Exiting the European Union (Mediation)

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Across Parliament and throughout the legal sector, there is serious concern that the Government’s inadequate planning for justice co-operation after Brexit puts the most vulnerable people in our society at risk. The Chair of the Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee took the step of writing to the Secretary of State in October to criticise his lack of planning and warned:

“The government needs to wake up to the reality of what having no answers on family justice will mean after Brexit.”

Many people are concerned that the Government’s failure to secure agreement on a form of continued participation in the European arrest warrant will leave us less safe.

We currently benefit from a well-established, frequently updated and comprehensive set of reciprocal justice arrangements with the EU. These cover everything from disputes over child custody to medical negligence abroad. As a recent House of Lords European Union Committee report states, these specific EU regulations provide “certainty, predictability and clarity”. Without an agreement with our European partners on what the future of those reciprocal arrangements looks like after we leave the EU, people who are forced to go to court or mediation to protect their rights could face extremely damaging consequences. Whatever claims the Minister makes about the secondary legislation that the Tories are bringing in, the Opposition need to see concrete action, not words, to defend rights, because we simply do not trust the Government to protect working people’s rights.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

The shadow Minister puts a lot of store in comments made by various House of Lords Sub-Committees on this statutory instrument. Will he tell us whether the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments raised any objections to it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

9. What steps the Government are taking to ensure that measures in the victims strategy, the forthcoming violence against women and girls strategy and domestic abuse Bill are aligned.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

22. What steps the Government are taking to ensure that measures in the victim strategy, the forthcoming violence against women and girls strategy and domestic abuse Bill are aligned.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)]

The victims strategy is the first time that we have looked in such detail and in such a joined-up way at how we treat victims of crime. The strategy provides the vision for the Government’s approach to victims. The Government’s violence against women and girls strategy refresh and draft domestic abuse Bill have been developed with this vision in mind, and have been designed to sit within the framework of the wider victims strategy. The Bill is a joint Home Office and MOJ Bill, with close ministerial and official-level working to ensure close alignment.

[Edward Argar]

Building on the answer that I gave to the shadow Minister, I hear what my hon. Friend says and I know his work in this area and his commitment on the issue. I am very happy to look at the points that he raises. It is a draft Bill and I very much hope that he will consider putting his views to us in that process.

[Mike Wood]

For many victims of domestic violence and coercive control, like my constituent Chloe, and for their families, the process of giving evidence and preparing for trial adds to the pain of the original abuse. What is the Minister doing to support vulnerable witnesses, including victims of domestic abuse?

[Edward Argar]

We are determined to improve the family justice response to vulnerable witnesses, including people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent Chloe and victims of domestic abuse. Family judges have a range of powers to make sure that difficult courtroom situations are handled sensitively. In particular, we are looking to give the courts a specific power to prevent perpetrators of certain offences, including domestic abuse, from cross-examining their victims in person. We will also give the courts the power, in certain circumstances, to appoint a lawyer to conduct cross-examination on the preventive party’s behalf.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Mike Wood Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

My hon. Friend is right. Britain is the leading country in the European Union when it comes to insurance. The top 10 insurers are based in London, and I celebrate this international market.

Of course, the insurance industry is very critical of the Conservative party for introducing and increasing the insurance premium tax, so any suggestion that this party does everything the insurance industry would like us to do is not backed up by our decisions.

It is undoubtedly the case that our cars are now much safer and that design and technology mean that injuries should not be as prevalent as we are seeing. We have also seen the growth of claims management companies, which have driven and fuelled claims. Sometimes we see such industries moving on from one sector to take advantage of another—holiday insurance is a good example; the claims management companies have already moved into that sphere. Equally, I would like to see more done with technology to address the ability of such companies to contact me and my constituents directly. People register with BT in order not to receive unsolicited calls, yet such calls still come through regularly. I hope that the technology will eventually keep pace and close down such calls.

I have made my points more than once, and I absolutely support the Bill. Although I can see that the Opposition’s intentions are good, if the amendment were accepted, it would drive a coach and horses through the very intention of this Bill, which is to reduce premiums for all our constituents and to make it easier for them to manage and live their lives.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Although I originally studied law and was called to the Bar, I never practised, so I hope I may speak in the debate without being tied to any particular interest. This debate is increasingly showing a division between those on the side of personal injury practitioners, and those on the side of the overwhelming majority of our constituents who face the costs arising from an ever-escalating number of claims, of escalating value, for relatively minor injuries. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) was right to draw the House’s attention to the remarks of the former Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw. If my memory serves correctly, he told The Law Society Gazette that he was in favour of banning compensation for soft tissue injury altogether. Clearly the Bill does not go anywhere near as far as that.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

So a former Labour Lord Chancellor suggested that he would ban this compensation entirely. What on earth possessed him to suggest that as a policy?

[Mike Wood]

Reading through The Law Society Gazette, I see that Jack Straw’s actual comment was:

“Whiplash is an innovation of fertile legal minds which has no real foundation in medical knowledge. Everybody knows the vast majority of whiplash claims are completely unjustified. I support any measures to eliminate soft-tissue injuries.”

I understand that he was referring to compensation for soft tissue injuries, rather than eliminating the injuries altogether.

Hon. Members have spoken about the apparent paradox when we have the long-term reduction in the number of road traffic accidents, the increasing safety of more of the cars on the road and the long-term reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries as a result of road traffic accidents, and yet the number of personal injury claims for whiplash and other minor injuries having increased significantly—it has gone up by 30% in 12 years. That enormous statistical increase cannot be dismissed as coincidental.

It has been suggested that the idea of a compensation culture is more about perception than reality, but how many of us have not had regular phone calls inviting us to claim for an accident that we have not had, encouraging us with the idea that a fortune was surely around the corner if only we referred the case to the firm that was ringing us up. I have no problem with solicitors—some of my best friends are solicitors, as they say. Indeed, many years ago my wife worked with one of the country’s leading personal injury solicitors’ firms, mostly doing administration on road traffic accident claims. But we need to look at the state we are now in. All the empirical evidence suggests that the initial intentions behind addressing no-win, no-fee claims for personal injuries have generated a spiralling increase in claims that are not the result of pecuniary loss—they are about not loss of earnings or quantifiable losses, but a figure being placed on pain, suffering and loss of amenity.

Previous studies have suggested that, contrary to what others have been saying, the amounts awarded by courts in England and Wales are significantly higher than those awarded in most other European jurisdictions for personal injury claims. When there is a serious injury, especially if the effects are permanent or long-lasting, or even if it results in disability, clearly no one disputes that it is right that there is compensation, especially for the loss of opportunity and amenity caused by that injury. However, shorter-term soft-tissue injuries do not really fall within that category. That is why it is proportionate for the Bill to introduce a tariff that sets out the amounts payable for certain categories of minor, non-permanent injuries.

[Bambos Charalambous]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under the criminal injuries compensation scheme—one of the Government’s own schemes—a person can get £1,000 for a criminal injury of whiplash? Under these tariffs, however, someone would get £470 for the same injury, except it would not have been the result of a criminal event.

[Mike Wood]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but there is clearly a distinction between being the victim of crime and being involved in an accident, even a road traffic accident.

[Rory Stewart]

rose—

[Mike Wood]

Of course I give way to the Minister.

[Rory Stewart]

Does my hon. Friend agree that these discrepancies already exist, because the criminal injuries compensation scheme is, in fact, already an example of a tariff-based system? As those discrepancies have existed since 1962, nothing in the Bill changes their basic nature.

[Mike Wood]

The Minister, as ever, speaks straight to the point that bringing this system in line with the criminal injuries compensation scheme is actually making parallel systems more consistent, and it is entirely logical that they should operate on similar tariff-based systems. One of the flaws in the current system is that, as the Judicial College is setting its guidelines, the awards it uses for deciding the amounts in the guidelines are not the overall amounts that are payable in the event of a road traffic accident leading to personal injury, but are based on the awards made by the court in the relatively small proportion of claims that proceed to trial and are then adjudicated by a judge. The system does not consider the very large number of claims that are settled at an earlier date when the figure would tend to be lower.

Clearly, cases that proceed to full trial are more likely to be the more complex ones. This has the effect of institutionalising an inflationary element within the guidelines as they are reviewed, because the review is only ever based on those types of claim that actually end up being the higher awards anyway. It can only ever lead to an increasing amount. The impact of that falls clearly on our constituents. We rightly insist on mandatory motor insurance. As hon. Members have said, motor insurance premiums increase rapidly. One reason why they increase rapidly is that there has recently been a large increase in the average amounts paid out for personal injury claims. If we fail to take this sensible action, those amounts can only increase, and we can expect premiums to continue to increase at around 10% annually, quickly putting them out of reach.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend is making this point. What is his view on whether the Lord Chancellor should be setting the tariff? Does that not bolster what my hon. Friend suggests—that there is a role for the Government in trying to keep insurance premium costs low?

[Mike Wood]

Absolutely. Although I tend to argue for a slightly slimmer role for the Government, I do think that there is a place for them in this regard. When we insist on mandatory motor insurance, there is a clear role for the Government in ensuring that pressures on the price of that mandatory insurance are kept under control as much as possible. Having the Lord Chancellor’s oversight of the tariffs is one way in which we can ensure that the people who are already struggling with the escalating costs of motor insurance do not see them taken even further out of reach.

There is a clear risk of a serious moral hazard when it comes to escalating motor insurance. The more that premiums increase, the greater the risk—the greater the temptation, we might say—for some people to take the chance illegally to fail to take out motor insurance and to drive on our roads uninsured, with everything that that implies for safety and for coverage of third parties. Given the current high levels of motor insurance premiums, research suggests that around a quarter of 18 to 24-year-olds have been tempted to try to make savings by not taking out or not renewing their motor insurance policy—driving without insurance. Surely that number can only increase if the cost of motor insurance becomes ever more expensive and increases by far more than inflation or incomes.

As the real cost of motor insurance spirals, more people will be tempted to take the risk of driving without insurance, and young people are more vulnerable to this by far because their premiums are already so much higher. Such behaviour puts other people’s safety at risk and leaves them in an even more difficult situation in the event that they need to make a claim. The number of claims against uninsured drivers increased significantly last year.

The measures in the Bill are designed to keep insurance premiums under control, which is essential if we are to have a functioning motor insurance system. That is why I am not able to support the amendment, why I shall be supporting the Bill, and why I believe that the tariff system for minor injuries is absolutely necessary and must be retained in this legislation.

[Alex Chalk]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood).

Whether we sit on the Government Benches or the Opposition Benches, the first thing that hon. Members have to recognise is that we do have a problem in this country; of that there can be no doubt. Other hon. Members have mentioned the statistics, but they bear repeating. In 2005-2006, there were 460,000 or so road traffic accident-related personal injury claims. Just a decade later, that number had soared by 40-odd per cent. to 650,000. There must be concern that the circumstances exist in our country to create an unnecessarily fertile ground for spurious and unfounded claims. What are those circumstances? They include the fact that instead of challenging whether a whiplash claim is dishonest or otherwise unfounded, insurers will take a commercial decision to pay out, because that will be in their interest. As other Members have indicated, the effect of that is that ordinary people living on modest incomes are finding themselves having to pay more for their car insurance than would otherwise be the case.

It is a great mistake to say, as some do, that a car is a luxury—to say, “You don’t need your car; alternative transport methods should be satisfactory.” For plenty of my constituents, that simply is not the case. We currently have a big issue in Cheltenham with the closure of Boots Corner, a key arterial route through the town. One argument made by those who favour closing off the road is that people can get around on bikes. That might be okay for some people, but for plenty of my constituents—including nurses, people ferrying around their children, and people with disabilities—it is not. We have a duty in this House, wherever we stand, to drive down the costs of living for hard-working people and their families.

We have to be clear on what the legislation is not about. A lot of the points made by Opposition Members are motivated by the best of intentions. I have served on the Justice Committee with several Opposition Members, and they have shown great distinction—if I may be so bold—and argued vigorously and passionately for the principle of access to justice and on employment tribunal fees, to which the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) referred. But that is not what this legislation is about. It is important not to set up straw men to knock down. Were this debate about LASPO, access to justice and ensuring that people could get early legal advice and assistance, I would have an awful lot more sympathy, but in fact is far more restricted, calibrated and proportionate.

First, this debate and the provisions in the Bill are not about people who sustain whiplash injuries and whose pain, suffering and loss of amenity last beyond two years. If they do last for longer than two years, the case of course falls outwith the tariff system. Secondly, this debate is not about special damages. Let us consider a run-of-the-mill case in which somebody is involved in an accident, makes a whiplash claim because they have a sore neck, spends time off work and incurs taxi fees going to and from the doctor and various other fees. Such special damages would not be subject to any kind of tariff and could be claimed in the normal way. In other words, if someone was off work for, say, nine months, the mere fact that their general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity had been capped would not in any way preclude them from seeking the full extent of their special damages. That is why it is important to draw a distinction.

Victims Strategy

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Crime is significantly lower than it was in the mid-1990s, but there has been a change in the pattern and the nature of it. The increases in crime have been in what many people would regard as the more serious types of crime, particularly violent crimes. Much of our criminal justice system is understandably and rightly focused on the perpetrators of crime: on how we can prevent people from being drawn into a life of crime by tackling some of the root causes that make them more susceptible to it, or, on the penal side of the criminal justice system, in dealing with sentencing, public protection and making sure that those people cannot cause serious damage. We need to make sure that that is not done at the expense of neglecting those who suffer most directly from such crimes: the direct victims of crime.

Many of the changes in the pattern and nature of crime in our communities have consequences for the experience of victims. We need to ensure that how the Government and society treat and support our victims through the process changes to reflect their own changing experiences. In my constituency, over the past year we have seen over 1,500 violent crimes recorded. Worryingly, that is a massive 30% increase on the previous year. Each of those violent crimes clearly has a direct victim, many of whom will need support. All will need consideration of how the criminal justice system proceeds in dealing with the compilation of evidence, prosecution, and, where appropriate, conviction and punishment of those responsible for those crimes.

As my hon. Friend the Minister said, huge progress has been made in recent years. When I was studying law in the mid-1990s, victims were, if anything, an afterthought in the whole system. When I was training for the Bar, the way that barristers and legal representatives were to approach victims was not even covered in the vocational training. The whole system seemed to assume that victims were little more than onlookers, with no more stake in proceedings than any other member of society.

I certainly welcome the enormous progress that has been made, particularly over the past 12 years, starting with the introduction of the victims code. It is right that we pay tribute to the work done by previous Governments to introduce the Victims’ Commissioner, who has done some extremely important work to ensure that victims’ interests are considered within Government and more widely. More recently, police and crime commissioners up and down the country have put the rights and interests of victims at the heart of their work, ensuring that they are a priority in local policing. The best PCCs ensure that is a key part of their focus, beyond what most people probably associate with their core work.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, but I am also concerned that the number of victims applying to civil courts to try to get non-molestation orders against abusive partners or ex-partners seems to be on the increase. I hope that we will be taking action to try to stop that, because sometimes it costs people up to £10,000 to get an ex-partner off their back.

[Mike Wood]

I am sure that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend’s point, which I agree with. Of course, some of the legislation going through the House is relevant to that point, whether the legislation relating to the Government’s domestic violence strategy or private Members’ Bills, such as the Stalking Protection Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). They will allow the criminal justice system to ensure that perpetrators are stopped before their crimes, which are directed largely at women but also at men, escalate to something more serious.

Although much progress has been made in recent years—and we all recognise that the £200 million being spent on supporting victims is a considerable amount of money—I am sure that we all have examples from our constituencies of victims being let down by the system. One of the most upsetting cases that I have dealt with recently involved a young woman in my constituency. The charges for the crimes that she was the victim of covered a range of serious offences, including sexual offences and false imprisonment. Her statement included evidence of very coercive behaviour, domestic violence and assault. Yet her experience of our criminal justice system was simply not good enough.

After an arrest was made, the communication from the police was certainly not good enough, but it got worse as the cases progressed. At the initial bail hearing there was little or no communication from the police or the Crown Prosecution Service. The family understand that the CPS did not contest the bail hearing, despite the very serious offences involved, but they still do not understand how or why that decision was made. The suspect was released on bail and continued to live in the local area. Although bail conditions were of course imposed, the police offered no reassurances on how the victim could be protected pending trial.

The accused was re-arrested after an incident and an application was made to vary the bail conditions, but that hearing was missed because, as far as we can ascertain, they were taken to the wrong court on the day of the hearing after a weekend in a police cell. Having missed the hearing, the accused was re-released on the existing bail conditions. We can only imagine how that affected the victim and her family. It is simply not good enough.

Perhaps more worryingly, the victim and her family have constantly been told that it would be better if she did not have any counselling, therapy or help to deal with these traumatic experiences until the trial concluded, in case it influenced the evidence. A victim may have to wait 15 or 18 months before the case comes to trial, and all that time without proper support is extremely damaging. Even with the best psychiatric support, therapy and counselling, and any other services that the state, the third sector or anyone else can offer, it is difficult to see how that damage could be repaired at a later stage.

[Sarah Champion]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point about the suggestion that victims should not have counselling before going to court. I have heard about that a lot recently, from both the police and the CPS. Is that something the Minister could look into, because there are appropriate types of counselling that would not disrupt people’s recollection, and they are being denied that support?

[Mike Wood]

I hope that can be considered. Clearly nobody wants to endanger a fair trial, or to give another reason to cast doubt on credible evidence. The circumstances of a lot of domestic violence and serious sexual offences mean that the evidence available is often not as concrete as it might be for other types of crime. We really do need to ensure that victims receive both the service they deserve and the support they so desperately need. This strategy is an important first step in making sure that is the case. I have referred to only one example from my constituency, although it is a particularly distressing one, but I am sure that there are very few Members, if any, who have not encountered something similar in their own constituency casework.

I welcome the strategy that the Minister introduced today, and particularly the plans for a victims Bill. It is so important that we look to place on a statutory footing the strengthening of those rights already provided in the code and of the powers that the Victims’ Commissioner has to ensure that victims’ rights are protected within Government and outside, to ensure that victims and their families have access to information—the right to be informed—and the right to be properly involved. Clearly, this does need to be done on a cross-Government basis, as it does not all fall within a single Department.

The crime survey of England and Wales suggests that one fifth of adults will be the victims of crime this year in some form. The strategy is an important step in making sure that those victims who have already suffered from crime are not made to suffer again through the process that follows that crime.

HMP Birmingham

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

This is a good challenge. Birmingham was challenged, and we were focused on that situation. That is why we had put in notices to improve, why we had negotiated to bring in a new governor and why we had put in a new team. A judgment had to be made as to the point at which we decided that G4S did not have the capacity to turn things around on its own and we had to step in. I think we were correct in taking a number of steps before we formally stepped in, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to challenge whether we could have done this a little earlier or a little later. That, in the end, was the judgment call we had to make.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

How many prisons have triggered urgent notifications since the system was introduced at the end of last year? How does that number break down between privately managed prisons and those run by the public sector?

[Rory Stewart]

The inspector has clarified that so far this year the prisons that have triggered urgent notification have been Exeter and Nottingham, and that he would have triggered a UN on Liverpool. Birmingham is the fourth, so the answer is: three out of the four since the beginning of this year have been from the public sector.

Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill

Mike Wood Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 6th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Prison serves many functions and purposes: to punish, to reform, but also to protect wider society. That protection relies on being able to restrict and prevent criminal activities in order to break up the existing networks and ensure that the crimes and offences for which prisoners are in jail cannot continue while they remain there.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) pointed out, technological advances have meant that mobile phones—effectively pocket computers—can be used almost as a mobile office. Almost wherever the user is, with anything more than a minimal signal they can continue with many activities. Of course, for most of us, those are perfectly professional and positive activities. Sadly, in too many of our prisons, the use of illicit phones is rather less positive.

An intrinsic feature of a custodial sentence is deprivation of liberty, part of which is the limitation of the rights and freedoms that those of us in society would normally expect to be able to exercise. Those who are in prison should not necessarily be able to expect the same connections and privileges enjoyed by those outside.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to allow mobile phone network providers to disrupt the use of unlawful mobile phones in prisons. We have heard about the large increase in the scale of the problem, with the number of mobile phones doubling in barely three years. That sharp increase is not due to some deficiency or inadequacy in the existing legislation—particularly the 2012 Act, which lays an important and valuable basis for prison governors’ powers. Instead, it is the use by criminals, prisoners and offenders of technology that is evolving at a rate that legislation sometimes struggles to keep up with.

The Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), will help to address the gap in the powers that may be used by those who keep us safe. We must be clear that the illicit use of mobile phones undermines the safety and security of prisons, prison staff and other prisoners, and it increasingly allows prisoners to carry on organising and co-ordinating serious and, at times, violent crimes that take place outside prison, in the community.

Other action is being taken to tackle the issue of mobile phones in prisons. As we have heard, the number of phones confiscated has risen. Some £2 million has been invested in detection equipment, including handheld detectors and portable detection devices, and all prisons in England and Wales are being equipped with technology to strengthen searching and security, including portable detection poles that can be deployed at fixed points around entrances and visitor areas. Other new technology is being tested to tackle the threat posed by contraband smuggled into prisons, which includes illicit mobile phones as well as weapons, drugs and a whole range of items and materials that, for very good reasons, are excluded from our prisons.

These are important powers. One thing that I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes or the Minister will clarify is the impact of the Bill on prison governors and whether any additional obligations and burdens might fall upon them as a result of these powers to allow mobile phone operators to take action. The Bill is a tool that can be deployed to disrupt communications that undermine the security of our prisons. We can improve the safety of prisons and take a step towards minimising criminal activity. If that is achieved, this legislation will have played an enormous role in helping to keep our prisons and wider society safe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, Sheerman-horning!

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

9. What progress the Government have made on improving the safety of prison officers.

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

14. What progress the Government have made on improving the safety of prison officers.

[Mike Wood]

Despite the number of assaults on prison officers, very few offenders are prosecuted. Will the Minister ensure that anyone who attacks an on-duty prison officer faces the full weight of the law and can expect the punishments that those crimes would attract elsewhere?

[Rory Stewart]

Absolutely, and this was debated in this House when we discussed that private Member’s Bill. At the moment, people are getting a sentence of 22 weeks for spitting at a police officer, but it is rare for such prosecutions to be brought for assaulting a prison officer. We therefore wish to work closely with our colleagues in the police to make sure that prosecutions are brought and that prison officers are properly protected. I have been talking to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service to ensure that we can get more police officers into prisons.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the effect of prisoners participating in sporting activities on improving rehabilitation rates.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

14. What assessment he has made of the effect of prisoners participating in sporting activities on improving rehabilitation rates.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)]

There is strong evidence that physical education and sport improve the wellbeing and motivation of those in custody and ex-offenders in the community. Both improve their prospects of successful resettlement.

[Mike Wood]

Team sports promote the values of hard work, accountability and team work. Does the Minister agree that these are exactly the values we should seek to instil in offenders, particularly young offenders, to cut the risk of reoffending and give them a better chance in life after release?

[Dr Lee]

Yes, I do. I hope that every Member would agree. I have commissioned Professor Rosie Meek of Royal Holloway to compile a report on the impact of sport on offenders in custody and in the community so that I can get a complete picture of what I think are the positive benefits. I look forward to her report being published in the new year.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Mike Wood Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Just as for other sons and daughters of emergency service workers, the Bill has a particular resonance for me. In the nearly 30 years that my father served with West Midlands police, he suffered various injuries. Some resulted from accidents in the line of work, but too many were the result of physical assaults: being hit around the head with a stool in a central Birmingham bar, being pulled off a police motorbike and hooligans trying to pull him off a police horse during a football riot. There were too many other incidents that he saw first-hand, such as the Handsworth riots. He saw rioters assaulting the paramedics, ambulance workers and firefighters who were trying to save lives and put out fires right in the middle of the riot zone.

Sadly, as we all know—as I certainly know, not only from the patrols on which I have joined my local police, but from the emails that I have received from serving emergency workers—such assaults happen far too regularly. The emergency workers at whom the Bill is aimed choose to wear their uniforms. They dedicate their careers to putting other people first, and we must ensure that the Bill puts them first. It is precisely because we need the Bill to succeed in its aim of ensuring that these particularly appalling crimes attract suitably strong punishments that we must also ensure that the perpetrators are charged effectively.

Adam Aston, a Dudley Labour councillor, has served as a paramedic for 13 years. He tells me that he has been assaulted twice during that time, and that on neither occasion did the Crown Prosecution Service choose to press charges. If the Bill is to be effective, we must ensure that this is not simply another offence for which the Crown Prosecution Service will not prosecute.

I hope that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and the Minister will work together on both prosecuting and sentencing guidelines. Our public sector workers regularly put themselves between us and danger, and we, as legislators, must ensure that we put the law firmly on their side.

Birmingham Pub Bombings: Legal Aid

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

As I have indicated, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are looking at the best way forward. We want to learn the lessons from Hillsborough and regard the report being prepared by Bishop Jones as an important part of that. The issue is not so much whether the funding is through the legal aid fund or through a Hillsborough-type approach as the fact that the families should be represented if the case requires. That is the system we are trying to create.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I have about half a second, but I will, quickly.

[Mike Wood]

Does the Minister recognise that the basic test of fairness for the families is that they all need access to representation and that that representation needs to be at the same level as that of other parties in the inquest?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Yes, and it is important—