforcement proceedings.”

From reading that evidence, which was given publicly, it is particularly disappointing that when I wrote to the director of regulation at RICS, Mr Luay al-Khatib, on 15 December last year, he sought to explain away Ms Salomon’s comments to the Select Committee as being

“of a general nature to assist the Committee and not comments made in relation to Mr Shabir’s case”.

It is of fundamental concern to me that Mr al-Khatib declares himself to be satisfied with the decision that RICS made when he knows that there are no agreements governing the terms of secondments that have lasted for five years, that the secondments were without charge to the bank, that there was no escape from the recoveries department—the excuse offered by RICS that there was no certainty of a receivership appointment following Alder King’s advice or valuations is therefore simply nonsense—that the issue of under-valuation has not been addressed and that there was no tendering for receivership work, as cases on which Mr Miles worked were invariably passed to Alder King.

Having attempted since late 2015 to get Lloyds, Alder King and RICS each to meet with me and my constituent to address the issues I raised in my debate in September 2015, I have come to the conclusion that RICS is failing to deliver an acceptable level of regulation. Worse than that, it is doggedly maintaining in its public pronouncements that it is subscribing to the highest possible principles and standards, whereas in reality it is condoning practices that are untenable and universally condemned by other professional bodies. Whatever the reasons for its actions, be they the extent of the practices, the importance of the members concerned, compensation considerations or others, RICS is completely undermining a principal basis for its existence, namely the maintenance of public confidence in a professional body. I recognise that LPA relationships bring their own difficulties, but on the evidence of Mr Shabir and others who have been affected by practices similar to those I have outlined, regulation has failed in the one area where it was most needed.

In March 2017, RICS published on its website a professional statement entitled “Conflicts of Interests”, together with some commentary notes. Obviously there is merit in refreshing professional standards from time to time, but the problem is that RICS is not using its statements or standards when dealing with members who are in breach of those standards. At a meeting held here in Parliament on 15 March 2017, the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner, Mr Anthony Stansfeld, who was responsible for the prosecution of the now convicted bankers behind the HBOS fraud, stated that in his opinion the board of Lloyds bank, which owns HBOS, had been well aware of the fraud since 2009, despite persistently denying it for many years. And here we are again, in my constituent’s case and that of many other small and medium-sized enterprises, dealing with the same Lloyds board, the same owners of HBOS and the same set of individuals: the chairman, Lord Blackwell, and the chief executive, António Horta-Osório.

Mr Shabir’s case has clear parallels with the Reading fraud case. It involves fraudulent activity and then a cover-up. The former chairman of Lloyds, Sir Win Bischoff, wrote to Mr Shabir’s former Welsh Assembly Member on 14 October 2010, completely refuting the allegation that the receivership had been mishandled and specifically saying that there had been no conflict of interest. But he then went on to say that Alder King was Lloyds’s preferred firm of professionals in the south-west. That statement is in itself conflicting. How can the guarantee of receivership work sit alongside Alder King secondments to Lloyds? We know that it sat alongside them very comfortably, because I have a letter from Alder King’s Julian Smith, dated 21 December 2009, to his Alder King boss Jonathan Miles, at his Lloyds bank address, thanking Mr Miles for appointing him as receiver. Sir Win was also sent the letter, but declined to respond. I also have a letter dated 22 May 2014, written by the then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Vince Cable, confirming that he had met Lloyd’s chief executive, Mr Horta-Osório, and discussed Mr Shabir’s case. The chief executive told him that he had “looked into the matter personally”. So the chair and the chief executive of Lloyds knew what was going on and did nothing. That sounds very familiar.

Lloyds has effectively opened up its bank vaults and allowed Alder King to walk right in and help itself. Meanwhile, RICS, supposedly keeping watch, ensures that Alder King has a clean getaway. The financial incentive for Lloyds and Alder King to cover up the fraud is clear, but this dereliction of regulatory duty by RICS, in the face of the most blatant conflict of interest, makes RICS complicit in the fraud itself.

I ask the Minister to address three matters in his response. If RICS is to retain its role in the sector, it should establish which, if any, of its member firms are on bank or lending institution panels and have secondment agreements operating with those lenders. If there are member firms that have such a relationship, does the Minister agree that that should be confirmed in writing to all associated parties before any involvement by those firms in potential receivership cases? Does he agree that RICS must immediately establish with its members, such as Alder King, a system of financial redress for victims of this fraudulent malpractice, including Mr Shabir and other SME owners? The victims should not have to put themselves through the stress and expense of litigation where there is no equality of arms. Since Lloyds has had the principal financial interest in cases such as Mr Shabir’s—Lloyds is still part taxpayer-owned—and has been pulling the strings of RICS members, it should be required to be the major party to that system of financial redress.

The past few weeks have not been good PR for the banking industry, and particularly not for Lloyds. The Reading fraud convictions, the subsequent announcement of yet another £100 million compensation scheme and the launch of a new independent lawyer’s investigation have all made headline news. The scope of that investigation covers the role of three successive chairmen at Lloyds—Bischoff, Blackwell and the chief executive, Mr Horta-Osório—all of whom denied knowledge of the Reading fraud case until it got to court. We know from the release of a leaked internal Lloyds document that those executives knew of the fraud—they even referred to it as fraud—as far back as 2009. Mr Shabir has received the same stonewalling from the same set of individuals.

I conclude by reiterating that banks, regulators and specifically RICS need to clean up their act to restore public confidence and trust. They need to offer full and immediate redress to the victims of their malpractice. The issue is not going to go away, even despite today’s announcement of a general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone? I will do my very best to keep within the time limit you have outlined.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) on her doggedness and determination in continually bringing this issue to Parliament and on the lucid and forensic way in which she outlined the issues. I would find it difficult to elaborate in any way on the details of the cases that she has brought to the notice of Members in this and the previous debate.

I also compliment Mr Shabir and—although he is not mentioned in this debate—Mr Richards from the Ogmore constituency, who suffered a similar situation, for their doggedness and resilience in ensuring that this has been brought to the notice of parliamentarians and that the issues are examined in public. Their experience would have defeated lesser people and they deserve commendation for the way that they have campaigned.

As my hon. Friend said, the issues arising from the evidence were examined by the former Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills. Unfortunately, the hearing was just before the 2015 general election. Although we took the evidence, we never had the chance to make recommendations. However, the answers that my hon. Friend has referred to from that meeting quite clearly illustrate the vast gap between the public rhetoric of these bodies and the private reality of how they operate. Anybody hearing the particular case studies can only be astounded that a professional body, and representatives of that body, could have acted in such a way, and that there does not appear to have been any legal redress for the way in which they acted, or compensation for the victims of their actions. The wide consensus of opinion about the awfulness of the actions and the terribleness of the experience that the individuals have gone through—let us be clear: it is reflected by many other small businessmen and women up and down the country—raises matters of huge concern.

I would like to highlight one or two issues that the Government must address, the first of which is the gap that seems to exist in the Serious Fraud Office’s threshold for investigation of fraudulent activity. I will not repeat the words of the Solicitor General in the previous debate, but he basically said that investigation was reserved for high-profile and serious cases of fraud and was limited to companies such as GlaxoSmithKline, Tesco and Rolls-Royce. It would appear that we have a Government body that is prepared to act on behalf of big business but not small business.

The Solicitor General went on to say that ActionFraud had been established to ensure reporting. I have looked at ActionFraud; it reminds me a bit of the ill-fated cones hotline that existed in the 1990s, because someone can report something, but absolutely nothing will happen. If anything can happen, that is not made clear to anyone who makes a report.

[Kevin Brennan]

“Inaction Fraud”.

[Mr Bailey]

Absolutely.

In conclusion, the issues are of such seriousness, and the way in which the professional organisation has responded to them so inadequate, that the Government must look at some sort of intermediate implementation of action against fraud, to help small as well as big businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lee]

Of course, in a difficult situation where all of someone’s funds have been exhausted, I recognise that litigation would be a problem. It would not be appropriate for me as a Minister to comment on an individual case, but I hear what the hon. Lady says and will take away her suggestions.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister mentioned Cardiff West, which is my constituency; my hon. Friend’s constituency is Cardiff Central. The point is not that we are discussing an individual case but that Members are trying to describe a systemic problem that exists in all our constituencies across the country. In many cases, as I outlined, constituents are unable to reveal in full in public what they have been through because of confidentiality agreements. As a Minister, does he not see the need for the Government to consider action along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) as a result of the systemic concern that Members are expressing?

[Dr Lee]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In the particular case that the hon. Member for Cardiff Central raised, a series of investigations have not uncovered any wrongdoing. The Government are listening in terms of the problem vis-à-vis small, medium and larger enterprises that other Members raised, and we will be taking that away, but as things stand, we have found no evidence of anything untoward being done by any of these organisations.

Private law actions are one type of remedy, but they do not preclude the question of whether there should also be regulation of other kinds. Receivership is not specifically regulated. It is not subject to insolvency regulation. Receivers are, however, generally members of professional organisations with regulatory functions, and they will be subject to the regulatory rules applied by their professional body.

Most receivers are likely to be members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. RICS was established by royal charter in 1868 and is independent of Government. To protect consumers and to maintain and develop the standing of the profession at home and internationally, RICS sets professional standards for its members and takes disciplinary action against them for breaches of its rules. RICS’s regulatory regime is governed by an independent regulatory board, which has a majority of non-surveyor members. RICS has recently announced new rules to deal with conflicts of interest that will be introduced early next year. Other receivers belong to the Insolvency Practitioners Association, which also has regulatory powers.

Over the years, RICS and the IPA have both responded to concerns that there are general issues that need to be addressed in the field of receivership. In 1999, they entered into a memorandum of understanding relating to a voluntary registration scheme for receivers to provide a system of voluntary regulation against agreed standards. The memorandum was updated in 2012 and 2015.

Some 200 receivers are also members of the Association of Property and Fixed Charge Receivers, also known as the Non-Administrative Receivers Association. It is a relatively recently formed body. It aims to represent the interests of receivers and to promote better standards. Unlike RICS and the IPA, it is not a regulatory body. NARA, RICS and the IPA are jointly reviewing the professional practice standards underpinning the work of their members as receivers. The review is expected to include a public consultation, which will consider the degree of independence required from the lender and the borrower in receivership appointments. The new scheme should strengthen the self-regulatory regime.

Receivers are appointed only where a lender has concerns about the value of its loan. The borrower may not agree with the lender’s action, but should have been aware of the possibility that a receiver might be appointed in certain circumstances from the outset. One of the potential problems is that the receiver may face a conflict of interest. Conflicts arise in many areas of professional practice and are generally successfully dealt with in sensible and proportionate ways. Sometimes professional businesses have to turn down business opportunities because they are conflicted and the conflict cannot otherwise properly be managed. Sometimes of course the right action is not taken and legal and regulatory action may follow against those who got it wrong.

The hon. Member for Cardiff Central has identified cases where things may have gone wrong. I am not in a position to say whether there were unacceptable or improperly managed conflicts of interest that ought not to have been permitted to occur in Mr Shabir’s case. That is a matter for the courts and the appropriate authorities in the light of the law and relevant regulatory rules. We should also remember when considering Mr Shabir’s case and others like it that receivership has existed for many years and has during that time presumably worked well in many cases. The independent regulation of receivers through their professional bodies is also long-established and is subject to ongoing review with the objective of improving standards and better protecting consumers.

A number of points were made by hon. Members during the debate. I will respond to them as best I can, but insolvency, financial services regulation and the professional regulation of surveyors are not matters for which the Ministry of Justice is responsible. I will, however, ensure that the points raised on those topics by the hon. Member for Cardiff Central and other hon. Members during our debate are passed on to the appropriate Departments.

The hon. Member for Cardiff Central asked whether RICS has been doing its job. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has investigated the allegations made by Mr Shabir and has not found evidence of misconduct. It has also offered to speak with the hon. Lady to discuss her concerns, but says that it cannot reopen its investigation without new evidence. The Serious Fraud Office carried out an investigation and decided there was insufficient evidence to meet its criteria for prosecution.

The hon. Lady also asked why the Government have not acted against Lloyds. The Government believe that financial service providers must be properly regulated, but the case for more or different regulation must be made before the present system is changed. The Financial Conduct Authority is considering matters relevant to the regulation of the provision of financial services to small and medium-sized enterprises. The Government will consider the FCA report when it is published. It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment further while the process is ongoing.

The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) asked a question about wider economic and regulatory issues. I will refer all the questions regarding the working of the economy to the Treasury for consideration. The FCA is still working on the issues raised in the Tomlinson report. As I have said already, it would not be appropriate to anticipate its investigations and the report.

In conclusion, I acknowledge the vigour and tenacity with which the hon. Member for Cardiff Central has campaigned on behalf of Mr Shabir and others. I appreciate the concerns she has raised and the very difficult situations that have been created for her constituent and others by the financial crisis of 2008-09. I cannot intervene in specific cases or commit the Government to any particular action to change the legal or regulatory framework relating to receivers. I can, however, promise that the Ministry of Justice will continue to keep the issues for which it is responsible relating to receivers under review and pass on concerns raised to other Government Departments as necessary.