Road Safety and the Legal Framework

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered road safety and the legal framework.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling this important debate on road justice and the legal framework from the perspective of vulnerable road users, which follows two debates on road safety held in this House over the past few weeks. The first was led by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), and the second was a Government debate led by the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman).

Those important debates highlighted a range of issues that lead to avoidable road death and serious injury, particularly to vulnerable road users, such as those on foot or riding pedal cycles, but also to motorcyclists, wheelchair users, horse riders and others. As well as raising concerns about issues such as investment in highways, road design, training and The Highway Code, Members present at both debates expressed concerns about gaps in the application of road traffic offences and penalties, highlighted by the experiences brought to them by constituents following deaths and serious injuries among vulnerable road users.

I thank Brake, RoadPeace, Cycling UK and the House of Commons Library for helping me to prepare for this debate by providing detailed briefings. I secured this debate jointly with the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). We are both officers of the all-party parliamentary group on cycling, which last year held an inquiry entitled “Cycling and the Justice System”, culminating in a report that was published in May 2017. That report made 14 recommendations, but today we will focus on just four areas of road justice that we contend need review by Government: clarity over the distinction in charging and sentencing between dangerous and careless driving; misuse of the exceptional hardship rule in respect of driving bans; inadequate sentences for leaving the scene of an accident; and car-dooring.

All of those who are involved have no doubt that there is a need for a review. The wider context is that we and the Government share an ambition to make walking and cycling the natural choice for shorter journeys to reduce congestion, cut pollution, improve health, rejuvenate our shopping parades and save us all money. We also need to cut the cost of the effects of death and serious injury, including through lost futures and exorbitant health costs. Part of the solution is to address gaps in our road traffic laws.

The laws and their prosecution should be there to encourage safer driving, reduce casualties, improve road safety through the deterrent effect, and reduce irresponsible behaviour on our roads. The effectiveness of road traffic laws is of particular importance to vulnerable road users because irresponsible driving presents a disproportionate threat to them. It also puts people off travelling by foot or by bike, despite the huge health and environmental benefits of doing so. We generally expect high safety standards and strong obligations to avoid or minimise hazards in other risky professions, such as rail drivers and airline pilots, and other dangerous workplaces, such as construction sites. However, for drivers of vehicles, lapses of concentration that cause death or injury are regularly dismissed as accidents or carelessness, rather than something that is avoidable.

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

My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech in a very good debate, but will she bear it in mind that many employees in this country are put in a dangerous and vulnerable position because their employers force them to work untrained? I am thinking of Deliveroo, and those delivery people who get on a motorcycle or bicycle with no training and are put in a very vulnerable position. We have all seen it and we know that the accident rate is increasing. Employers are putting untrained people in a vulnerable position.

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There are strong standards in certain industries, such as for those who drive coaches and buses, and I agree that there should be a similar standard in that area. That is the only way to ensure that employers are not forcing their employees or contractors to drive too fast in order to get the job done.

We cannot afford to be relaxed about road deaths and serious injuries. The UK’s road death rate is relatively low, but sadly it is levelling off rather than continuing to decline. The legal framework and our justice system need to send the message that road crime is a real crime, and that it is unacceptable to endanger other road users. When I learned to drive 40 years ago, my teacher told me, “Always expect the unexpected,” because even if it is the fault of the dog or the child who runs out between the cars in front of the driver, ultimately it is the driver who will be responsible for their death. My teacher taught me to always drive with that in mind, whatever the driving conditions. That does not always mean driving at 20 mph; it is about appropriateness and safety within the conditions of the road, and always expecting the unexpected.

As I say, the legal framework and our justice system need to send the message that road crime is a real crime. The Government have taken notice of that need, but more action is awaited. In May 2014, the then Secretary of State for Justice, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, responded to the road justice campaign run by Cycling UK and Brake by announcing plans for a comprehensive review of road traffic offences and sentencing. However, after substantial delays to that review, the Government announced a consultation in December 2016 on a much more limited set of proposals. Those proposals included increasing the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving or death by careless driving while under the influence of drugs from 14 years to life imprisonment, and introducing a new sentence of causing serious injury by careless driving.

After further delays, the Government published a report on that consultation in October 2017. It recorded support for the above proposals, but noted that concerns had been expressed regarding a lack of clarity about the distinction between “dangerous” and “careless”. In response, the consultation said, the Government would work with criminal justice practitioners and victims’ groups to examine ways of improving the information available through the criminal justice process. To the best of our knowledge, no such work has yet been undertaken.

In the meantime, in September 2017, the Department for Transport announced plans for a separate consultation on cycling offences, following the death of Kim Briggs, who died when hit by a fixed-wheel bike ridden by Charlie Alliston that illegally lacked a front brake. That consultation was launched in August this year. Confusingly, it was initiated by the Department for Transport, even though the previous motor offences consultation was announced and conducted by the Ministry of Justice. There was a large response to that consultation, indicating the level of concern about singling out cycling offences based on a single fatality resulting from irresponsible cycling, when the law fails so spectacularly in hundreds, if not thousands, of cases every year in which people are killed or very seriously injured by irresponsible driving. The law is neither clear nor consistent.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an extremely good set of points. I represent an area where walking, road running, horse riding and cycling are probably even more prominent than in the rest of the country. Since 2014, when action was first mooted, 1,800 people have died on the roads from all four of those categories and others as well. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is time to stop navel-contemplating and to start acting to protect people’s lives?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Above all, by not taking action, the Government are failing to take irresponsible people off the roads in the interests of public protection.

Are death and serious injury caused by driving a roads issue or are they crimes? I would say that they are crimes and that this issue therefore falls under the remit of the Ministry of Justice. I am therefore glad that a Justice Minister is responding today—somebody who I believe to be honourable and diligent in his work, as I saw as a member of the Select Committee on Justice.

As I say, there is a need for clarity and consistency about the distinction between dangerous and careless driving. There is a perception, particularly among victims of road crashes and their families, as well as among Members who have spoken in previous debates in this place, that public prosecutors too often favour prosecuting motorists who have caused a death or serious injury with the lesser offence of careless driving, for which they are more likely to gain a conviction than on the charge of dangerous driving. That is particularly the case because there is such a stark difference in the penalties for those offences. For death by dangerous driving, the maximum penalty is 14 years in prison, although I think the Government are minded to increase that to life in certain circumstances.

[Mr Sheerman]

My hon. Friend has kindly referred twice to Brake, which is based in my constituency. She has not mentioned the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, whose watchword is basing good policy on good research. Is she going to say a little more about what the research needs are to make a clear correlation between what is happening on the roads and in the justice system?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I hope to be able to, but I realise that time is short, so I might not be able to go into the detail that my hon. Friend mentioned. He has just stepped down as chair of PACTS. I am also a member of PACTS, which has done an awful lot of excellent work in this place on road safety.

Due to the subjective nature of the definitions, too often we see the downgrading of cases from causing death by dangerous driving to other charges, simply because they are easier to prove. Using the term “careless” undermines and trivialises the gravitas of the offence and its impact on victims and their families. Cycling UK has done an excellent study called “Failure to see”, which expresses that stark difference in a range of different cases. I recommend that study to those involved in this subject.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is increasing concern among road users, particularly cyclists and pedestrians, that greater numbers of cars are being fitted with tinted or almost smoked glass? That makes it incredibly difficult for other road users to see the face of the driver and know whether they have been seen and the driver is aware of the potential danger.

[Ruth Cadbury]

That is clearly of concern. My understanding is that there are standards for tinted glass, but whether all vehicle owners are abiding by those standards is an issue. Those cases need to be prosecuted, and we all know that the resources for finding those offences are declining.

The Government have said that they will create a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, and Ministers have said they will introduce new legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. We look forward to that Bill. The charges and penalties for causing death or serious injury should be overhauled to ensure that prosecutors are not incentivised to opt for an easier won charge. We look to the Sentencing Council for that work, for which I believe the Ministry of Justice has responsibility. Overall, we ask for closer collaboration between the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Transport to ensure joined-up thinking on the definition of offences, with each consulted on the other’s work. I do not mind which Department leads; I just want to see action.

Finally, I will talk about driving bans. I agree with Brake that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that those who have shown disregard for the law should not be allowed to drive. We have a well-respected system of penalty points in this country, based on the expectation that people lose their licence when they reach 12 penalty points as they clearly have too often been driving dangerously, usually with speed violations. However, there is a loophole whereby many drivers who claim exceptional hardship in court manage to avoid losing their licence. That right is not accorded to most other offences with a risk to life, so the loophole should be closed. These people have already had a second chance in totting up points. The guidelines for magistrates need to be looked at in that respect.

In most high-risk occupations, someone’s licence to operate is removed immediately if there is a suspicion that they were responsible for an offence that causes death or serious injury. The same should occur for driving offences. Anyone arrested on suspicion of an offence that carries a mandatory driving ban should have their driving licence temporarily suspended until the case reaches a conclusion or is dropped. The advantages are that it keeps the issue out of court, is understandable, is instant and avoids the “innocent until proven guilty” problem. It would also have a deterrent effect. An alternative would be for anyone charged after killing or seriously injuring another to have their licence removed as a condition of bail. In the time it takes for a case to come to court, the driver charged can continue driving, potentially putting others in danger. The first option is the better one.

Thank you, Mr Betts. My colleague the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk will cover the other issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I, too, thank all Members who have spoken today. I will not have the chance to refer to everyone, so I will pick up on the issue of deterrence.

I am not a vindictive person and I am not generally into stiffer penalties, but driving is something we all do—most people drive—and we all want to avoid accidents. The deterrent of charges and penalties can be a factor in improving driver behaviour. I believe that that is why driver behaviour is better in Germany, in my experience. A different kind of deterrence to do with civil litigation is, I think, behind the much better driving that I experienced in the United States. This area of law is one in which deterrence is useful. Many Members also picked up on the inconsistency between penalties and sanctions, in particular when talking about the distinction between careless and dangerous driving.

I thank those Members who mentioned their constituents and families who have been affected by such tragedy, because that is, after all, what we are dealing with today. I welcome the fact that the Minister has again announced the increase in the maximum sentences and that there will be a review. He also mentioned that the MOJ and the Department for Transport will work closely together so that there is consistency in message, approach, consultation and response.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered road safety and the legal framework.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

To agree with the hon. Lady to some extent, clearly the fact that we are recruiting 2,500 more officers reflects the fact that we think we need 2,500 more officers. Looking forward, the key is to make sure that people are supported both in college and on the landings to have the skill and experience they need. The challenge now is not numbers, but training and the estate.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the number of people that are able to access legal aid for (a) immigration, (b) welfare benefit and (c) housing cases.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

As a committed member of the Select Committee on Justice, the hon. Lady knows that we are spending £1.6 billion on legal aid and reviewing the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. She raises one of the issues at which we will be looking very closely. I am sure she will be interested to hear that, after the latest legal aid tender, the number of officers providing access to legal aid services has increased by 28% in immigration and asylum, by 188% in welfare benefit and by 7% in housing and debt.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the Minister for her answer, but a Citizens Advice study estimates that, for every pound of legal aid expenditure spent on housing advice, the state potentially saves more than £2, and that savings are even greater for legal advice on debt and benefits. Will she commit to undertake independent research into the savings that the state could make by returning early legal help as a component of legal aid?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. I have looked at that study as I have many other studies that talk about the downstream impacts of the lack of legal help at an early stage. As she will know, we are in the process of a LASPO review. We are looking at these matters, and I am interested that she highlights the need for further independent study.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

We are absolutely clear that a mobile telephone, and particularly a smartphone, in a prison is a form of weapon. It allows a prisoner to jump the prison walls, effectively; they can transfer money, record videos and intimidate witnesses. We are encouraging prisoners to continue to use regulated landlines in prisons to contact their families. We are investing in in-cell telephony, because keeping family relationships will reduce reoffending by 37%, but a mobile telephone is a weapon, and we will find them and remove them.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that answer. The Justice Committee was told at a recent session that prison governors do not have sufficient flexibility to purchase the equipment they need—particularly the right scanning equipment—and that if they had more flexibility over their budgets, they might be able to invest in that equipment or other things that they feel their prison needs. What is the Minister’s response to that?

[Rory Stewart]

Thanks to a private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), which we have been proud to support, new technology is available that should not force governors to have to come up with a bespoke solution prison by prison, but will allow us nationally to have much better technology to identify these phones, listen to them and ultimately seize them.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

These matters are governed by regulation and we are proceeding on that basis.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I want to make some progress.

I am aware that there has been concern on both sides of the House about the inclusion of vulnerable road users—for example, cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists —in the proposed small claims track rise. I am grateful to Members for signalling in their arguments how such road users may be disproportionately affected by this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens). She mentioned that she has a history of involvement in this area. I would like to state at the outset that it is important to recognise that there are many personal injury lawyers who do a good job. Over the years, I have had quite a lot to do with personal injury lawyers in my capacity as a constituency MP, as well as in relation to a fatality involving my own family. I am happy to state that there are very, very good people out there doing the work of personal injury lawyers. As in perhaps every professional domain there are good, there are bad and there are the indifferent—and there are snakes. I do not think we should let this debate pass without recording that there are some very good people out there doing important work in the area of personal injury litigation.

It is also important to recognise—we have not heard anything from the Opposition on this—that there has been a significant rise in the compensation culture. I do not think that personal injury litigation lawyers—at least, not all of them—are tools of Satan. I have met one or two who have come close to that description, but listening to the Opposition one might get the idea that all insurance companies are tools of Satan. In fact, they are nothing of the kind. They are an enormously important and worldwide British success story. They manage huge amounts of funds through premium income, which pay many people’s pensions, including the pensions of many people represented by Opposition Members as well as by the rest of this House. A bit of balance on the nature of the problems facing insurance companies and the measures they have taken to tackle them would have been in order. I am afraid we heard nothing along those lines.

I strongly support the Bill. If I have one criticism it is that it is very overdue. I had a meeting with the head of fraud at Aviva—known to old fashioned people as Norwich Union—which is a big employer in East Anglia and of my constituents. In 2006, it set up the Insurance Fraud Bureau because it was so concerned about the scale of what are called induced car crashes—“crash for cash” was the popular phrase. On 16 January 2007, I held a debate in Westminster Hall on this very subject. In preparation for this debate, I glanced at it to see what I had said and to remind myself of some of the facts. Norwich Union’s 2005 report “Shedding Light on Hidden Crime” pointed out that the scale of fraud was growing at a very high rate—I won’t say it was exponential in case there are any mathematicians here to correct me—and that the proceeds from induced car accidents were routinely being used to fund other forms of organised crime, including drugs, people trafficking, benefits and credit card fraud, and money laundering.

The report estimated that between 1999 and the publication of the report in 2005 there had been 22,605 staged or induced car accidents. It broke them down city by city. At the top was Blackburn, with 1,710 staged accidents between 1999 and 2005. That was perhaps the reason that Jack Straw, who many of us remember fondly in this House and who was the MP for Blackburn, took a great interest in induced car crashes and fraudulent claims for whiplash injury. It took six or seven years to generate 22,605 induced accidents. Eleven years ago, the Insurance Fraud Bureau estimated that the rate of growth would mean a further 20,000 induced car crashes in the next 18 months. We heard the Secretary of State say that there are now 70,000 fraudulent claims for whiplash every year, so it has grown much, much more since this phenomenon became more publicly discussed 10 or 12 years ago. Just as it was then, it continues to be a direct threat to public safety.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bacon]

I will not, because I know there is a time limit and other Members wish to speak. I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me.

The Bill is very welcome. We need to be clear that the insurance companies have done a great deal and want to do more to try to tackle this problem. They said at the time that one of their main concerns was the rise in the cost of premiums for honest motorists. That continues to be a major concern. The fundamental problem, which I do not think I really heard the Opposition address but which the Government certainly did, is that road traffic accidents as a whole have been going down but personal injury claims have been going up. There is obviously something fundamentally wrong, and I am glad that the Bill is beginning to address it.

I shall comment in passing, in the Minister’s hearing, on two other issues that the Secretary of State referred to and which I strongly welcome. One is excluding vulnerable road users, such as cyclists—a welcome move. By the way, on what the hon. Member for Cardiff Central said, I should say that I support stronger moves against claims management companies. I had a phone call from one last week, talking about my accident on 26 January last year, of which of course I had no knowledge whatever. I am up for telling them where to go and for an argument with them at times—as many of us would be, probably—but my concern is that they prey on the vulnerable and deceive people who are not necessarily as robust as most of us in this House would be in such circumstances.

The second issue is about the proposal for a longer period of implementation for the IT system, which was a very welcome announcement from the Secretary of State. I sat on the Public Accounts Committee for 16 years and heard more stories about failed IT systems than about any other subject. The biggest red flag in relation to the putative or prospective failure of an IT system was the compression of the testing timetable. I am glad that the Government have recognised that.

Let us be clear: reform is needed. The Bill makes a proper link between whiplash claims and medical evidence, and that is long overdue. It provides a fixed tariff, which is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, given what has happened in recent years. There will be the possibility of an uplift and there will be flexibility. The tariff is perhaps unfortunate, but I think it necessary. Given what the Secretary of State said as a Treasury Minister about the independence of the Lord Chancellor, I do not have any fears on that score, as Opposition Members appear to.

I hope the Bill will go some way towards addressing my biggest concern: young people in rural areas who need a car to get to work. I represent a very large rural constituency of more than 300 square miles. Twenty or 30 years ago, car insurance premiums were higher for younger people, but they were not a “thing”—they were not so high that it became almost impossible for young people to get on the road. They were not more expensive than the car itself. That is no longer the case. The cost is hugely prohibitive and a direct result of the rise in the compensation culture, which has led to the penalising of honest motorists and which this Government are prepared to do something about. I strongly support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, of which I am a member. I welcome his excellent points about our inquiry on this subject, but I do not speak with that hat on.

I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on cycling, and we are working to shift the transport climate in this country so that more people more often feel safe and able to cycle as a normal means of transport. The Government have said they share that objective because they recognise that having more people cycling improves health and reduces congestion, pollution and costs, but I am concerned that many Conservative Members who have spoken in this debate have generally focused on car drivers and have not appeared to acknowledge that all their constituents are pedestrians at times, that many of them cycle and that many do not drive at all.

My contribution will focus on how those riding cycles, and other vulnerable road users not in a motor vehicle, such as pedestrians and motorcyclists, are affected by this Bill. I was pleased to hear the Justice Secretary indicating that the Government have accepted the recommendation of the Justice Committee and many others to drop the proposal to increase the small claims track limit—the SCL—for personal injury cases from £1,000 to £5,000 for all road traffic collision claims from vulnerable road users. However, I need some clarity on that from the Minister and will be listening carefully to his summing up. First, do the Government mean that vulnerable road users will be excluded from both the tariff and the small claims limit measures? Secondly, I am looking for clarity on how the changes will happen. Will this be through amendments to the Bill in Committee or through statutory instruments?

Notwithstanding my welcoming of the general principle of what the Justice Secretary said and my questions seeking clarity on that, I will continue with my now somewhat revised speech, so that my focus on and concern for vulnerable road users is on the public record.

The Government continue to propose to increase the SCL to £5,000 for all road traffic collision claims, apart from those from vulnerable road users, as we have heard in this debate, although it is also proposed to raise public and employer liability claims limits to £2,000. So there will still be inconsistency among claimants depending on whether the claim is for personal injury or it is a public or employer liability claim. Without change, the Bill would have affected approximately 70% of cyclists’ personal injury claims, and a similar percentage of motorcyclists’ claims, for general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, as many of those—70%—are for less than £5,000. We can assume that for pedestrians the figure is roughly the same, although we do not have the figure. That is why I want to see exactly what the Government mean by removing vulnerable road users from the Bill. VRU claims make up a very small percentage both of all claims and of the total cost of all claims, so doing the right thing will not cost very much.

I wish to focus on three issues, the first of which is the complexity of VRU personal injury claims. The Government repeatedly say that small claims are straightforward and can be achieved without professional support, but often that is not so in the case of road traffic collision claims made by cyclists. Many cyclists’ claims will involve complex arguments concerning what can appear to be conflicting Highway Code rules; there are 14 different rules on junction priority, for example. Even where liability is accepted, contributory negligence arguments are commonly made in courts; arguments are made about a cyclist’s clothing, their position on the road, whether they had their lights on and so on. In pedestrians’ claims, issues are often raised, either in terms of liability or contributory negligence, about where the pedestrian crossed the road; subjective issues also arise, such as whether they took sufficient care for their own safety.

Secondly, I wonder whether one reason the Government are now removing VRUs from the changes is that these road users do not get whiplash injuries and do not make fraudulent claims for whiplash—such claims purportedly being one reason for this Bill. That is because it is almost impossible to get whiplash when on a bike or on foot; those road users generally tend to suffer from broken bones and punctured lungs.

Without these changes being offered today by the Government, we would have had fewer victims of road traffic collisions who were not travelling in a car making a claim. That would have meant a win-win for insurance companies and dangerous drivers, which is unacceptable. Although I am pleased to hear that the Justice Secretary has recognised the concerns of organisations representing vulnerable users—cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and so on—by taking them out of the SCL rate, I still have a concern about the Bill, and it is one raised by other Opposition Members today. It would be fairer to have a uniform small claims limit for all personal injury cases, at or only slightly above the current £1,000 limit. That would achieve the Justice Secretary’s aims of excluding vulnerable road users in a straightforward manner and would also ensure fairness for all road users, regardless of their mode of transport.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

As I highlighted in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), while a custodial sentence should always be an option, there is strong evidence that short custodial sentences do not achieve the best rehabilitation and reduction of reoffending outcomes. I recognise that women’s prisons, including East Sutton Park, of which my hon. Friend is a strong champion in this Chamber, are among our best. We will continue to work with it and I would be delighted to visit.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Given that Baroness Corston’s seminal 2007 review of women in prison set out a clear case for the benefit of women’s centres and said that they should be at the centre of a successful strategy on female offending, why are the Government insisting on piloting this when we already know that it works? Is it because of lack of funding?

[Edward Argar]

I pay tribute to the work of Baroness Corston in her ground-breaking 2007 report, and indeed to the work of the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), who took some of this forward in his time as a Minister. The landscape of the evidence base on reoffending has continued to evolve and change. We continue to work with that model. We believe that the steps we have set out for five residential women’s centres as a pilot is the right way to approach this, but it remains only a first step on a journey.

Housing and Access to Legal Aid

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered housing and access to legal aid.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Main. Before I start, I want to thank the House of Commons Library, which provided me with advice and information for the debate, and the Ealing law centre.

Having been an elected councillor for 25 years before coming to this place, I know how important good-quality, early professional help is in preventing so many issues, but particularly homelessness, indebtedness and other related problems. I also know how important early advice is in preventing problems from escalating, which causes stress to families and costs to the public purse. The sooner and the earlier, the better and the cheaper.

Legal aid for housing advice was withdrawn by the Government between 2012 and 2013. At that time, we saw problems that were already there begin to escalate. More and more people were having problems trying to keep their home and to keep it safe and warm. Demand for social housing was increasing but there was an acute shortage, owing to the right to buy and the ending of Government funding for new council and other social rent housing.

Related to that was the escalation of private sector rents beyond the means of average wage earners, let alone those on low and minimum wages. In my constituency, private sector rents are three to four times those of council rents. There is also the related use of one-term tenancies, as landlords can afford to gain possession of a home and then rent it to someone else who is able to pay a higher rent in the inflated west London housing market. The escalation of zero-hours work and low-paid self-employment also affects the ability of many people on low incomes to pay their rents, while for many people, some of whom are working and some of whom are not, cuts and changes to many benefits and tax credits mean that there is less to live on. Finally, the draconian universal credit rules were introduced, which—apart from providing less to live on than legacy benefits—expect claimants to wait for five weeks with no money at all. In my constituency, five weeks of rent for a family can be anything up to £2,000.

It is therefore hardly surprising that more people need more help with housing and debt, or that landlords can get away with providing more substandard private sector housing, where repairs need catching early before they make homes dangerous. MPs and councillors offer advice, but too often it is left to underfunded organisations and their many advisers, who might not be legally qualified, to help; they might be willing and able, but one often needs legally qualified people, even at an early advice stage.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does she agree that there has been a serious decline in the number of providers of housing legal aid? In my area of Barnsley there are only two, which is simply insufficient. It leaves those most in need isolated and often without the help they need.

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are parts of the country with no appropriate legal advice services. For people in rural areas, having to travel tens of miles to find the appropriate advice, when they are already on a low income, is shocking.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. North-west Wales has only one provider of housing legal aid for a population of more than 300,000 people. Travel has already been mentioned, but we should also note that a single provider might not have the capacity to deal with the needs of all its potential clients, and may well have to put people on lists based on their needs. Some people who need urgent help might not be reached. Secondly, that single provider may also—[Interruption.]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is not making a speech. There should be no first and secondly; there is one intervention.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. The other problem if there is only one legal aid provider is that both parties might go to them. There are then problems, because to whom should it offer help and advice?

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Even when there are providers that can provide legal advice, such as Citizens Advice, cuts to their financial situations mean that it is thrown on us to help people out.

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The cuts to local authorities and other parts of the public sector have affected the voluntary sector, which has so often been the alternative provider of professional, consistent, good-quality advice and support to people who need it.

There is currently no law centre in my area. When I was a lead member on Hounslow Council in 2010, we increased the funding for the citizens advice bureau, but demand for the local CAB escalated well beyond that. The philanthropic centres and foundations—the Big Lottery Fund and so on—are often left to pick up the pieces, but pressures on their funding are getting greater. Overall, less good-quality professional help and advice is available in the sector, and I urge the Government to address that as part of their review, which I will move on to in a moment.

As I was saying, MPs and councillors are not professional legal advisers. At best we should signpost and provide basic advice, but we do not have the capacity or skills to provide the detailed advice that people need, even at the early stages of problems arising. I will give a couple of examples that Vicky Fewkes of the Ealing law centre provided me with. They concern people who much of the time were not eligible for housing legal aid. In all cases, the welfare and benefits work that was done was under grant funding, not legal aid.

First, a constituent was in substantial rent arrears due to universal credit issues. Her tenancy was jointly in her name and that of her partner. However, she had been abused by her partner, which led to their separating and her partner moving out. Universal credit would not pay her full rent due to the tenancy being in both names. She was given time to transfer the tenancy into her name and resolve the universal credit issues. The adviser worked with her and managed to resolve the matter, and to retrieve about £5,000 in universal credit housing payments. She kept her home—at substantial cost to the public sector, of course. That case was not funded through legal aid, but I believe it should have been.

In another example, a constituent was in arrears of more than £2,500 following the stoppage of her employment and support allowance and housing benefit. She had four children, aged between 11 and 19, and she suffered from depression, anxiety and physical problems. Her housing benefit had been cancelled due to the required information not being supplied. The caseworker worked with her and her husband to claim backdated housing benefit. The caseworker liaised with the council and worked with the husband to answer all the council’s questions and provide the required evidence. The hearings were adjourned until the ESA and housing benefit issues could be resolved. The ESA decision was appealed and overturned, meaning that she eventually got a backdated ESA payment and £4,000 in housing benefit being paid into her rent account, meaning that she kept her home. She was a council tenant. If she had been a private sector tenant, that landlord would not have waited for her income situation to be resolved.

Vicky says of the crisis navigator role at the Ealing law centre:

“The Crisis Navigator is part of a Big Lottery funded Help through Crisis Project. This work is essential and is not being funded by Legal Aid as it stands at the moment. A lot of problems arise from insecure work (variable hours/zero contracts). These then impact benefits and rent arrears as a result. If clients are evicted if they are housed by local authorities, then the temp accommodation rent is so high and Housing Benefit is being paid for this.”

In my area, west London, housing benefit caps are well below the rent even for poor-quality private sector housing. Finally, Vicky says:

“It really would make sense to provide benefits support at an early stage.”

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which I will refer to as LASPO, made fundamental changes to eligibility for legal aid. Under LASPO, applicants must pass three basic tests. The case must be within the scope of the legal aid scheme; there is a financial means test to pass; and there is a merits test, looking at the applicant’s chance of success in the case and a cost-benefit analysis of providing legal aid funding. Matters that are included in the scope of legal aid are homelessness; allocations; accommodation for asylum seekers; repossession of a rented home, but only when the loss of the home is imminent and the landlord has sought an order for possession; lawful and unlawful eviction from the home; injunctions relating to harassment; antisocial behaviour cases in the county court; disrepair, but only when there is a serious risk of harm to the health or safety of the occupiers; and judicial review. Areas that are no longer eligible for legal aid under LASPO are rent and mortgage arrears that may ultimately result in possession proceedings; early stage disputes between landlords and tenants—

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

My hon. Friend mentioned early legal advice. Of course, one recommendation from the Bach commission is that early legal advice can help to save money in the long run. The Law Society estimates that the cost of early legal advice on housing benefit claims would be £1.7 million to £2 million each year, but the costs through avoidable evictions are often far greater for individuals, councils and the NHS. Will—

[Ellie Reeves]

Does my hon. Friend agree that reintroducing early legal advice would help to solve the housing crisis?

[Ruth Cadbury]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend anticipates what I will come on to in a minute.

Not only are early-stage disputes between landlords and tenants no longer eligible for legal aid, but housing benefit advice is no longer eligible. That is particularly worrying because of the many changes to the benefits system, to which I have referred. As I said, when people transfer to universal credit, there is no payment for up to five weeks. That is a lot of money and a lot of heartache, particularly for tenants in the private sector whose landlords are not prepared to wait until things are resolved. However, the situation is worrying even for housing association or council tenants. I try to reassure them by saying, “Don’t worry. The council will not evict you on this basis.” However, it is still stress and worry that people do not need, and many people go and borrow money, which they can ill afford to repay, from friends, relatives and payday lenders. It causes massive problems.

Since LASPO was introduced in 2012-13, there has been a 58% fall in legal help for housing cases in England and Wales; the number has gone from just over 85,000 per annum to just over 35,500 per annum. As we have mentioned, LASPO has caused a critical decline in the number of housing legal aid providers, from 646 in the year before LASPO to 427. The Law Society found in July 2016 that one third of legal aid areas have just one solicitor providing specialised housing advice through legal aid. Areas such as Surrey, Shropshire and Suffolk had no legal aid provider specialising in housing. That is shocking.

A review of LASPO in respect of legal aid for housing advice and aid is urgently needed, but I want to focus now on the area raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves)—early legal advice. Without early legal advice, a problem can escalate, which costs the tenant stress and possibly the loss of their home. That causes knock-on costs for the public purse, poor health, homelessness and debt. I have met several families in my surgery and in my work as an MP outside the surgery who did not seek early advice. They left their home when the landlord asked them to; they did not wait for the court order, let alone the bailiffs. As a result, they were deemed intentionally homeless, so the housing department was able to discharge its duty to house them. How many people know the ins and outs of housing law sufficiently to know what I know, which is, “Wait until the bailiffs arrive”? Most people want to do the right thing. They are scared by their landlords. They think that they can sofa-surf for a while and sort something out. Reality is not like that, particularly in the very high-cost areas of west London that I represent.

As I said, if people are deemed intentionally homeless, the housing department is able to discharge its duty to house them. If they have children, then under the Children Act 1989 social services, quite rightly, have to find them a home. That is yet more work and costs for already overstretched social workers, who are not housing specialists, and it means that social services are competing for the small amount of private sector accommodation from which the housing department is seeking temporary accommodation. And there are all those people who come to live and work in London, who are also looking for accommodation.

Under LASPO, legal advice is not available for disrepair until it affects the tenant’s health, or for possible eviction unless a possession notice has been granted. In November 2017, the Law Society called for legal aid to be reintroduced for early advice in respect of family and housing law, saying:

“Everyone knows that if you catch a problem early, you’re more likely to stop it getting worse.”

The Law Society research showed that, on average, one in four people who received early professional legal advice had resolved their problem within three to four months, but for those who did not get any legal advice, it was not until nine months after the issue first occurred that one in four had resolved their issue, and those getting no early advice were 20% less likely on average to have their problem resolved.

The Law Society, in making its report, was not angling for more work for its members—in fact, probably the opposite, as it recognises that legal problems, like so much in life, are easier and cheaper to deal with early on. The Law Society estimates that restoring housing benefit advice to the legal aid system could be done for about £2 million a year. That is based on the cost of pre-LASPO advice in relation to housing benefits. It also suggests that restoration of early advice on mortgage arrears, which is now outside the legal aid remit, could prevent escalation of arrears and further costs of possession proceedings and, by the way, reduce some of the additional costs arising from legal aid cuts.

I am really pleased that in April, the Labour party announced its new policy to restore legal advice in all housing cases. That came from one of the recommendations of the justice commission chaired by Lord Bach, which was established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) when he became leader of the Labour party; it was one of the first things he did in that role. The Bach report estimates that restoring legal advice funded by legal aid could help up to 50,000 households a year to enforce their housing rights.

By responding to Labour’s announcement and starting to provide funding for early professional legal advice for housing matters, the Government would really be making a difference to many people in our constituencies. That would almost certainly mean a lower volume of cases going to court, as they could be resolved earlier. Wider benefits and savings would include avoiding health issues caused by significant disrepair; not having to pay housing benefit for high-cost temporary housing; fewer people becoming homeless; and fewer leaving rent arrears and mortgage debts unaddressed.

Everyone should have the right to a safe and decent home, so I ask the Government to take the opportunity presented by the review of LASPO announced last October to recommend returning to the legal aid scheme the ability to obtain legal advice for housing matters, and to have a fundamental review of legal aid as it applies to housing issues. I look hopefully at the answer that the Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on 23 January this year on this very issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) made valuable points supporting the gist of my reasons for bringing the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), from the Opposition Front Bench, committed a Labour Government to addressing the issue of early legal advice on housing. I thank other hon. Members who are no longer in their places but who made valuable points, drawing on their experience in the House.

The debate is about a fundamental issue of access to justice. I felt that the Minister made positive points about the amount of money going into legal aid and early legal advice, and new initiatives to make such advice and support more accessible, but I am concerned that, when the situation is looked at from the ground, there are still massive gaps, and there is inadequate provision, given the level of need in the country’s housing crisis: £100 million for early advice does not go very far, because I assume that it would include translation costs, which the Minister mentioned, representation in court and so on. It is good to know that the existence of deserts of provision is being addressed, with one new contract being let, but that still does not deal with the number of people queuing for advice and being turned away because there is not adequate provision. Organisations and legal firms are also going under, or ending relevant work; those skills and that knowledge are being lost for lack of funding—funding that would be for people who would never be able to pay for legal advice and assistance.

The Minister asserted that a not insubstantial sum is being paid through legal aid for housing matters. As hon. Members have eloquently said in support of my arguments, that might be compared with the cost to the public purse of homelessness and the sort of disrepair that means people, including children, must go into hospital with severe asthma due to very bad damp in their accommodation. If people in those situations were able to obtain early legal advice landlords might be forced to address the issue before it became a health crisis. That is the cost to the public purse of homelessness—and there are social care, stress and mental health costs when families are in acute housing need.

The Minister talked about new housing. We have said time and again in the House that the level of funding for truly affordable social rented housing from the Government is nothing. What is being provided is coming from local authorities and housing associations, from other resources—capital that should be spent in other areas. It is the first time since the early 1920s that a UK Government have spent nothing on social rented housing. By the way, the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 does not address street homelessness. It provides, without any resources, for additional local authority duties that may help to prevent homelessness. In itself it is no bad thing but it does not address the present crisis. I ask the Government, so that we may address, substantially, the fundamental issue of the lack of access to justice in housing, to reprovision early advice under legal aid, and carry out a serious review of all legal aid for housing issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered housing and access to legal aid.

Solitary Confinement (Children and Young People)

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point that goes to the heart of this debate. The use of solitary confinement in the justice system potentially increases harm and can impact on the young person’s life not only during a period of detention in the justice system, but in the longer term.

Black and mixed heritage children are three times more likely to experience isolation. Children with a recorded disability are two thirds more likely to experience isolation. Looked-after children are almost two thirds more likely to experience isolation. Children assessed as a suicide risk are nearly 50% more likely to experience isolation. The problem we have is that the policy is not without harm.

There is an unequivocal body of evidence on the negative health effects of solitary confinement. As has been mentioned, the symptoms observed include anxiety, depression, rage and aggression, cognitive disturbances, paranoia and, in the most extreme cases, hallucinations and psychosis. The experience can also trigger adverse childhood experiences. For children and young people—about whom this debate is most concerned—who are still in the crucial stages of developing socially, psychologically and neurologically, the health effects of isolation and solitary confinement can be particularly damaging.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is growing international consensus that solitary confinement should never be used for children and young people? The Government need to accept that this country is increasingly out of step with the rest of the world.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I will come back to it. It is interesting to note that the use of solitary confinement was banned by former President Barack Obama in 2016. There are some lessons we can learn from what is happening in the USA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lee]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Staff in young offenders institutions up and down the country are sometimes confronted with extremely difficult circumstances, with particularly troubled and violent young people. We have introduced an enhanced support unit at Feltham, and we are hoping to bring another on-stream elsewhere. We have found that the use of such units, where there is a higher staff-to-offender ratio, has worked in managing behaviour. Ultimately, the removal from association of a troublesome, very difficult young person is often the only course of action that a responsible governor can take.

The safety and welfare of children held in custody is one of my highest priorities. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston alluded to the fact that there are definitions of solitary confinement internationally, but there is not a sole definition. There are the Mandela rules, the Istanbul convention and a variety of others, but there is not one clear definition, but I would like to be clear from the outset that I have been assured that young people are never subject to solitary confinement in this country. When a child in custody is putting themselves or others at risk, segregation can be used as a last resort for limited periods of time and under regular review, when no other form of intervention is suitable to protect both the child and others. Segregation should never be used as a punishment for young people.

When a young person is removed from association, they will be given as much access as possible to the usual regime, including education and healthcare. That is monitored on a regular basis by the youth offenders institute and the independent monitoring board, in order to protect the young person.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I welcome the Minister’s statement that solitary confinement is a last resort, but a very high number of young people and children in the criminal justice system have one or more mental health illnesses, learning disabilities, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, addiction and probably other conditions. Once those children are being punished in the criminal justice system, surely they need proper specialist medical care therapy, as happens in most other countries.

[Dr Lee]

I acknowledge that the youth justice population has an over-representation of the issues that the hon. Lady has just outlined, although the diagnosis of each of those is broad and, in and of itself, not straightforward. I know that the appropriate care is made available to individuals who particularly need psychiatric input. I look at that on a regular basis, and I personally see it as my responsibility to ensure that that is the case. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me with evidence of where that is not the case, I would be more than happy to receive such a letter.

At an absolute minimum, young people in segregation in young offenders institutions will be given time in the open air, outreach education provision, healthcare, physical education and access to legal advice. Individual regime plans are agreed for each young person by a multi-disciplinary team, taking account of all those issues and any other relevant information. They are reviewed frequently on an individual basis—again, in the interest of the young person. All under-18 young offenders institutions have been given additional training on the use of segregation and the rules governing it.

I note with interest the recent inspection report from the independent monitoring board for Feltham YOI, which is of course located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston. The report noted that significant improvements have been made in addressing violence and praised the dedication and commitment of staff within the establishment. I take this opportunity to reiterate my thanks to staff at Feltham and across the youth secure estate for their continued hard work in looking after the young people in their care.

The report also noted, however, that too frequently staffing levels within the establishment affected the daily regime and the ability to provide sufficient purposeful activity and time out of room. I share those concerns and am encouraged that, across both sites at Feltham, recruitment is swiftly improving. As of the end of March, there were 105 prison officers booked on to entry-level training. I believe that every child and young person should have access to and be engaged in meaningful activities, including education and physical activities. The regime should be purposeful, meet the needs of the cohort, keep young people occupied and active all day and deliver the highest quality education. That needs to sit alongside effective behaviour management, so that young people can be out of their rooms and able to participate safely in the regimes and activities provided.

That is why we have developed a new approach to behaviour management, which includes the roll-out of the custody support plan, to provide each young person with a personalised officer to work with on a weekly basis in order to build trust and consistency. We are also implementing a conflict resolution strategy, applying restorative justice principles to help resolve conflict. However, while acknowledging the work that is continuing to be progressed to address safety in youth custody, as demonstrated in the latest inspection reports from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons for Werrington and Parc young offenders institutions, I am clear that levels of violence within the youth estate are too great, which is why we are reforming youth custody to reduce violence and improve outcomes for young people.

Investing in our workforce is a cornerstone of those reforms. We continue to be impressed by the dedication and pride that our staff show in their work with young people, as evidenced by the fact that more than 200 frontline staff have voluntarily enrolled on a youth justice foundation degree funded by the Ministry of Justice. We want to build on that success and ensure that working in youth justice continues to be seen as the respected and rewarding profession that it is.

We know that many establishments have struggled with staffing, especially in the south-east, which is why we are increasing frontline capacity in public sector young offenders institutions by bringing in more than 100 new recruits and introducing a new youth justice specialist role. We have started recruitment for those additional frontline posts in order to relieve the immediate operational pressures, alongside additional psychology roles in the YOIs. In addition, we are developing a bespoke recruitment campaign and process for the youth custody service, to target those with a passion to work with young people. The first phase of this—a new website and targeted marketing material—was launched last week.

We will develop strong leaders, building the workforce required to create a therapeutic and aspirational culture in our establishments. Our reforms will empower the leaders, giving them the freedom to deliver the right suite of services to meet the needs of the young people in their care. We are working closely with NHS England to implement Secure STAIRS, a framework for integrated care in the youth secure estate, which aims to co-ordinate the services of health and non-health providers into a coherent package, supporting trauma-informed care and a whole-system approach.

I am a strong believer in the benefit that sport and physical activity can provide to children in custody. As well as the obvious health benefits, it can provide young people with a sense of achievement, enhancing self-esteem and transforming lives. For those reasons, I commissioned Professor Rosie Meek of Royal Holloway, University of London to conduct an independent review into the role of sport in the justice system, to identify best practice and make recommendations for improvement. Professor Meek’s report will be published shortly and I await its findings with interest.

We are also looking to support organisations that want to work with young people in the youth justice system and seek opportunities to build on existing collaborations between establishments, sports clubs and providers. For example, Saracens rugby club’s Get Onside programme, which runs at Feltham for young adults, is a shining example of how sport can engage young people. The young adults who have been through this 10-week programme, which uses the ethos of rugby to teach skills such as leadership and teamwork, have shown notably lower rates of reoffending than their peers. That is just one example of how sport can help young people lead a better, more productive life, away from crime.

Finally, we continue to work on our proposal to develop secure schools. Our model will be informed by best practice from outstanding alternative provision schools, and secure schools will be set up, run and managed in a similar way to free schools.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

11. What assessment he has made of reoffending rates since the part-privatisation of probation services.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

18. What assessment he has made of reoffending rates since the part-privatisation of probation services.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

While the frequency of reoffending—in other words, the number of offences committed by prolific offenders—has risen since 2009, the base rate, or the number of people reoffending, has dropped by two percentage points since the introduction of community rehabilitation contracts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

The joint report of the inspectorates of probation and of prisons stated that if the key functions of community rehabilitation companies

“were removed tomorrow…the impact…would be negligible.”

So what exactly are we paying for?

[Rory Stewart]

I must respectfully disagree with that. As I have said, the base rate of reoffending has dropped by two percentage points, which is actually quite significant, as the rate was flat for nearly 40 years before that. It would be very dangerous indeed to remove the community rehabilitation companies, which are looking after 40,000 people who were previously under very short periods of supervision, and nearly 100,000 extra people who would be dangerous to the community if not properly monitored.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

Absolutely. One of the most terrifying statistics is the very high number of prisoners’ children who go on to offend themselves. I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss not just the issue of families, but the issue of children in particular.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

What are the Government doing to reverse the dramatic fall in community sentencing, which has nearly halved in the past decade, with a particularly sharp drop in recent years?

[Mr Gauke]

We have seen an increased use of suspended sentences, but the hon. Lady is right that we must do more. We want to work closely with community rehabilitation companies and the National Probation Service, because the judiciary must have confidence in non-custodial sentences as well as custodial sentences.

Joint Enterprise

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating it time today.

I represent some of the family of Alex Henry, whose case was explained in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). Alex Henry was involved in a fatal street fight in Ealing in 2013, and has spent four years in prison, serving 19 years under joint enterprise. His mother, Sally Halsall, is my constituent, and last October I met her and Alex’s sister, Charlotte, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. I really came to understand the importance and significance of joint enterprise, and the need to review the law.

In August 2013 Alex Henry went shopping with three friends. A confrontation took place that lasted just over 40 seconds. It is not clear why the confrontation took place, but it may have been triggered by a stare. One young man used a knife from within a bag, and he stabbed two brothers, one of whom tragically lost his life. On the sixth day of the trial, the man with the knife pleaded guilty to murder and grievous bodily harm with intent, and was sentenced to 22 years. Alex Henry received a sentence of 19 years—only four years less—despite never touching the knife or even being aware of its existence.

Since Alex’s conviction in March 2014, his family have campaigned tirelessly with JENGbA to reform the law of joint enterprise. The injustice, as the family saw it, was that traditionally, for someone to be found guilty of murder the Crown needed to prove that the defendant inflicted fatal harm while intending to kill, or at least to commit very serious harm. Conversely, under joint enterprise the Crown needs only to prove that the defendant foresaw the possibility that the crime “might” happen, rather than that they intended it and knew that it “would” happen. This means that it is easier to prove the guilt of the accessory than the principal offender. Therefore, in Alex’s case the Crown needed to prove that Alex foresaw the possibility that the stabbing “might” happen, rather than that he intended and knew that it “would” happen.

There was no evidence that Alex knew about the possession of the knife and therefore that someone might be stabbed. However, the Crown persuaded the jury by arguing that “friends tell each other everything”, and therefore that Alex must have known the other man was in possession of a knife that day, and foreseen the possibility of its use if any altercations were to arise during the shopping trip. “Friends tell each other everything and therefore the crime could have been foreseen”—what a shocking indictment of the way the law works if that can lock up a young man for so long.

As we have heard, in February 2016 the joint enterprise law was successfully reformed. Now, rather than foresight, the Crown needs only to prove that the defendant intentionally encouraged or assisted the principal offender while knowing that the crime “would” take place. The law of joint enterprise has convicted thousands of men, women and children, 800 of whom are supported by JENGbA. However, the courts have ruled that the change in the law will have no automatic retrospective effect for out-of-time appeals, which include every case resulting in conviction 28 days or more before the change in the law. Instead, those out-of-time appeals will be allowed only if a defendant can prove a substantial injustice, which means proving that the change in law would, without doubt, have made a difference.

However, that is an impossible test, as was found in the case of Regina v. Anwar in 2016. The evidential bar has not been raised by Jogee; in particular, presence at the scene of the offence can amount to encouragement of the crime. Moreover, proof of the defendant’s intent to encourage, coupled with his knowledge that the crime would happen, can be inferred from the friendship of the co-defendants, just as foresight was inferred before Jogee.

If nothing more need be shown evidentially since the change in the law, how can a defendant prove that the change in the law would have made a difference? In comparison, those who have suffered a misapplication of the law changed in Jogee need to show only within 28 days of conviction that the conviction is unsafe, in that the misdirection might have made a difference. So far, no out-of-time case has succeeded on appeal—including Alex’s appeal, which was rejected.

In his excellent report on black and minority ethnic people in the justice system, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, who is no longer in his place, rightly shone a light on unacceptable inequality, particularly for young people from those communities. But two other factors are particularly relevant to joint enterprise. First, there is maturity. Many convicted under joint enterprise are not in full maturity; the justice system is beginning, slowly, to understand that young men under 25 are not mature and need to be considered slightly differently—their maturity must be a factor in their cases.

The other factor is the autism spectrum. Alex Henry’s diagnosis of autism was important in his case. Despite Alex’s having had many problems from an early age, no one had suggested to him or his family that he might be on the autistic spectrum until a viewer of the documentary made about the case wrote to the family. Alex’s family then arranged for Alex to be assessed by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, the leading academic on autism and Asperger’s syndrome in this country.

The professor’s report states that it is incredibly unlikely that Alex could have foreseen what would or might happen in those 40 seconds since, due to his autism, he cannot predict the actions, behaviours or intentions of others. The Court of Appeal rejected that ground because Alex’s mother has a PhD in psychology and so she could have coached Alex in “how to act autistic”. That is shocking. The court also said that it could not understand why Alex was diagnosed so late in life, aged 23, despite seven previous mental health assessments, which did not result in a diagnosis.

[Mr Mitchell]

I want to strongly support what the hon. Lady is saying about the judgment of the court in that case in respect of autism. I have read the case and, as a layman, I find the response of the court completely inexplicable.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman so much. Anybody who has had any contact with people who have been diagnosed with autism at a later stage knows that the condition is often not diagnosed early. Many people go though many difficulties in their lives before being diagnosed, if at all. Alex was one of those in that unlucky situation. Because autism is an invisible disorder, many assessments found traits of autism as highlighted in Professor Baron-Cohen’s report. That could be a factor in appeals.

The refusal of Alex’s appeal has left the family devastated, as the House can imagine, but they are determined to see him proved innocent. In their view—and mine, from what I know of the case—he is not a murderer. How many people in prison for joint enterprise have undiagnosed autism? We need to look at that.

Since Alex’s appeal was rejected last year, his sister Charlotte has applied to challenge the “substantial injustice” at the Supreme Court. The family are also taking Alex’s case to the European Court of Human Rights. They believe that joint enterprise breached article 7 of the European convention on human rights and the principle of legality that holds that there shall be no punishment without law. Since those convicted under joint enterprise were not actually convicted under a true law, their presumption of innocence under article 6(2) remains, and it is breached by the need to prove that the change in the law would have made a difference.

In October 2016, the Select Committee on Justice, on which I have the pleasure and honour of serving, wrote to the chair of the Law Commission to suggest that it review the law of joint enterprise, given the lack of legal clarity in the wake of the Jogee judgement—particularly on how juries should be directed on the question of intention. Unfortunately, the final version of the 13th programme of reform omits any work on joint enterprise. I know, however, that the Justice Committee’s Chair will continue to push those points.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady is right that the Committee will want to pursue that point. However, there is nothing to stop the Government themselves asking the Law Commission to carry out a review, as has happened a number of times in the past.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

As we have heard, the Justice Committee also wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions suggesting clarification on the intention of the defendant. I support the clear demands put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central: proportionality, the need for proper data, a review of the CPS guidance and a review of older cases. All those are essential, and we look forward to the Minister’s response on all those issues.

For the sake of Alex, the thousands of others imprisoned under joint enterprise and their loved ones, I support the calls of colleagues across the House that the injustice be rectified. Let us right the wrong. If we really want to address knife crime, let us learn from the places that have actually brought it down.