Animal Cruelty: Sentencing

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sentencing for animal cruelty.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank all colleagues who have come to discuss this important issue, and I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Justice for his time. I hope that he and his officials will listen carefully to this debate and realise that there is an animal abuse crisis in this country, and that it is in their power to do something about it. I hope that on the back of this debate, they will work with me before my private Member’s Bill to increase sentencing for animal cruelty is debated on 24 February next year.

The origins of my interest in the issue of animal cruelty go back to March this year, when a horrific case of abuse emerged in my constituency. Andrew Frankish, aged 22, and his brother Daniel Frankish, aged 19, from Redcar were convicted of causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal. On several mobile phone clips filmed by the younger man, Andrew is shown picking up a bulldog at the top of some wooden stairs before repeatedly throwing her down them. On one occasion, he lifts her high over his head. Inspectors from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said that the footage was the most distressing that they had ever seen. The video is widely available on the internet.

I hope, Mr Hollobone, that you will allow me to quote at some length the RSPCA inspector who dealt with the case, because it is important to get the full picture. RSPCA inspector Gemma Lynch said that Baby the bulldog, who was put down three months later after losing the use of her back legs, was

“totally submissive throughout, not even making a noise when she lands on the stairs, bouncing to the foot of them where there is a baby gate which she crashes into before hitting the ground. Frankish is saying things like ‘one, two, three’ before hurling her down them. He is clearly enjoying himself. He’s laughing and smiling. The whole horrible ordeal seems to be for his and the younger man’s entertainment, for fun. One clip shows him stamping on her neck repeatedly at the bottom of the stairs, then picking her up and throwing her to the ground with force over and over again. He’s laughing hysterically.

Another clip shows him standing on Baby’s chest with his full body weight at the top of the stairs, before jumping up and down on her. This is the only time you hear her make a noise, and she is crying throughout. The younger man says, ‘See if we can make it scream any more. We should throw it down the stairs by its ears’, before Frankish picks her up against the wall and head-butts her twice, then throws her down the stairs again. Everyone who has seen the video says it’s the most distressing thing they’ve ever seen. These are people who have seen a lot of horrible things.”

The two men pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to Baby the bulldog by subjecting her to unnecessary physical violence, an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. What sentence did those two brothers receive for such unspeakable and horrific acts? A suspended sentence, six months’ tagged curfew between the hours of 8 pm and 6 am and £300 in costs. No one can feel that the justice system did its job that day.

What makes the situation even more concerning is that the case only came to light, two years after the abuse took place, because the mobile phone footage was on a memory card found on a supermarket floor by a member of the public. It makes me wonder how much abuse is taking place behind closed doors across the country, against defenceless animals who cannot speak up and who depend on their owners for food, comfort and a life of love and care, free from abuse or neglect.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this crucial debate. Everyone is sickened to hear what she just described. All too often, such individuals are abusing not just animals but vulnerable adults and children; there is a huge amount of evidence showing that link. While considering sentencing, should we not also be considering putting these—words fail me to describe the disgust I feel for them—individuals on a register for potential abuse of humans as well?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is right. In my discussions with the RSPCA and others, one issue that has come to light is that people can be banned for life from keeping an animal, but we have no way to enforce it at the moment. A register is potentially an important idea, and one that I hope the Government will consider as part of the discussion and debate on my Bill.

On researching how the two brothers could have received such an impossibly lenient sentence for a vicious, premeditated assault, I was astonished to find that the maximum sentence for any form of animal abuse is just six months’ custody. Incredibly, it has not changed since the Protection of Animals Act 1911. In 1911, one could see animals at circuses and monkeys on the shoulders of organ grinders on street corners; the Act was introduced essentially to make it an offence to override or overload animals pulling loads on the street.

Under the last Labour Government, the issue was meant to be dealt with by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which made provision to increase sentencing for a person found guilty of such offences to be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding £20,000. Incredibly, however, the provision to increase prison sentences was never enacted, so people who inflict cruelty on animals or make them fight for money can currently receive a maximum of only six months’ imprisonment should the magistrate deem a custodial sentence suitable. The public rightly find that hard to understand or accept as appropriate.

Since the incident of the Frankish brothers came to my attention, I decided to try to amend the law to ensure that sentences fit the crime. Just days after I applied for this debate, another two incidents in my constituency brought the issue back to the news agenda. A small dog was found buried alive in woods near Redcar on 19 October, with a nail hammered into its head. I am unable to discuss the case in more detail due to an ongoing criminal investigation, but on the same day, two sheep were found battered with a blunt instrument.

The people of my constituency have been horrified by all these cases, and it is important to pay tribute to their response. After hearing of the Frankish brothers incident and that of Scamp, the dog who was found with a nail in his head, they held vigils for the animals, with hundreds of people coming to lay flowers and candles and send two messages loudly and defiantly. First, the perpetrators do not represent our community. People in Redcar are decent and kind. I know many passionate animal lovers, and I meet some wonderful dog owners as I walk my own dog on Redcar beach or the Eston hills. Secondly, they are angry. They feel that the criminal justice system is letting them down. The police were called to the defence of one of the Frankish brothers after they were threatened. I do not condone such violence, but I fear greatly that that is what happens when the criminal justice system fails and people do not believe that a sentence fits a crime.

On researching my Bill, I was shocked by the number of horrific cases I came across. I read of a dismembered cat left on a war memorial, strangled cats, a deer with a tree branch forced up its backside and a McDonald’s bag over its head, a flock of 20 ducks strangled with cable around their necks and boiling liquid poured on a puppy. Just last week, a Shetland pony was found dead near Sunderland, its body slashed and its bottom lip, mane and genitals cut off. The list of horrific attacks goes on and on.

The RSPCA receives and investigates thousands of complaints about cruelty to animals each year. For example, it received 143,004 complaints in 2015, and 1,781 people were successfully prosecuted. Of the convictions in 2015, 50% were for cruelty offences under section 4 of the 2006 Act and 1.8% were for fighting offences under section 8. The latter acts of cruelty are some of the most extreme. For all cases, current punishments do not appear to fit the crime. During the last five years, the maximum fine imposed on anyone prosecuted by the RSPCA under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was just £15,000, representing £2,500 for each of six offences. The courts often take the position that unless someone can repay a fine and costs incurred within a reasonable period, there is no point imposing large fines. That suggests to me that the focus should be on prison sentences.

I urge those who think that the crime of abusing defenceless animals is worth less serious attention than abusing people to look at the evidence, predominantly from the United States but also more recently from Europe, showing connections between the two. A 2001 to 2004 study by the Chicago police department

“revealed a startling propensity for offenders charged with crimes against animals to commit other violent offences toward human victims.”

Of those arrested for animal crimes, 65% had been arrested for battery against another person. Of the 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents. Of seven school shootings that took place across the United States between 1997 and 2001, all involved boys who had previously committed acts of animal cruelty.

Because abusers target the powerless, crimes against animals, spouses, children, and the elderly often go hand in hand. Children who abuse animals may be repeating a lesson learned at home. Like their parents, they are reacting to anger or frustration with violence. Their violence is directed at the only individual in the family who is more vulnerable than they are—an animal. Professor Frank Ascione of the University of Denver graduate school of social work says:

“The research is pretty clear that there are connections between animal abuse and domestic violence and child abuse.”

According to a six-year gold-standard study conducted in 11 metropolitan cities in the US, pet abuse is one of four predictors of domestic partner violence. In both domestic violence and child abuse situations, abusers may manipulate and control their human victims through threatened or actual violence against family pets. Researchers have found that between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet. Another study found that in families under supervision for the physical abuse of their children, pet abuse was concurrent in 88% of the families.

In the UK, a new academic study—the first of its kind in Europe—by researchers at Teesside University has also identified a link between animal abuse and domestic violence. The study of young people in eastern Europe found that violence breeds violence. Adolescent males who had experienced domestic violence either showed displaced aggression against animals or progressed to committing violence against family members. The findings point towards a worrying cycle of abuse in society if violence is not addressed or properly challenged.

I return to sentencing, and some comparisons with our devolved colleagues. In its recent review of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the Northern Ireland Assembly increased the maximum penalty on summary conviction for the offences of causing unnecessary suffering and animal fighting to 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding £20,000, or both. The maximum prison sentence for those found guilty on indictment was increased from two years to five years. It should be noted that Northern Ireland is currently the only part of the UK that provides for more serious animal welfare offences to be tried in a Crown court. Up in Scotland, the Scottish Government have recently committed to reviewing penalties under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. If we look around the world, we can see that the maximum penalty for animal cruelty in Australia is five years and in Germany it is three years; six months here in the UK seems comparatively paltry, especially when we call ourselves a nation of animal lovers.

In addition to the examples from our colleagues in the devolved nations, there is a precedent for tougher sentencing in other UK legislation on the treatment of animals. Under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, a person can go to prison for three years if their dog injures a guide dog. In 2015, the Law Commission’s review of wildlife law recommended two years’ imprisonment for cruelty towards wildlife.

It should of course be noted that in 2015, all fines for animal welfare offences that were previously set at level 5 on the standard scale—including those at or above the equivalent level—were increased to unlimited fines. Nevertheless, fines are clearly not working. The fact still stands that under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the sentence for an offence under section 4 on unnecessary suffering, section 8 on animal fighting, and section 9 on the duty of the person responsible for the animal to ensure welfare, is imprisonment for up to just six months. The lack of sentencing available to the courts severely blunts the Act as the existing jail terms are far too low to deter offenders, especially if we consider the fact that reductions can be given for early guilty pleas and the possibility of suspended rather than custodial sentences.

Such woefully inadequate sentences must be addressed if they are to be punishments that fit the cruelty inflicted on animals. My private Member’s Bill, which will have its Second Reading in February, will seek to increase the custodial sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years, in line with the recent changes in Northern Ireland. If we are to continue declaring ourselves a nation of animal lovers, it is about time we showed it by sending out the message that we take animal cruelty seriously.

I thank the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs Home and the League Against Cruel Sports for their support for my Bill. I place on record my particular thanks to the staff at the RSPCA, who do a fantastic job dealing with some horrific cases and some situations that require real bravery. I commend them for the cases that they bring to conviction, such as that of the Frankish brothers. It is vital that we have their unique expertise to bring such cases to justice, and they deserve to see the sentencing process support their efforts.

Finally, I want to say a word about Baby the bulldog and the dog named Scamp. We will probably never know the full level of cruelty and torture these silent and defenceless animals endured. We can only begin to imagine the pain they experienced and the fear they felt. We cannot undo the suffering that man has done to them, but we can show each other that that kind of cruelty has no place in our communities, and that such depraved behaviour will face the punishment that it deserves. I am grateful for having been able to introduce this debate. I urge the Minister to put right the injustice by supporting my Bill in February.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Thank you very much for dividing up the time; I shall try to ensure that I keep my speech below five minutes.

I thank the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) not only for introducing her Bill but for securing this debate. Whatever political party one comes from, what is going on is just abhorrent. The major issue, on which I hope we will hear more from the Minister, is the fact that however horrendous the crime, the maximum sentence that can be awarded is six months’ imprisonment. If the perpetrator pleads guilty, they automatically get two months knocked off that sentence, so they often serve around four months for the most horrendous crimes.

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady that if someone can string up a dog, cat or any other animal and beat it to death or kick it downstairs, or whatever the other horrendous things that have been happening are, it will not be too long before they can do that to a human. The Americans and others are linking things up and creating a register of those who have committed animal welfare crimes, and that would be a good way forward for this country.

[Robert Flello]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that as well as going on a register, those individuals should be reported to local social services, which should look carefully at their family environments?

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and yes, they should. Some individuals will be just completely and utterly cruel and base; perhaps others will be challenged in some way and so not necessarily able to understand all they are doing. It is a combination of all those things. There needs to be a link with social services, but we also need to send a message not only to those who are blatantly cruel but to those taking part in dog fights and keeping dogs for that purpose. There is a criminal element out there. Sometimes, making money from inflicting animal cruelty can be an easy way of making some sort of a horrible living.

We are talking about sentient beings. Animals feel pain. Many of us present will have animals of our own. At home we have both a dog and a cat, and I have had many other animals in my time as a farmer. When someone has an animal, they are its protector. Animals cannot protect themselves, so they are very much in our care. They give us much love, and then what do we do? Individuals treat them so dreadfully and they cannot protect themselves. It is just absolutely horrendous. We need to ensure that we send the right message to everyone out there that if they are going to abuse an animal and beat it to death, they will get a sentence of at least five years, if not longer. That would ensure that we at least send out the message that animal abuse is absolutely wrong and that perpetrators will go to prison, and it would prevent others from going down the same route.

I do not wish to say anything further because there are others who wish to speak, but I ask the Minister to please deal with this problem seriously, as they have done in Northern Ireland. Let us be clear and put up the sentences massively.

I pay tribute to the RSPCA, Battersea dogs home, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and many other charities that do some marvellous work in trying to make sure that our animals are protected and looked after properly.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I apologise for my ever so slightly late arrival, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) on securing it. She is otherwise known nowadays as Detective Turley—but that is another matter.

I pay tribute to the animal welfare charities that have worked tirelessly to raise the profile of the seriousness of animal cruelty in this country: Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross, Cats Protection—not often mentioned in this context—and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I think that every Member who has spoken has outlined articulately that it is cruel and unacceptable in a civilised society that people should be able to get away with behaviour such as we are discussing. The briefing prepared by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home for the debate points out that a 2005 report observed that

“between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet.”

I do not think that will surprise anyone in the room, and it further illustrates some of the points that have been made.

The change in the law demanded by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar is long overdue. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 made a provision for increased sentencing, but it has never been implemented. We need to see it implemented now, and at the level recommended by hon. Members today—with a five-year maximum sentence for animal cruelty of the severest kind. That would send out a message that animal cruelty will not be tolerated in our society.

We like to think of ourselves as a country that is at the forefront of best practice when it comes to animal welfare—that we love our animals—but I am ashamed to say that we are way behind. Let us get in line with practice in Northern Ireland. The powerful contribution made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was really helpful because it illustrated another point: not only must we increase sentencing to the maximum available in Northern Ireland, but we need to remember that cultural change is required in our courts. The courts need to understand that implementation of the harsher sentencing guidelines will be required to make the change effective.

[Robert Flello]

Does my hon. Friend also think that it is important to send out a message about police animals? Police dogs are often attacked and sentencing is not appropriate, nor even is the definition of the offence. That needs to be looked at as well.

[Angela Smith]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and with others who have pointed out that a register of abusers would be an effective way forward. All those things are important.

I want to finish with a comment about the RSPCA. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar described brilliantly the work that the charity does, pointing to the statistics relating to its investigative work and its work to bring abusers to court and secure convictions. The RSPCA is the oldest animal welfare charity in the country, and no other charity does what it does. It is rooted in our history of tackling animal welfare abuse. It has a very good reputation and it has the expertise and experience not just to deliver the investigative work that we need to enforce the Animal Welfare Act effectively but the carry out the prosecuting aspects of its work. We need to think carefully, therefore, about the RSPCA’s role. In general, we need to support the charity and its continued work in bringing animal abusers to justice. Those who would attack the RSPCA’s role need to think carefully about the impact of what they are arguing for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. I have tried to stress that the Government are in listening mode on a number of proposals, but that is why there is not a register—we see that it is actually quite difficult in practice to check everyone who wants to rehome an animal. The point that was made about going on Gumtree and buying a pet is relevant here, and we will look at that as well.

[Robert Flello]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I want to allow Anna Turley time to sum up the debate. The Minister can take the intervention if he wants, but we are running out of time.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Robert Flello Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I would have liked to have intervened on his speech, because cases such as those of Nicklinson and Purdy, which he highlighted, are not covered by this Bill. Locked-in syndrome, in which the person is paralysed except for movement of the head and the eyes, has no six-month limit. This Bill applies to people who are terminally ill and will die anyway within a six-month period. Neither of the cases that the hon. and learned Gentleman highlighted falls into that category.

I met a neurologist earlier this week who told me of a skiing accident he had had. He said, “Of course, the one thing all we neurologists fear is locked-in syndrome,” and that was what he feared from his head injury. I told him, “But this Bill wouldn’t apply to you.” I asked him for how long people with locked-in syndrome can live. He replied, “30 or 40 years—that’s why we fear it.” What doctor can tell someone with locked-in syndrome, “You have six months”? They cannot.

One of the issues with the Bill that has really bothered me is the conflation of those illnesses, conditions and diseases it can cover and those it cannot. I have heard locked-in syndrome mentioned many times. Motor neurone disease is another illness on which a six-month time limit cannot be put. We always quote Stephen Hawking, who is an ambassador and is still alive many years later. Who would have put six months on his life at any time? People keep mentioning illnesses such as motor neurone disease and locked-in syndrome, but this Bill does not apply to them. We must not conflate them and what the Bill covers.

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

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

You have asked us to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to do so out of courtesy to my colleagues.

I oppose this Bill on two grounds. The first is that it asks us to cross a line in our attitude to life, which I believe as a decent society we should not cross. At the moment, our law strives to protect life. We regard murder as one of the worst crimes; we seek to deter people from suicide; we do not execute criminals. But if we cross the line, deciding that some lives are less valuable than others, we shall be opening ourselves up to a process that I think we would deeply regret.

Those who have said that this would require more legislation are, I believe, quite wrong. Our law works on case law and precedent, and it would undoubtedly be the case that people would go to court for equal treatment, to put their own cases—and gradually and insidiously the law would be extended. People need to look at what has happened in other jurisdictions—not just in Oregon, but in the Netherlands where assisted suicides have gone up by 60% over five years and where the law has been extended to include in the definition of “unbearable suffering” not only physical but mental suffering. It covers dementia and psychiatric conditions. In Belgium, the law covers children who cannot give consent. That is my first reason for opposing the Bill.

My second reason is that I think the Bill is badly drafted. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) asks us to allow those with six months or less left to live the option of assisted suicide. As has been made clear by many doctors, however, it is impossible to predict the length of time that someone will live. He says that lawyers decide this on the balance of probabilities. In criminal cases, though, the decision has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. What he offers in this Bill is a lower standard of proof for those who require assisted suicide than we allow to those charged with a criminal offence.

The Bill provides that people must have a settled intention. I ask how long does it have to be “settled” for? People with serious illnesses often go through periods of depression. Palliative care specialists know that people often request to die, but when their fears are addressed and their process towards death is discussed with them, it often changes their minds. It also has to be voluntary, but there is no safeguard against the insidious pressures that can be put on people to want to end their lives—fear of being a burden on their friends and family, for example. No two doctors can know what goes on beyond closed doors. We no longer have the family GPs who knew people and their families from birth. Doctors will simply not be able to tell. And the High Court having just 14 days is not sufficient to investigate the case properly.

[Robert Flello]

My hon. Friend will be aware that in Oregon, which is the example most cited, almost a quarter of all cases are seen by just three doctors—and they do not know anything about them.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Most of the lethal prescriptions in Oregon are written by a very small minority of participating doctors—something that we would want to investigate very closely if the same applied to prescribing in this country.

This Bill is not just about individual autonomy; it is asking us to take a decision that will have a profound effect on society.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have dispatched three quarters of my speech, and will try to keep to your time requirements. First, let me pick up on something that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said. He did not allow interventions, which was a shame because we could have teased this matter out. The cases he cited would not be covered by this Bill. The people would therefore still be going to Dignitas, and would still come across the desk of the DPP for decisions on whether to prosecute. Secondly, in the Oregon example, the drugs are issued to the people wishing to take them, but it is amateurs who are around when they are administered. I would love to have had a proper debate with him about this, but, sadly, time is against us.

Before I get into the detail of the arguments, it is important to highlight exactly what we are talking about with assisted suicide. Members can call it assisted death if they wish, but we should be specific. Not surprisingly, more than half the people polled think that assisted suicide involves no pain or discomfort. Well, assisted suicide can take two forms. The first, which this Bill says it advocates, is as follows. The person is given a powerful medication to stop them from being sick. That is because the barbiturates that are used to kill them are a powerful emetic. The urge to throw up is strong and can be distressing and uncomfortable. The barbiturates are then dissolved in a tumbler full of water and have to be drunk. It takes between one minute and 38 minutes until the person falls into a coma. In around 7% of cases, the person suffers from vomiting or spasms. In one in every 10 cases there can be problems with administering the barbiturates. In Oregon, it takes, on average, 25 minutes for the person to die. But the longest period before someone died was four days. In addition, in about 1% of cases, the person has woken up.

In the Netherlands, where an injection is administered to end life, it normally takes the form of thiopental or similar to put the patient to sleep followed by pancuronium, which is used to kill the person. Most terrifyingly of all, the person at this point is completely paralysed so cannot communicate if they are still awake or in distress. They then suffocate to death. How can either of those be described as a dignified death? That is not putting someone to sleep or easing their passing. It is wrong to say that it involves no pain or discomfort and it is not necessarily quick—it is up to an hour on average before the person dies.

I know that the people who are promoting this Bill are motivated by the desire to alleviate suffering and by compassion, and we have heard some very powerful speeches on both sides of the argument today. Of course we are all moved and saddened by what we hear and want to act with compassion, but that compassion is misguided if we think that by prematurely ending someone’s life, we are alleviating suffering. There are ways to alleviate physical, mental and emotional suffering and they are done extremely well in this country. We hear those in favour of helping someone to commit suicide say that they do not want themselves or their loved ones to die in pain, but that fear should galvanise us to ensure that there is good quality palliative care not just from hospices but from across the whole health and social care system. That does not exist at the moment, and the report in 2011 highlighted that.

What does the law say about suicide? The 1961 Suicide Act as amended said that it was no longer a crime to commit suicide, and that was for a very good reason. It is not because society now thinks that everyone should have the right to commit suicide, but because society rightly thinks that someone who has tried to commit suicide needs help and support, not criminal punishment. But the Act quickly goes on to make the point that if someone helps another to take their life, then that is tantamount to murder, punishable by sentence of up to 14 years. There is a very important caveat. As the law wants to ensure that people are kept safe, it imposes that threat of severe punishment, but at the same time it wants to be merciful, which is why the DPP will decide whether a case goes to court. That is an important point.

Let me conclude with a letter from Jane, one of my constituents. Her husband, Richard, was diagnosed with cancer in 2012. On 11 September 2013—two years ago today—he passed away. She said:

“I was able to care for him and the last few weeks we had together helped us to come to terms a little with the inevitable…At one stage because I was caring for him seven days a week, Richard began to feel he was a burden to everyone to which I assured him he was not a burden. I can understand totally where he was coming from. I think changing the law would place pressure on vulnerable people. Those who are elderly, disabled, sick or depressed could feel an obligation to agree to end their lives for fear of being a burden on others. From the bottom of my heart, Mr Flello, I would ask that you could be there…to oppose this piece of legislation.”

That is one constituent of mine. I know that others have written to me, asking me to support the Bill, but for Jane’s case, we cannot let it go through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Government’s position, as set out by Lord Faulks in the Second Reading debate on the predecessor Bill in the other place, is that

“any change in the law in this emotive area is an issue of individual conscience. In our view, it is rightly a matter for Parliament to decide rather than government policy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2014; Vol. 755, c. 919.]

No doubt the Minister will confirm that today. The Opposition also believe that it is a matter for individual conscience, and it is right therefore that Front-Bench comments have been constrained to allow the maximum number of Back-Bench contributions.

We have not yet had 85 speeches, let alone the 133 speeches over 10 hours the other place devoted to the subject last year, but the number and quality of speeches we have heard today leave no doubt that this is a matter of great weight and controversy. We reflect, as we should, the views of our constituents; like, I am sure, all Members, I have had hundreds of representations making a passionate and compelling case on both sides of the argument.

I warmly and sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) for bringing this issue before the House after 18 years. He has had something of a rollercoaster ride of defeat and victory over the last two elections and he could have chosen a less controversial and easier life. Instead, he is totting up his staffing budget to see whether he can afford the additional assistance to deal with his engorged postbag. His aim, in his own words, is to do better for dying people.

Let me also acknowledge the work of Lord Falconer, who chaired the Commission on Assisted Dying and piloted the predecessor Bill through Second Reading and into Committee in the Lords.

There are many, including some who have spoken today, for whom the principle of assisted dying or the slippery slope argument are the start and end of their consideration. The current Archbishop of Canterbury has said that we are crossing a “legal and moral Rubicon” today, but that side of the argument does not enjoy monopoly support even among archbishops. Lord Carey has said:

“Some people have said on the issue of compassion that actually pain is a noble thing, to bear pain and to say that we are suffering with you is, in my view, a very poor argument indeed.

There is nothing noble about excruciating pain and I think we need as a nation to give people the right to decide their own fate.”

Many Members have expressed concern as to the role of the medical profession, saying that there would be a fundamental change in the doctor-patient relationship. Indeed that is an important consideration, but I equally take on board the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who says there is currently an inconsistency in the law as a result of his own guidelines. There is an opt-out for medical practitioners, and some would say that that heralds a more mature relationship between doctors and patients. My hon. and learned Friend explained with his customary precision the limits that he was able to achieve even with the excellent guidelines he introduced as Director of Public Prosecutions.

That brings me to my concluding point and, I think, the salient point for us to bear in mind today. Other bodies have tried to address this issue. The Director of Public Prosecutions has tried, as has the Supreme Court. We should bear in mind the words of the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, who said that it was

“institutionally inappropriate at this juncture”

for the Court to declare that clause 2 was incompatible with article 8, as opposed to giving Parliament the opportunity to consider the position without a declaration. Lord Sumption referred to the “inherent difficulty” of the question, and to

“the fact that there is much to be said on both sides”—

for making—

“Parliament the proper organ for deciding it.”

Without drawing a conclusion on the rightness or wrongness of the Bill, I urge the House to take the same course that the other place took last year, which was not to vote down the Bill at this stage but to allow it to go forward into Committee where these matters could be debated further. That was the cogently expressed view of a strong opponent of the Bill in the other place, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who stated:

“I am deeply opposed to the Bill but strongly in favour of it being afforded a Second Reading so that we may have the opportunity to discuss the many vitally important issues that it raises.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2014; Vol. 755, c. 778.]

We abdicate our responsibility if, after 18 years, we do not fully discuss these matters in detail and look at the safeguards and the possibilities in the Bill. It is wrong that those of our constituents who can afford to do so have the option to go to Switzerland when others do not have such options. We at least owe them the courtesy of discussing these matters more fully. I personally will support the Bill’s Second Reading, but I will be doing so in order to have a stronger, fuller debate.

[Robert Flello]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) to give his personal views at the Dispatch Box, when he is there in a party position?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

The hon. Member for Hammersmith is entitled to say what he likes from the Dispatch Box. It is up to him, and my understanding is that this is a free vote anyway. With that, I call Mike Penning.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely do. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) talks about the views of the judiciary, but it was one of the immigration judges who said, 18 months ago, that judicial review was being abused for those cases. Opposition Members must understand that they themselves in Government said that the system needed to change. We are changing it in a measured and sensible way that will make a difference without compromising its principles. That is the right way to approach this matter.

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

8. What steps his Department is taking to improve value for money from its private sector contracts.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

A contract management improvement programme has been running at the Ministry of Justice since early 2014 in order to implement and embed best practices in contract management. As part of that programme, we have established new governance committees, strengthened our assurance of major contracts, clarified roles and responsibilities and improved the skills of our people. We have also renegotiated or retendered a number of our significant contracts to improve value for money from our private sector contractors.

[Robert Flello]

Does the Secretary of State really think that guaranteeing a decade of profits to private companies as compensation when a probation contract is cancelled represents value for money? It is unprecedented and a scandal. What will he do to reverse that typical Tory rip-off?

[Chris Grayling]

It is so unprecedented as a typical Tory rip-off that it is a very similar approach to the one taken by the Labour party when it set up the flexible new deal. Sometimes its hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Fenton Town Hall

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

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

Let me place on record my thanks to Mr Speaker for allowing this debate. While I am in the mood to give thanks, I also thank the Minister for today’s meeting with a group of residents—community activists—from Fenton, as well as people from Urban Vision and somebody from the Victorian Society.

Perhaps even more important, I put on record my thanks to the 498 men of Fenton and the surrounding area who gave their lives in the first world war, and to all those others who gave their lives and are commemorated in Fenton town hall. They gave their lives in conflicts so that we can have these sorts of debates about incredibly important issues—particularly important, in this case, to the people not just of Fenton but the wider Stoke-on-Trent area.

I am talking about a building that was given to the people of Stoke-on-Trent—specifically the people of Fenton —as a town hall by the Baker family, back in 1888. It is a beautiful building. I repeat my invitation to the Minister to come and see for himself just what a fantastic building it is. It has a beautiful façade on Albert square. As you stand there facing it, with the second world war memorial opposite in the middle of the square, to the right you see Christ church—a beautiful church—in its grounds and, to the left, some Victorian shops and buildings along the side of Christchurch street. It is the beautiful heart of Fenton. The town hall building fits in beautifully, and it is right at the heart of the community. Perhaps when the Minister visits, he may wish to bring his colleague the Secretary of State with him so that they can both see it for themselves.

As much as the building and its setting is beautiful, and as important as it is as the heart of the Fenton area, inside are four memorials, including the large first world war memorial that is built into the very fabric of the building using good old Minton tiles. Every Member of Parliament should know Minton tiles—good Stoke-on-Trent tiles—because they are underfoot whenever they come in and out of the Palace of Westminster. In this case, the tiles are part of a beautiful, unique memorial dedicated to the lives of the 498 men who gave their lives to the people not only of Fenton but of Britain, and beyond, in the first world war. I will mention one particular name—that of Sergeant Ernest Heapy, the great-grandfather of Mrs Jones, one of the community activists from the residents’ area who is understandably incredibly passionate, as we all are, about the memorial remaining there.

This debate is about the town hall building, which was given to the people of Fenton and Stoke-on-Trent in 1888. It remained a building for the community and the city until 1968, when it became the magistrates court. Then, in 2012, the Ministry of Justice decided, based partly on costs and partly on the rationalisation of the estate, to close the building.

To my knowledge and to that of everyone I have ever spoken to about the issue, the MOJ has never paid for the building. It has never bought the building from Stoke-on-Trent and the people of Fenton, and it has never paid any rent to occupy the building. I am sure the Minister will reiterate what he said this afternoon, namely that the building has been maintained by the MOJ, but what else would we expect? The premises we occupy—the Houses of Parliament—are part of what is still a royal palace, yet we rightly pay to maintain it. I do not think there is any doubt about who owns the Palace of Westminster. If we ever decided to sell it, I think there would be an interesting constitutional argument and the Crown would no doubt say that it was not ours to sell. I think that the same principle applies to Fenton town hall, because it is not the MOJ’s building to sell.

The Government say that it is the MOJ’s building to sell, but it is fair to say that the Minister and I had a meeting of minds this afternoon on the difficulty of proving who owns it. Understandably, the Minister asked how it was possible to look back to 1888 to see who owned the building and had the right to sell it at the time. However, we are talking not about 1888 but about 1968, so if the Minister thinks that the building is the MOJ’s to sell—he clearly does—may I ask him, with the greatest respect, whether we may see the deeds? May we see the proof of the MOJ’s ownership of the building? We could then see how it was purchased—we know it was not—or perhaps we could see when it was gifted from the people of Fenton and Stoke-on-Trent to the MOJ.

Whatever the legal argument that might rage—we have already had the opening shots of a discussion, rather than an argument—and whether or not the MOJ can prove its ownership of the building, which I suspect it cannot, I think that the moral claim over it has to go back to 1888, because it was given not to the MOJ or the wider nation, but specifically to the good people of Stoke-on-Trent and Fenton.

I find it very hard to accept the argument that the Government own the building, but if the MOJ is completely intransigent on the issue and thinks it is its building, we have to ask how we can move forward from that. First, we need to give the community, which is working with Urban Vision, a proper chance to propose plans to acquire the building. Whether it wants to acquire it as a financial consideration or through a community transfer on the basis that it is and needs to be a community building, the community needs an opportunity to make its case.

The Minister is aware that communication over the past few months has been a little difficult, to say the least—perhaps “almost non-existent” would be a better way of putting it. That is a tragedy, because an opportunity has been wasted. I do not want to go into the ins and outs of who was and who was not to blame and the repercussions of that, but an opportunity for communication has been lost over the past three or four months. What we really need now is a protected period during which the community can present its proposals and show that it can take on this fantastic building in Albert square, run it sustainably and get funding from organisations that are proud to see the continuation of its heritage. The community will be able to present a sustainable business plan and we will not have to revisit the issue in two or three years’ time. Instead, in 20, 30 and 40 years’ time, the building will be a vibrant part of the community and owned by the community.

The Minister is a man of the law—I am not a lawyer, but that has never stopped me—and if he is concerned that such an arrangement may not be sustainable, I am sure he knows far better than I do that there are ways to ensure that it is sustainable. The building could be on a peppercorn lease to the community for a couple of years, which would provide an opportunity for the community to show that it can be developed and continued sustainably. The Ministry of Justice might hold on to a string, so that if the community does not do what I have every confidence it will do, it can pull the building back in and continue with whatever plans it has for it. I will come on to what those plans may be in a moment.

Things could be structured in such a way that there is a protected period first, during which the building will not be sold from under the feet of the local community, but if the Minister still has concerns, arrangements can be made so that he keeps an interest in it. I repeat again that I do not think the Ministry of Justice has an interest in the building. That is a moot point, on which we will possibly never agree, unless the Minister wants to acquiesce and come over to my side of the argument. The community should get a fair crack first. If it does, it will be shown to be acting correctly, and the Minister’s confidence in it will be justified.

If this does not go the way we hope, we have several concerns about the building that I hope the Minister can respond to this evening. The first relates to the memorials themselves. The Minister, like the Secretary of State, has kindly provided written answers to parliamentary questions and discussed this with me outside the Chamber. He has time and again repeated his view that the covenants over the building ensure that the memorials will be protected and kept safe, and that whatever happens to the building, there will never be any question but that the memory of those 498 brave souls and others can for ever be remembered through the memorials.

Perhaps understandably, some members of the community have expressed concerns about the covenants not being worth the paper they are written on. An unscrupulous developer might only pay lip service to them, and the next thing we know—several months or years later—there might suddenly be a pile of rubble, which would be an abomination. The community is understandably concerned that that might well happen despite the covenants.

I hope that the Minister will put on the record an explanation of how, if the building is sold, the covenants will work. Indeed, even if it passes to the community, as I hope it will, the covenants still need to be in place to protect the memorials in 20, 30, 40, 50 or 100 years’ time. Will he explain how the covenants provide protection against an unscrupulous developer? If he cannot give such explanations or reassurance, that will strengthen our view that the building rightly belongs in the hands of the community that cares about it.

This is a good point to mention the concerns that those who are currently in residence, as it were, in the building have expressed to me on numerous occasions. They are not protesters, occupants or occupiers, but custodians. They are in the building, and they very much see themselves as its protectors. They want not just the buildings but the memorials to be protected for future generations in memory of those whose deaths are recorded there.

It would be very helpful to have an explanation from the Minister. I am sure that he will not fall into the shorthand—if he does, it would be inadvertent—of referring to those people as protesters or occupiers. I hope that he will recognise that, and that he will use more appropriate language. He is a very honourable man, and I am sure he will do so.

The second concern is what will happen to access to the memorials. I know that in the past most of those who have had access to them have been on the wrong side of the magistrate’s bench and have been going into the building for less than honourable reasons, but we need to ensure that we return to the position that existed before 1968, and has existed on occasions since then, whereby the community can go in.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(John Penrose.)

[Robert Flello]

In some cases, the community sees the memorials almost as a substitute for a grave, because some of the individuals recorded on them have no grave. Particularly as the memorials relate to the first world war, perhaps their remains were never able to be formally buried in a way that would allow loved ones through the generations to pay their respects at a graveside. For some people, the memorial is the place where they want to pay their respects. The community wants access, and the most appropriate time would seem to be every Remembrance Sunday, so that people could pay their respects and lay wreaths. That would be difficult if a developer were to take on the building and cover the memorial, or encase it in something that would protect it but mean that it could not be viewed and that respects could not be paid at it. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether any covenant on access could be considered.

If the building were to be sold on the open market, perhaps to a private purchaser—I know I do not need to repeat, but I will, that we hope it will never get to that point—could some of the space within the building be maintained for the community? After all, that was what the town hall was built for. The whole purpose of its being given to the people of Fenton was for it to be used as a community building. It was designed not as a court but as a public building, and there is a beautiful ballroom beneath all the layers of the court. Could any space be carved out of the building by way of a covenant or the terms of sale so that it could be used by the community, for the community?

I will conclude shortly, to give the Minister plenty of time to respond and, I hope, to answer some of my questions. I hope—perhaps unreasonably, I do not know—that he will be able not only to give some explanations and reassurances but to say that there will be a protected period such as I have described.

The community has a fantastic vision of what the building could be. The vision is that when visitors to Fenton go to Albert square, they will see the façade of the magnificent building that was once the town hall and could be again. They will be able to go into a building that has space available for the community, such as the community library, which is being stocked with books as we speak. There will be space available for local businesses and—who knows?—even multinational businesses to have their offices, so that they can meet people in fantastic and grand surroundings. The upstairs area will be restored to the ballroom it once was, so that it can host weddings and other events on a grand scale. Those are the key words—“grand scale”. The community’s vision is a building at the heart of the community and on a grand scale.

This year, with the centenary of the commencement of the first world war, we have seen memorials up and down the country to our glorious dead, our heroes who made this nation what it is. Money has been lavished on some of those memorials—rightly, in my view—yet this memorial has perhaps received less positive attention.

As important as it is that the people of Fenton rally to this cause, a much wider group of people have also done so to say that not only is this building significant and important to Fenton and the people of Stoke-on-Trent, but that it is an important and significant building on a national scale—indeed, the Victorian Society has listed it as among the top 10 most vulnerable and at-risk important buildings in our nation.

I have very high expectations of the Minister. He is an honourable man and I hope he will take the comments made this afternoon and this evening in the manner in which they were intended. The group wants to work with the Government, as do I. We want a building that in generations to come, long after I am six foot under and pushing up the daisies, is there for future generations to enjoy, make the most of, and visit to pay their respects, perhaps when commemorating the 200th anniversary of the first world war. I want future generations to know that the names on the memorial are accessible for people to see, and that the community can go in and use that building.

Mrs Jones had a letter from Buckingham palace, and to conclude I will read the last paragraph from the deputy correspondence co-ordinator:

“Nevertheless, Her Majesty thought it kind of you to let her know of this matter and understands your wish for the fallen Great War soldiers of Fenton not to be forgotten.”

If nothing else, for the people remembered in that building, perhaps those whose physical remains are long gone but who nevertheless gave their lives for today, may we please have our building back?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this debate, and I put on record his diligence and conscientiousness in championing this worthwhile cause on behalf of his constituents. We have corresponded with oral and written questions, by letter, and we had a meeting earlier today with some of his constituents. I also pay tribute to the 498 brave people who paid the ultimate price so that the hon. Gentleman and I, and the rest of us, could have the privilege and pleasure of being able to discuss matters in the democracy that we enjoy.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the closure of Stoke-on Trent magistrates court was announced in December 2010 as part of the court estate reform programme. Any decision to close a court is not taken lightly and is never easy, but the hon. Gentleman will recall the consultation that preceded the closure, which found that the court offered poor facilities and was non-compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. It had inadequate facilities for victims and witnesses, and there were also security issues. As he knows, the court subsequently closed in December 2012.

The court site incorporates the former town hall which, as the hon. Gentleman said, was built and funded in the late 1880s by William Meath Baker, a benefactor. According to English Heritage, Mr William Meath Baker sold the town hall to the local health board, which was superseded by Fenton urban district council in 1897. It has been in the hands of the public sector ever since. More recently, the freehold of the building was transferred under the Courts Act 2003 to the local magistrates court committee, and then to the Government in 2005. Those are legal provisions, and I like to think that all such transfers have been done according to the law—I say that with reference to the comments made by the hon. Gentleman about legality of ownership.

I note the hon. Gentleman’s view that the Government have never paid any sums of money to Stoke-on-Trent to buy or rent the building but, as he rightly said, we should remember that for more than 100 years maintenance, upkeep and so on has been paid for by the taxpayer. That is not an inconsiderable sum over the years.

The building is operationally surplus to requirements. We have to work within the rules concerning the disposal of surplus property assets. Guidance to Departments is clear: surplus property assets need to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, within six months of being declared surplus for housing and within three years for all other properties, while achieving overall value for money for the taxpayer. It is certainly the case that overall value for money for the taxpayer does not necessarily equate to the highest offer. However, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot simply gift a building that has considerable value.

It is not just the capital receipt that we need to consider. There are temporary costs associated with ensuring unused courts are kept secure and protecting the fabric of each building. By disposing of surplus property assets speedily, we remove the ongoing liability of holding costs. In the case of this particular building, bearing in mind that the level of security, utilities and maintenance has been reduced to a level that is appropriate for a site that has been closed, the holding costs do not come cheaply—more than £108,000 in the past financial year alone. Put simply: we cannot hold on to it indefinitely.

The hon. Gentleman is of course correct to raise the future of the four memorials inside the building. Memorials to those who made the ultimate sacrifice are hugely important and must be protected. We have received advice that a Minton great war memorial cannot be moved without risk of damage. Therefore, the Minton world war one memorial will remain in situ and be preserved in perpetuity with an appropriate legally binding restrictive covenant in the sale contract that states that the memorial is to be preserved.

The hon. Gentleman wanted a bit more clarification about a covenant. A covenant is a contractual promise incorporated in a property contract. It provides for an obligation—in this instance that the memorial will be preserved and looked after not only by whoever ends up owning the property, but by the successors in title as well. A covenant also has consequences for what happens when there is a breach. There can be damages paid or there can be specific performance that can be ordered by a court. It is also important how the property is held: whether it is held freehold or leasehold. In the case of leasehold, it may be possible that forfeiture will follow. That effectively means that the property reverts back to the freeholder. This is a legally binding set of words in a contract.

[Robert Flello]

That will not reassure the community. If a developer damages the building or gets sued and it reverts back to the Ministry of Justice, the memorial will still be gone.

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point, but he will accept that this is property law. It is the way that thousands of property transactions are conducted on a daily basis for a whole variety of properties, whether they be commercial, residential, industrial or whatever. This is the process of the law of the land under which we operate. We would very much hope that, in parting company with the premises, we would have carried out our due diligence to make sure that any obligations in the contract will be honoured and that we will not get a rogue developer or rogue occupier who would do the damage that the hon. Gentleman fears may happen. I hope he will take on board the point that we will do our utmost to make sure the owner is credible, whether it is a person, corporation or charity.

The three other memorials, depending on who we sell the building to, be they in the public or private sector, will either be removed to the local church or remain in situ. That is something we can look into. If they are removed to a neighbouring church, the work will be carried out at the expense of the Ministry of Justice.

The sale of former court buildings is affected by several factors, including the state of the market, potential future use of the property, including its development potential, and the location. As of 29 October 2014, some 66 former court buildings had been closed under the court estate reform programme and sold, attracting disposable receipts of just under £43 million. Those funds have been used for further investment in the justice system. Stoke-on-Trent magistrates court has been on the market since 2013, and local campaigners have persuaded the council to list it as an asset community value, giving campaigners six months from August last year to raise funds and bid for the building at market value. Further time was set aside to allow the local community association to formulate its bid, culminating in the proposal being put forward for consideration, alongside several commercial bids.

The Department has received several commercial bids for the building, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot say their size for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The bidders view the building as having development potential, but we have also received a bid from Urban Vision on behalf of Fenton community association for a community asset transfer. We are also mindful of the resolution passed by Stoke-on-Trent city council requesting the return of the building. We held discussions with the council, and in early October the council was invited to come up with a viable proposal for returning the building to community use, but none was received.

We cannot afford to continue to leave the building as it is, eating away more than £9,000 every month, including almost £4,500 in rates. As is usual when disposing of surplus property assets with historic significance, there is also a qualitative element in the consideration of bids. We consider not only the purchase offer, but its potential reuse, the financial status of bidders, their ability to maintain the building in the face of significant holding cost and the extent of the estimated continued liability to the taxpayer of the Department holding the property.

In recognition of the hon. Gentleman’s advocacy for the future of the former court building and the views made so eloquently clear to me in our earlier meeting and with an eye to ensuring that we do not close down options too early, I have asked my officials to continue engagement with his constituents. I hope that that engagement, having started at today’s meeting, will continue from tomorrow onwards, but he will be aware that any possible disposal that is novel and contentious will require Treasury approval. Whatever happens, however, let me assure him that the world war one memorial will be preserved, although the future use of the building will be a matter for the preferred purchaser and the council, as the local planning authority.

[Robert Flello]

On the dialogue with the MOJ, which the Minister says will continue tomorrow, I must stress the point about providing a little protected time—ideally, three or four months—to give the community the opportunity to work up a bid to the satisfaction of the Department.

[Mr Vara]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I hope he will appreciate that, in the spirit of openness and transparency, we have to ensure that other bidders are not penalised by our being seen to give preferential treatment to one of them. Much time has been spent on this. There has been a dialogue. We have asked for bids. A business case was requested. It is also possible for community groups to seek assistance from local authorities and other voluntary bodies that help these groups when they approach the Government for such measures. There is a limit to how much assistance we can provide and we are constrained by the law in terms of time limits. We are also mindful of the time that has passed, which we must also take into account. There are also other bidders whom we must take into account so we are not accused of preferential treatment.

[Robert Flello]

Part of the problem is that letters between the community and the Ministry of Justice were not answered and there was a breakdown in communications. I take on board what the Minister says about getting on with things and about not giving an advantage to anyone, but the community group has been disadvantaged because of the lack of communication.

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman and his constituents raised that with me at the meeting. I have not been able to make intensive research into the issue but I have found out that there were telephone conversations in the period where it was said there was no communication. I hope he will appreciate that at the time of the bidding there was limited information that we could impart to the other parties because that would be seen as being unfair to everyone else. This has been going on for two years and we are not talking about a bidding process covering only the last few months. There is a limit to what the Government can do.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and my officials will be in conversation with his constituents from tomorrow. I pay tribute to the 498 people who paid the ultimate price so that we could engage in this free debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree. I cannot offer my hon. Friend change under this Government, but my intention is that a future Conservative Government would include in our proposed Bill of Rights a specific limitation to stop people claiming article 8 rights and overriding the law of the land that applies to the rest of us. That should not happen.

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

The Secretary of State will be aware that former Fenton magistrates court—now Fenton town hall building again—is currently occupied by protesters concerned about the memorials inside it and the building itself. In the past, he has kindly stood at the Dispatch Box and confirmed that the memorials would be protected by covenants if the building was sold, but my constituents are concerned that a developer might simply ignore those and demolish the building anyway, resulting in the loss for ever of these memorials, which are priceless and incredibly important to the people of Fenton. Will he meet me and a delegation of local residents to discuss this matter and, I hope, put their minds at rest, and to talk about the future of the building itself?

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue and I can give him an assurance that my office has been in touch with people locally this morning. My main concern is that the protesters are safe and secure and that they have proper food, water, heating and other provisions. I am more than happy to agree to a meeting with the hon. Gentleman and the people who are very passionate about this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

The reforms are absolutely clear in wanting to do two things. The first is to ensure that cases are considered properly and in a timely way, and that is the joint concern of the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice. The second is to ensure that all those who need to be represented in child-related cases have the adequate resources. I hope that that will give my hon. Friend the reassurance that she needs.

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

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Superintendent Derek Lockie on and, especially thanking him for, his outstanding work for victims and victims’ organisations during his time leading the Victims’ Commissioner’s office? But does the Minister agree that the loss of such a talented and fiercely independent lead in that office is a matter of great concern?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to share the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to, I assume, his constituent, Mr. Lockie, but I do not share his worries because I know that independence and feistiness are still more than fully available in the Victims’ Commissioner’s office in the form of the Victims’ Commissioner, whom I look forward to both working with and being held to account by in the coming years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I cannot give a date to the right hon. Gentleman. Both my right hon. Friend and I have met NAPO leaders before and are happy to do so again. What we will not do is pause the process in which we are engaged because the members of those trade unions would like some certainty over their own futures, and we think that is important, which is why we must get on with this process.

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

6. What steps he plans to take to enforce the code of practice for victims of crime.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

We are working with all service providers who have duties under the victims code to ensure that their operational systems, guidance and training are updated to deliver their new responsibilities to victims of crime. We will continue to work with our criminal justice partners to ensure there is appropriate oversight of the new code at a local and national level.

[Robert Flello]

I am immensely grateful for that.

“There is more to be done to ensure agencies are made accountable under the code…this needs to be backed up by statutory powers.”

Those are not my words but the words of the Victims’ Commissioner herself. At every turn, the Government have paid lip service to victims and then acted against them. They have made the Victims’ Commissioner job part-time and then savaged the criminal injuries scheme. Will the Minister now give the victims code some real teeth, and not just warm words?

[Damian Green]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is massively out of touch with the sector that deals with victims if he expresses those views. When we launched the victims code, it was welcomed by a wide range of our partners in the voluntary sectors, including Victim Support and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The victims code is a significant step forward from the old impenetrable code that the previous Government put forward, and it has been welcomed by those who know most about the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I am happy to discuss the case with my hon. Friend. I suspect that he, as constituency MP, may be better placed to make representations, but I am happy to discuss it with him.

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

May I take the Secretary of State’s mind back to the war memorial at the former Fenton magistrates court? There seems to be a bit of confusion among some of my constituents who are fighting for it about the difference between a covenant and a clause in a sale contract. Will he put on record whether there will be a permanent covenant or a temporary contract clause?

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

The answer to the last question is yes and, indeed, I am scheduled to do so on Monday next week. I look forward to discussing this with my hon. Friend in more detail. I am afraid that I do not accept that this was the wrong decision—we will discuss it in more detail on Monday—but the original decision to close the prison, as he knows, was based on the fact that substantial financial investment would be needed to bring it up to the required standard. The decision not to retain the site was, as I say, made after careful consideration. Looking at the estate as a whole we concluded that the prison simply did not fit our strategic needs, but I am happy to discuss it with him in more detail on Monday.

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

On the subject of the Ministry of Justice selling sites, I have raised many times the issue of Fenton town hall, for which the Ministry of Justice and its predecessors have never paid a penny to rent or to purchase. Will the Minister now have a change of heart and give that building back to the community of Stoke-on-Trent?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has stretched the elastic beyond snapping point. The question was broadened by the content of the Minister’s answer, but not broadened beyond the prison estate—that is the subject matter with which we are dealing. The hon. Gentleman is very visible courtesy of his moustache so he can try his luck later.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My moustache and I are most grateful, Mr Speaker. More seriously, I remain optimistic that the Secretary of State will have a change of heart over Fenton town hall, which was used by the magistrates, and give it back to the people of Stoke-on-Trent. If he does not, what assurances can he give that the buyer that we think is waiting in the wings and subsequent purchasers will protect the first world war memorial that is located in that building? Many thousands of people are concerned about its future.

[Mr Vara]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his patience. I can assure him that, in the event of any transfers of the building, there will be a covenant to ensure that the new owner preserves that very important and historic monument, which is a tribute to all who paid the ultimate price in the first world war.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent and astute point. Judicial review is a crucial check on the power of the state, and it will remain so. However, it is also subject to abuse—stifling innovation, frustrating reforms and incurring considerable cost. Our reforms will tackle the burden while maintaining the benefits of the rule of law and access to justice.

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

Aside from the near impossible job of getting the Attorney-General to quash an inquest, the only route that families have to challenge a coroner’s decision is through judicial review. The Government have already stopped bereaved families having a proper coroners appeal system. Is not the restriction of judicial review a further kick in the teeth for bereaved families?

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

It is the DWP decision makers who make decisions, but I can tell the hon. Lady that many measures are being put in place to increase capacity and reduce waiting times—

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

Such as?

[Mrs Grant]

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) says “such as” from a sedentary position. Those measures include recruiting more judges, securing additional venues and more Saturday sittings in addition to striving continually to improve original decision making.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We accept that section 28 is not easy to implement, but given the many recent appalling cases involving character assassination and the bullying of vulnerable witnesses, is it not now time to implement, as one measure, the approach proposed by many, including the Advocacy Training Council in its report “Raising the Bar”, of introducing compulsory training and certification for barristers in cases of this kind?

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying there are practical difficulties in implementing this. We are looking at a range of measures. He will be aware that our consultation on the victims’ code closed only a few days ago, and the Minister for victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), will be publishing a response this summer. Obviously, that must align with the witness charter as well. I hope all these things will come to fruition shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

Under the new systems we have put in place, the Legal Aid Agency has discretionary funding to deal with the very unexpected cases. However, I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that if someone is going to come to this country and access public support, they should have been here for a period of time and paid taxes before they do so.

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

More than 70% of the public, according to a poll in today’s papers, think that the Secretary of State’s cuts to criminal legal aid will lead to innocent people being convicted. Does he really think that miscarriages of justice are a price worth paying for his mismanagement of the justice budget?

[Chris Grayling]

I still do not think that the Opposition understand the nature of the financial mess they left behind and what we have to do to balance the books. I also think that the public would expect me to do what I can to maintain a strong prison system and a strong court system at the same time as having a legal aid system that provides justice while being affordable. That is what we are doing.