Revenge Pornography
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) has made a very powerful and passionate speech on a hugely important subject. She has used this debate to highlight the truly despicable behaviour involving so-called revenge porn, which can cause serious distress and humiliation. The victims are, as she says, often women, but we must recognise that men can also be part of this category of suffering, the consequences of which can be absolutely devastating. I share her concerns about the misery and upset that such actions can inflict on others. Let me make it clear at the outset that I very much hope that victims of such behaviour will not hesitate to contact the police.
It may help the House if I outline some of the sanctions that we already have in place to combat this type of problem. All published material, online and offline, is subject to the Obscene Publications Act 1959, including material that has been uploaded to the internet. Under the Act, revenge porn material, depending on the content, may constitute an offence that carries with it a five-year maximum prison sentence. An article is deemed to be obscene if its effect, when taken as a whole, is such as to tend to “deprave and corrupt” persons who are likely to read, see or hear it. This general test of obscenity is flexible, allowing the courts to reflect society’s attitudes towards pornographic and other material.
Importantly, if images misused for revenge porn activity are of children under 18, and are perhaps being used to bully the young, legislation such as the Protection of Children Act 1978 could be used against those making or circulating them. The Government are determined to do all they can to curb the distribution of indecent images of children, on the internet and elsewhere. The law in this area is very clear. Under the 1978 Act, the UK has a strict prohibition on the taking, making, circulation, and possession with a view to distribution of any indecent photograph of a child under 18, and such offences carry a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. The term “indecent” is not defined in the 1978 Act. The courts decide in each case whether the material in question is indecent.
Even if the content of revenge porn postings does not fall foul of the laws on pornography and obscenity, other communications offences might apply to this behaviour. For example, if the content is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing, it may fall under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it an offence to send such material over a public electronic communications network. Depending on the content, sending this material may also amount to an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, provided that it is sent with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any person to whom the sender intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
Depending on the circumstances, a civil action may also be available under the law of tort in respect of the misuse of private information. Remedies available include damages and an injunction to require removal of the material and/or to prevent repetition of the behaviour in question. Even if the content itself is not illegal, if its distribution is carried out as part of a “course of conduct” that alarms a person or causes distress, this could amount to a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Maria Miller
The Minister is eloquently outlining all the laws that could apply in these cases. If we are to assess the effectiveness of those laws, it would be useful to know how many convictions have been secured as a result of the police taking action. Does he have that information available for the House?
Mr Vara
My right hon. Friend asks a very good question. We do not have specific figures relating to revenge porn in cases that have been prosecuted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. We have figures for prosecutions under certain sections of the Act—such as section 2 on pursuing a course of conduct that amounts to harassment and section 4 on causing someone to fear that violence will be used against them—but not for the specific offences covered by them. We do not, therefore, have the specific details for which my right hon. Friend asks.
Maria Miller
I thank the Minister for giving way: he is being very generous with his time. Will he consider gathering that specific data, because that would strengthen his case that the law is as it should be? I fear that many people who are affected by these crimes are not able to use the remedies he has suggested. I think there is a mismatch between the support people expect from the law and what the law is actually delivering.
Mr Vara
My right hon. Friend raises another very good issue. There are questions of logistics in terms of obtaining specific information, given the number of cases involved. For example, in 2013 the number of section 2 cases proceeded against was just under 6,000—5,970, to be precise—and the number of those found guilty was 4,459. The total number of section 4 cases proceeded against was 1,040 and 641 of them were found guilty. I very much take on board what my right hon. Friend asks in terms of specifics and I would be happy to look into that, but I hope she will recognise that when such large numbers are involved there can sometimes be a logistical issue.
Other laws in the area of cyber-crime may be breached if, for example, the images have been obtained via computer hacking. Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 provides for a criminal offence of unauthorised access to any programme or data held in a computer, which is commonly known as hacking. This carries a sentence of up to two years on indictment.
As with all crime, although we need strong sanctions when offences are committed, the ideal, of course, is to prevent them from being carried out. That is why, across Government, we are carrying out work that touches on areas affected by the use of revenge porn. For example, in schools we are giving teachers stronger powers to tackle the scourge of cyber-bullying and we are helping to educate pupils about the dangers of the internet.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the internet is a force for good. It is a great resource for learning, entertainment and many other positive activities. It is also, of course, a great British invention. However, like many tools that are capable of doing immense good, in the wrong hands it can equally do immense harm. That is why we need to be alive to those possibilities and to take appropriate and proportionate measures to counter them.
Martin Horwood
I am afraid I am going to go a little further than the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) and say that nothing I have heard suggests that there are any laws that can be used in a situation when, for instance, the image has not been hacked, the person is an adult, the photos are not grossly offensive—because they were probably taken in a private context originally—and Google, or whichever search engine transmits them through links, does not intend to cause offence. There do not seem to be any legal remedies among the Acts the Minister has mentioned, so I think a more thorough review of which laws need to be passed or which amendments need to be made to imminent legislation is now called for.
Mr Vara
If my hon. Friend can be a little patient, he might find that I will be able to give him some food for thought later. There may be remedies in the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or the Communications Act 2003, where there is a fair amount of flexibility. I will come back to the issue he raises a little later.
When indecent images have been circulated via social networking sites or abusive behaviour has occurred on social media networks, the Government expect social media companies to have robust processes in place to respond promptly when abuse is reported. That includes acting quickly to assess a report, removing content that does not comply with existing acceptable use policies or terms and conditions and, where appropriate, suspending or terminating the accounts of those who breach the rules.
The Government are working through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, as well as at EU level, to improve the transparency of reporting processes and the ways in which reports are handled. We will continue to work closely with social media companies to ensure that they have measures in place to protect their users.
Following consultation, in June 2013, the Director of Public Prosecutions published guidelines for prosecutors considering cases that involve communications sent via social media. The guidelines are designed to give clear advice to prosecutors who have been asked for a charging decision or to give early advice to the police, as well as in the review of cases charged by the police. The guidelines seek to draw the difficult balance between protecting freedom of speech and acting robustly against communications that cross the threshold into illegality.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked about the consultation currently being undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service and specifically referred to online abuse. I am happy to look into whether the consultation covers the issue of online abuse, and I will write to her in due course.
The Government already have a strong framework of offences for dealing with, and projects in place to respond to, this deeply upsetting and, frankly, cowardly behaviour. However, I very much recognise that the internet is fast moving, and it is important for the law of the land to keep pace with it. This is a global issue. Countries such as the United States of America, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, and Australia and Israel have legislated on the issue, and other countries across the globe are looking at it further. Let me be clear that the Government take the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend very seriously. I am happy to look again at this area and to assess the extent of the problem to see whether we need to legislate further to ensure that such behaviour is dealt with appropriately.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend has not so far referred to my issue about police training. If he is saying that there is a suite of laws that can deal with the issues I have mentioned, is he happy that the police can use those laws in a way that gives proper support to the women and, indeed, men who are affected by these sorts of crimes?
Mr Vara
In the less than two minutes that I have left, let me briefly say that the police do an outstanding job, wherever possible, but there are difficulties, and there is always an ongoing process into how matters can be improved. I will certainly speak to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims to make sure that he is aware of this issue, and to ensure that improvements are made where they can be.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke will agree that the need for further legislation must be properly examined, particularly as the subject has implications across a wide area of the criminal law and of Government policy. Moreover, any further sanctions on internet content need to be carefully assessed against the possible implications for freedom of expression and of the media. I again thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House, and I reiterate that I shall look very seriously into the matters she has raised today.
Question put and agreed to.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 13—Periods of time for certain legal challenges.
New clause 53—Application of provisions to environmental claims—
‘(1) Sections 55 to 60 of this Act shall not apply to judicial review proceedings which have as their subject an issue relating wholly or partly to—
(a) the state of elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;
(b) factors, such as substances, energy, noise and radiation, and activities or measures, including administrative measures, environmental agreements, policies, legislation, plans and programmes, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment within the scope of sub-paragraph (a) above, and cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used in environmental decision-making;
(c) the state of human health and safety, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures, inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment or, through these elements, by the factors, activities or measures referred to in sub-paragraph (b) above.”
This amendment limits the application of the provisions of this Act on judicial review proceedings which relate to the environment, in line with the definition of environmental information in the Aarhus Convention.
Government new schedule 3—Procedure for certain planning challenges.
Government amendment 1.
Amendment 23, page 55, line 12, leave out clause 55.
Amendment 24, in clause 55, page 55, line 16, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
Amendment 25, page 55, line 18, leave out “not” and insert “decide not to”.
Amendment 26, page 55, line 20, leave out “highly likely” and insert “inevitable”.
Amendment 27, page 55, line 31, leave out “highly likely” and insert “inevitable”.
Amendment 28, page 55, line 32, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
Amendment 29, page 55, line 35, leave out
“conduct (or alleged conduct) of the defendant”
and insert “procedural defect”.
Amendment 30, page 56, line 15, leave out
“conduct (or alleged conduct) of the respondent”
and insert “procedural defect”.
Amendment 31, page 56, line 19, leave out “highly likely” and insert “inevitable”.
Amendment 32, page 56, line 21, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
Amendment 33, page 56, line 28, leave out clause 56.
Amendment 34, page 57, line 25, leave out clause 57.
Amendment 35, page 58, line 2, leave out clause 58.
Amendment 36, in clause 58, page 58, line 11, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
Amendment 51, page 58, line 11, leave out subsections (4), (5) and (6) and insert—
‘(4) On an application to the High Court or the Court of Appeal by a relevant party to the proceedings, the court may order the intervener to pay such costs as the court considers just.
(5) An order under subsection (4) will not be considered just unless exceptional circumstances apply.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), exceptional circumstances include where an intervener has in substance acted as if it were the principal applicant, appellant or respondent in the case.’
Amendment 37, page 58, line 18, leave out “or (5)”.
Amendment 38, page 58, line 34, leave out clause 59.
Amendment 42, in clause 59, page 58, line 41, leave out
“only if leave to apply for judicial review has been granted”
and insert
“at any stage of the proceedings.”
Amendment 39, page 59, line 32, leave out subsections (9) to (11).
Amendment 40, page 60, line 11, leave out clause 60.
Amendment 44, in clause 60, page 60, line 29, leave out “must” and insert “should normally”.
Amendment 41, page 60, line 31, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
Mr Vara
May I say at the outset that I propose to speak first to the Government amendments and then to let hon. Members speak to their amendments, to which I will reply at the end of this debate?
Clause 62 creates a permission stage for statutory challenges under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to English matters. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) tabled a number of technical amendments that sought to tidy up and harmonise procedures across the planning regime. I responded that we needed more time to properly consider the amendments.
Following further consideration and discussions with my hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who has responsibility for planning, the Government now seek to advance proposals to extend the permission stage to other planning-related statutory challenges; to simplify procedures to enable challenges to costs awards connected to some planning and listed building decisions to be challenged as part of the same application; and to standardise the start time for various planning-related statutory challenges.
Amendment 1, new clause 52 and new schedule 3 omit clause 62 and replace it with a new clause and schedule that set out where leave of the court is required to bring planning-related statutory challenges. The amendments to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act that were originally set out in clause 62 affected only challenges to decisions concerning English matters. The amendments in this new schedule are broader, ensuring that the leave requirement applies in all section 288 cases.
The new schedule also requires leave of the court before challenges can be brought to a range of planning-related decisions, orders, actions and documents. It will affect section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which relates to challenges to decisions concerning simplified planning zones, highways and rights of way orders, and relief of statutory undertakers from obligations. It will also affect section 63 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which concerns challenges to listed building consent procedures; section 22 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990, which relates to challenges to hazardous substance consent decisions; and, finally, section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which relates to challenges to development plans.
It makes sense to have consistency across these different types of challenges and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for bringing the issue to my attention. I agree with him that requiring leave in some types of cases but not in others could create difficulties for the new planning court, at a time when we are trying to make things simpler and speed up planning cases. The efficiency of the court system is a matter for Government to consider across both England and Wales, and these amendments apply to the whole jurisdiction.
New clause 52 and new schedule 3 also permit challenges to awards of costs relating to planning and listed building decisions to be brought as part of the substantive challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act or section 63 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act.
At the moment, when an award of costs is made, it can be challenged only through an application for judicial review. That is separate to the application for statutory review of the substantive decision. Allowing costs to be challenged as part of the section 288 or section 63 challenge would remove the need for an aggrieved party to make two separate applications to the High Court and pay two separate filing fees.
New clause 13 standardises the date from which various challenges may be brought to the day after the relevant decision has been made. Planning challenges have to be brought within six weeks. Moving the start time to the day after the decision date is consistent with the approach taken in the civil procedure rules for judicial review claims. This is a harmonisation measure designed to assist in the smooth working of the new planning court and to reduce the scope for error by claimants.
I urge the House to accept amendment 1, new clauses 13 and 52, and new schedule 3.
Julie Hilling
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he puts forward a false position. In this House, I can speak on behalf of my constituents and attempt to get Ministers to act on their behalf, but I cannot overthrow the rule of the court. We can of course attempt to change the law in future cases, but it is judicial review that enables our constituents to have recourse to justice, ensuring that justice works on their behalf, not just on behalf of the state.
I wanted to give a number of other examples of where judicial review has been used, but I will instead finish by saying that the Government should be ashamed that they are taking these steps to limit even further access to justice. They are further limiting the ability of the ordinary person to challenge the state and to say, “Actually, you’ve got it wrong on this occasion.” We will have better law and better justice if we do not curtail access for those who need it the most. I am most concerned about the little people at the bottom who will, thanks to these measures, not be able to access justice. I hope that the Government will see reason and accept our amendments. If they want to ensure that we continue to have a civilised society, they must support access to justice, and they must support David against Goliath.
Mr Vara
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, and I hope that I can put on the record at least some of the points that I wish to make before the clock runs out at 2.39 pm. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and, through him, the legal fraternity for all their help in ensuring that we have tidied up some matters relating to planning.
Mr Slaughter
I hope that the Minister will not read a prepared speech but address a subject that was raised in the debate, which the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) rather gave away, namely that the clauses remove the existing balance in the system and weight it in favour of the stronger party. Rather than talking to the chief executive of the local authority, why does the Minister not talk to the care home resident, the small business that is being pulled down because of planning regulations or the homeless person who is not being taken in? Those are the people who are disadvantaged. They are not meritless cases, but people who do not have the necessary resources.
Mr Vara
I am addressing the issues concerned. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like them, but that does not mean that I will not address them. As for making proper speeches, given the personal attacks that he made when he spoke, perhaps he should have better regard for the etiquette of the House. I will not take any lectures from him.
Amendments 29 and 30 probe the scope of clause 55. In practice, the clause will bite on minor procedural defects, because more significant defects will not be highly unlikely to have made a difference to the outcome for the applicant. There is no accepted definition of “procedural defects”, and it would be virtually impossible to arrive at a definition that would stand the test of time because judicial review evolves with each new decision.
Clauses 56 to 61 will rebalance the financial aspects of judicial review. Those involved in bringing judicial reviews should not be able to hide behind a claimant of limited means or an off-the-shelf company to avoid appropriate liability at the taxpayer’s expense. I do not accept that clauses 56 and 57 will prevent meritorious judicial reviews from being brought. As now, non-party funders will be liable only where they also seek to drive or control the litigation in some way.
Clause 58 establishes two presumptions concerning persons who voluntarily intervene in a judicial review: first, that the court must order an intervener in judicial review proceedings to pay their own costs; and, secondly, that the court must order the intervener to pay the reasonable costs that their intervention has caused a party to incur. Where there are exceptional circumstances, the court need not make an order. Amendment 35 would remove the clause in its entirety, and amendments 36 and 37 would remove the second presumption. Amendment 51, which draws from the Supreme Court rules, would allow the court to award costs against an intervener only in exceptional circumstances.
The first presumption—that an intervener will pay their own costs—represents the current position. Interveners already almost invariably cover their own costs. On the second presumption—that an intervener will pay costs they cause a party to incur—it is right that all interventions should be carried out appropriately and reasonably. The Government share the view that interveners add value to proceedings, and clause 58 is not intended to prevent interventions. However, those who intervene should properly consider the cost implications of doing so.
I know that the clause has caused some disquiet and I agreed in Committee to consider further the second presumption, having listened carefully to the points made, particularly those by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). I wish to record my gratitude to him for his assistance, and I believe his proposed amendment reflects, in part, what we want to achieve. Although we are not in a position to accept the amendments, we are looking seriously at how to ensure that interveners consider carefully the cost implications of intervening, without deterring those who intervene in appropriate cases and add value. I am happy to commit to continuing discussions to consider further whether the clause needs to be redrafted to target the specific behaviours that we want to address.
Clauses 59 to 61 establish a codified costs capping regime in judicial review proceedings, building on the regime that has been developed by the courts through case law. The usual costs position should be circumvented only in exceptional, meritorious cases involving serious issues of the highest public interest that otherwise would not be taken forward. We are concerned that costs capping orders can currently be made at any stage of a case. If an order is made at an early stage and a judge later decides that the case has no merit and does not grant permission for it to go any further, the claimant will be protected from having to pay the defendant’s costs of defending that unmeritorious claim.
A number of points have been raised by colleagues. I simply say that with judicial review, we are trying to ensure that meritorious claims go ahead. It is unmeritorious claims that we are trying to deal with, such as those where people hide behind a shelf company, or where people front an application for other individuals who are actually behind it and driving it. We want to maintain judicial reviews for meritorious cases, but we want to ensure that unmeritorious claims are dealt with appropriately. We also want to ensure proportionality by making those who wish to intervene take account of the costs, particularly when some of those costs are to be borne by others.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 52 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 13
Periods of time for certain legal challenges
‘(1) In section 61N of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (legal challenges relating to neighbourhood development orders)—
(a) in subsections (1)(b) and (2)(b), after “beginning with” insert “the day after”;
(b) in subsection (3)(b)—
(i) for “during” substitute “before the end of”;
(ii) after “beginning with” insert “the day after”.
(2) In section 106C of that Act (legal challenges relating to development consent obligations)—
(a) in subsection (1)(b)—
(i) for “during” substitute” “before the end of”;
(ii) after “beginning with” insert “the day after”;
(b) in subsection (1A), after “begins with” insert “the day after”;
(c) in subsections (2)(b) and (3)(b)—
(i) for “during” substitute” “before the end of”;
(ii) after “beginning with” insert “the day after”.
(3) In section 13 of the Planning Act 2008 (legal challenges relating to national policy statements), in subsections (1)(b), (2)(b), (3)(b), (4)(b), (5)(b) and (6)(b)—
(a) for “during” substitute “before the end of”;
(b) after “beginning with” insert “the day after”.
(4) In section 118 of that Act (legal challenges relating to applications for orders granting development consent)—
(a) in subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b)—
(i) for “during” substitute “before the end of”;
(ii) after “beginning with” insert “the day after”;
(b) in subsections (4)(b), (5)(b) and (6)(b)—
(i) for “during” substitute “before the end of”;
(ii) after “day”, wherever occurring, insert “after the day”;
(c) in subsection (7)(b)—
(i) for “during” substitute “before the end of”;
(ii) after “beginning with” insert “the day after”.” —(Mr Vara.)
The provisions amended by the clause allow for legal challenges to certain planning-related decisions and other actions. They stipulate that a challenge may be made during a period of six weeks beginning with the day on which the decision or action challenged occurs. The amendments secure that the six-week period does not start to run until the following day
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Personal Injury Claims
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My noble Friend, the Minister for civil justice and legal policy, Lord Faulks QC, has made the following written ministerial statement:
The Government intend to bring forward at the earliest opportunity legislative measures aimed at tackling unjustified personal injury claims.
First, we intend to introduce legislation to require the court to dismiss in its entirety any personal injury claim where it is satisfied that the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest, unless it would cause substantial injustice to the claimant to do so. These provisions are particularly relevant both to cases where the claimant has grossly exaggerated his or her own claim, and to cases where the claimant has colluded with another person in a fraudulent claim relating to the same incident (for example, a “phantom passenger” case where a claimant is genuinely injured in a car accident, but colludes with another person who dishonestly claims to have been in the vehicle and also injured).
Under the current law, the courts have discretion to dismiss a claim entirely for fraudulent behaviour, but will only do so in very exceptional cases, and will generally still award the claimant compensation in relation to the “genuine” element of the claim. We intend to strengthen the law so that dismissal of the claim in its entirety should become the norm in such cases.
Secondly, the Government intend to bring a statutory ban on the offer of inducements by lawyers in personal injury cases. Examples abound of solicitors offering money or gifts such as iPads to clients for pursuing a personal injury claim.
This encourages unnecessary claims, and suggests that lawyers are making too much money out of the process and seeking to offset the effect of the Government’s much needed ban on the payment and receipt of referral fees.
On 1 April 2013, the Ministry of Justice banned claims management companies from offering cash inducements to consumers to make claims, and we propose to introduce a similar prohibition to cover lawyers as soon as legislative time allows.
Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Government have decided that the United Kingdom should opt in to the proposed Council decision on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague convention of 30 June 2005 on choice of court agreements. The president of the Council was notified on 30 April.
The Hague convention on choice of law agreements was agreed in 2005. It will give greater legal force to choice of court agreements—that is to say, agreements made by the parties to a civil or commercial contract about their preferred dispute resolution forum in the event of a dispute.
The effect of the convention will be that courts will, in principle, have to give effect to such agreements. Similar rules are already provided in the recast Brussels I regulation (1215/2012) for intra-EU cases. The convention will, however, mean that courts in the EU will, in principle, be required to decline jurisdiction in favour of a court in a non-EU country that has been chosen by the parties. In the absence of ratification of the convention, courts in the EU would have no such obligation. If those courts accepted jurisdiction it could work against legal certainty and, in certain cases, lead to the proceedings being substantially slowed.
The convention has so far been ratified by Mexico and signed by the United States and the European Union. It is expected that more states will ratify soon.
The operation of the principle of exclusive EU external competence is such that, because of the existence of internal EU rules on jurisdiction, the EU must act collectively to give effect to this convention and a Council decision is required. Once approved, the effect of the decision will be that the convention has effect throughout the EU (with the exception of Denmark) as a matter of EU law.
The convention is likely to be of particular benefit to UK stakeholders, including those in the City of London. As a major centre for commercial business, the UK will benefit from enhanced legal certainty in relation to choice of court agreements. Commercial contracts worldwide specify with impressive frequency English common law as the applicable law, with courts in the UK chosen as the forums for resolution of any disputes. Given the benefits likely to accrue to UK interests from the convention, the Government have decided to opt in.
Legal Services Regulatory Framework
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Ministry of Justice has today published its response to the call for evidence on the review of the legal services regulatory framework. A copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Government are committed to better regulation, regulating only when it is appropriate to do so. During 2013 the Ministry of Justice published a call for evidence in which we sought ideas on ways to simplify the legal services regulatory framework and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on the legal services sector. The call for evidence was launched on 5 June 2013 and closed on 2 September 2013.
We asked for concerns with, and ideas for reducing, regulatory burdens and simplifying the legal services regulatory framework, including ideas covering the overall legislative framework, and any specific provisions or aspects within it, while retaining appropriate regulatory oversight. We asked for comments on the interaction between the legislative framework and the detailed rules and regulations of the approved regulators, licensing authorities and the Legal Services Board and Office for Legal Complaints, which are, of course, independent of Government.
A total of 71 responses to the call for evidence were received, mainly from the oversight regulator, approved regulators and their regulatory bodies, consumer bodies, practitioners, legal academics and the judiciary.
Having considered the range of evidence collected through the call for evidence, we concluded that there was no consensus on the longer-term vision for regulation. In addition, we found that the majority of responses focused on the structure of the regulatory landscape, rather than on the detail of particular burdens that could be removed. Due to the detailed legislative framework and independence of legal regulation from Government, the call for evidence did not reveal any options for Government to reduce regulatory burdens on legal service practitioners, or to simplify the regulatory framework, that did not entail changes to primary legislation. In light of the above, the Government have decided not to take forward any changes to the statutory framework at this time.
However, we remain committed to reducing regulatory burdens on practitioners in the legal sector, and promoting innovation, competition and growth in the legal services market. We intend to impress upon the regulators the need to continue, and accelerate, their efforts to reduce unnecessary burdens on providers, including unnecessary barriers to entry, as rapidly as possible and to make clear progress in this over the coming months. We will therefore write to the Legal Services Board, the approved regulators and regulators, expressing this strong desire to quickly take forward work to reduce regulatory burdens for legal service practitioners.
In addition, while noting that a number of responses highlighted the inconsistency between reserved activities and other legal services which are not regulated, we do not propose to extend the scope of regulation to new areas at this time.
We will continue to investigate whether changes to the statutory framework are required to simplify the landscape, in the context of the progress made by the regulators in reducing burdens on practitioners. We will also need to consider whether changes are needed in response to the anticipated independent report by Sir Bill Jeffrey on the provision of independent criminal advocacy services.
Any major changes to the architecture for legal services regulation will require primary legislation, preceded by further significant consideration, and consultation, before there is a definite move away from the current structure.
Music in Prisons
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Chope. I would like to thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for securing this debate on such an important subject. It is abundantly clear from what he has said that he has great expertise and knowledge on the subject. I assure him that I will ensure that what he has said today will be conveyed to my hon. Friend the Prisons Minister. Also, I am more than happy to facilitate a meeting for him, to the extent that he feels one is necessary after I have said my piece.
This is an important debate. I welcome the opportunity to speak about the important role that music plays in our prisons and set out the position regarding prisoner access to musical instruments. Let me be clear: facilitating access to musical instruments for prisoners is an important part of their rehabilitation. Whether individual prisoners learn to play musical instruments or music is played in a shared environment, such as a prison chaplaincy, music can provide focus, encourage positive social interaction and provide constructive activity.
In chaplaincy, we see activities involving and using music in a range of ways. As well as music being used as part of some of the main acts of worship, a number of chaplaincies have choirs or chapel bands, which allow prisoners to be part of a creative shared experience. They can also help prisoners to develop listening and communication skills and engage with others in a positive way.
In education, there is significant provision for learning about music. The offender learning and skills service, which has been commissioned jointly by the National Offender Management Service and the Skills Funding Agency, works with offenders to identify their learning needs and advise on what learning and training opportunities are available in prisons. Vocational opportunities are available towards the end of a prisoner’s sentence, to ensure that any training undertaken is current and relevant to the local job market on release.
The offender learning and skills service—OLASS—also funds personal and social development, which may include recreational learning, such as music activity. Personal and social development is particularly helpful when engaging with resistant learners who might not participate in more formal learning. In the 2011-12 academic year, there were 580 enrolments on OLASS courses that included music as part of the course title. A range of courses are available, including the awards for music practitioners, in music theory and in sound engineering and music technology.
Aside from learning, prisoners are also able to listen to music in their cells by listening to CDs in their possession or to the radio. As well as the availability of national radio, prison radio is now installed in 102 prisons.
Guy Opperman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way. I have appeared on prison radio and experienced its quality in Brixton prison, which is one of the hubs for prison radio, so I would like to say first of all that it is doing a fantastic job and should be supported by the Ministry of Justice. Secondly, I can assure the House that although my book, quite rightly, cannot be posted at random to a prisoner by any person, however esteemed, it is available in prisons via the usual channels and is being read.
Mr Vara
I am sure that those prisoners who are regular and avid readers of Hansard will take note of that plug for my hon. Friend’s book, which is easily available in the relevant prison libraries. I note what he said about the prison radio service, which is available in many prisons. The Prison Radio Association delivers national prison radio, and prison radio tutors work with prisoners to develop new and innovative content. As well as output that is focused on reducing reoffending and encouraging engagement with education, training and opportunities in prison, music is broadcast. Many individual prison governors also engage with local community and voluntary sector organisations, which facilitate music-based activities.
There is plenty of music to be heard in our prisons. I recognise, however, that the hon. Member for Cardiff West is particularly concerned about changes that we have made to the incentives and earned privileges policy framework and what those changes might mean for prisoners who want to play guitars. It important that I explain the intention behind the changes and what they mean in practice.
The policy on incentives and earned privileges underwent a thorough and detailed review, the first such review for more than 10 years, to ensure that the revised framework would properly address reoffending and that the public could have confidence in it. The review of the policy included extensive consultation with prison operational staff.
Since the changes came into effect on 1 November 2013, the absence of bad behaviour has no longer been enough to earn privileges; now prisoners must also work towards their own rehabilitation and help others. The focus on rehabilitation resulted in numerous other changes to the framework. For example, prisoners can no longer sit in their cells watching television when they should be out working or in education, and they can no longer spend much of their days in the gym.
An important part of our changes was ensuring that prisons operate to a consistent standard in allowing privileges to prisoners who have earned them. That is why we introduced the standardised facilities list, which identifies and limits the items of property that prisoners can retain in their cells, subject to their IEP level. The list is available for each governor to select from as they consider suitable to the specific population, physical fabric and regime of the prison.
The changes have not prevented prisoners from playing musical instruments. The greater the commitment a prisoner shows to the requirements of the IEP framework, the more money they can earn from working, the more they are allowed to spend and the greater the range of property they are allowed to have. Prisoners who work hard, engage and achieve standard and enhanced levels can purchase a musical instrument to keep in their possession at the governor’s discretion. Prisoners who do not engage are not permitted to possess a musical instrument. The standardised facilities list sets out a number of different instruments that prisoners can purchase: for example, a flute, a harmonica or an acoustic guitar.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West is particularly concerned about the position in respect of prisoner access to guitars and the type of strings permitted. Prisoners on the standard and enhanced levels of the IEP framework can be allowed an acoustic guitar with nylon strings. For the bass notes, that can include nylon strings with metal coiled around the outside. Guitar strings can be issued on a one-for-one basis, subject to risk assessments. Full metal guitar strings are not permitted. As I have mentioned, the revised policy was subject to a significant amount of consultation with the operational line and other interested parties. The consultation extended to the contents of the standardised list itself. In the light of security concerns, a decision was made not to allow full metal strings.
Kevin Brennan
I am grateful for that information. As far as I am aware, that is the first time that Ministers have mentioned any security concerns. If that is the case—incidentally, I hope to persuade the Minister that there need not be with regard to nylon strings—why is that not indicated in the National Offender Management Service list of items and restrictions, and why is there no security “S” flag on the document?
Mr Vara
I am not saying that there is no security risk with nylon strings, because I think it is acknowledged that there is. It is just felt that there is a greater risk with metal strings. As for the specifics that the hon. Gentleman requires, I am mindful of the time limit on this debate and keen to put as much on record as I can, but I am happy to return to the issue later.
Kevin Brennan
Before the Minister moves on, there are six minutes left and this is the heart of the matter. The NOMS document does not say that there is a security concern. I would be grateful if, following this debate, he would send me the details of the concern and of how it was raised during the consultation, and perhaps indicate why it is not signalled in the NOMS document. However, I am grateful for his earlier offer of a meeting with the Minister to discuss it further.
Mr Vara
I am certainly happy to follow up on this debate by supplying the information that the hon. Gentleman has requested and providing the explanations that he has sought.
I am keen to get everything on the record in the limited time that I have. The hon. Gentleman referred to electric guitars, particularly with reference to a letter that he had received. The standardised list does not allow prisoners to have electric guitars in their possession. It was certainly not the case before the standardised facilities list came into effect that prisons routinely allowed prisoners to have electric guitars in their possession; it has always been more usual for prisoners to have access to electric guitars in a supervised setting. I know that charities such as Jail Guitar Doors have donated numerous electric guitars to prisons over the past few years. Those guitars are most often kept in educational or chaplaincy departments for prisoners to use in a supervised environment, rather than kept by individual prisoners. It is important to be clear that none of the changes involved in IEP should have affected the use of electric guitars and other musical instruments in a supervised setting. The changes to IEP involve the property that prisoners can possess in their cells.
Inevitably, when deciding what items prisoners can possess, there will be a variety of views on whether particular items should be allowed. We are clear, however, that the items that we have included on the standardised facilities list provide a suitable range from which governors can select so that prisoners can be rewarded consistently and appropriately for engaging with the requirements of the IEP policy framework and that, with appropriate access to musical instruments, the quality of their lives can be improved and their chances of successful rehabilitation enhanced.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on securing this debate, and I reiterate the assurance that I made at the outset that I will facilitate the meeting he requested with the Prisons Minister and follow up with the outstanding information mentioned in this debate.
Civil Courts (Reforms)
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
On 22 April, following parliamentary approval, the Government brought into force a number of important reforms to improve the administration of civil justice and to provide a more efficient use of judicial resources.
The reforms implement a series of proposals supported by respondents to the Ministry of Justice’s “Solving Disputes in the County Courts” consultation paper published in 2011. Those proposals themselves originated in recommendations made by the retired Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Henry Brooke, in his 2008 report “Should the Civil Courts be Unified?”.
The changes will contribute to the Government’s commitments on efficiency and public service reforms. They:
a. Establish a single county court for England and Wales;
b. Abolish the need for the Lord Chancellor’s agreement to High Court judges sitting in the county courts;
c. Increase the financial limit of the equity jurisdiction of the county court from £30,000 to £350,000;
d. Increase the financial limit below which cases may not be commenced in the High Court from £25,000 to £100,000 (with the exception of personal injury claims);
e. Extend the current powers of the county court to make freezing orders and
f. Remove certain types of specialist proceedings from the jurisdiction of the county courts.
Taken together, this package of reforms will ensure that cases are issued and tried at the most appropriate level of court; simplify the task and cost of allocating cases before a judge and transferring cases between courts; streamline procedures for judicial deployment to the county court; and ease work pressures on the High Court to enable it to focus on complex cases that truly require its expertise.
Guardianship of Property and Affairs of Missing Persons
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Justice, Lord Faulks, has made the following statement:
On 17 December 2013 the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), issued a written ministerial statement—Official Report, column 92WS—announcing that work was progressing on a consultation paper on the possible creation of a status of guardian of the property and affairs of missing persons and that he would make a further statement in relation to the publication of the paper before the Easter recess.
The Government are committed to helping people who are put into the awful position of losing a loved one who has gone missing. I am today confirming that my Department is continuing to work with the charity Missing People and its pro bono lawyers Clifford Chance LLP to prepare the consultation paper and intend to publish it as soon as possible and in any event by the end of August.
Worksop Magistrates Court
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing this important debate. I am sure that historians in years to come will want to look at his historical analysis of Bassetlaw eagerly, because it certainly was very interesting.
Let me make something absolutely clear at the outset: I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that the consultation is not a consultation on court closure.
I want to make three things clear. First, no decisions have yet been made. The local area is conducting a consultation on the proposal to reduce the number and type of court sessions listed in Worksop and I would not want to prejudge the outcome of that consultation.
Secondly, the consultation relates to proposed changes to the type of work that will be allocated to Worksop magistrates court in light of the facilities available there and the overall requirements of the Nottinghamshire local justice area. It is not a proposal to close the court at Worksop. If that were proposed it would be subject to a separate consultation that specifically said it was about possible closure.
Thirdly, the maintenance of appropriate arrangements for the deployment of the judiciary of England and Wales and the allocation of work within courts is the statutory responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice, not the Lord Chancellor. Together with, and supported by, the justices’ clerk through the judicial business group, local judiciary ensure that there is sufficient court time available to meet demand, and that the right facilities are provided for the particular types of cases that come before them. That includes reviewing the sitting programmes of magistrates courts within their area.
I should explain that judicial business groups comprise a magistrates liaison judge nominated by the resident judges in each clerkship, up to two district judges from magistrates courts, up to three bench chairs from benches within the clerkship areas, a justices’ clerk, a representative from the Magistrates Association, and a senior regional official from Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. In line with other areas, Nottinghamshire reviews its performance and sitting programme on a monthly basis to ensure that it is properly aligned with the workload. There has been a steady reduction in criminal workload across Nottinghamshire, which reflects a national trend, and the forecast is for further reduction. By contrast, family court work has increased slightly in the area, and it is right that local arrangements are made to accommodate that at Mansfield, Nottingham and, where necessary, Worksop.
The low volume of criminal cases, particularly in rural areas, means that some courts are not fully occupied, and the steps taken by the judicial business group in Nottinghamshire to consolidate similar types of business are designed to help make the best use of the estate, accommodate a growing family and tribunals workload, and reduce the inconvenience to court users caused by sitting patterns changing at short notice.
The proposals seek fully to utilise judicial sittings and to reduce the amount of judicial time wasted when cases collapse at short notice. The combining of resources in fewer venues will increase flexibility and afford more resilience when listing the criminal, civil and family case load. That in turn will provide the judiciary with more opportunity to use skills acquired and to expand on those that have been little used while sitting in courts where listing has been restricted, as experienced in Worksop.
The proposals are subject to a wide stakeholder consultation in the local area. It closes on 30 April 2014, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will contribute to it. The responses to the consultation will be given thorough consideration and the judicial business group will meet to discuss them. The final decision on how to arrange business within this area will rest with that group. A response to the consultation paper will be published in June.
The consultation has been designed to draw out specific impacts on various groups, and they will be considered carefully by the judicial business group, which will also give proper consideration to the public sector equality duty before implementation. The justices’ clerk for the area and bench chairman have held meetings with local defence advocates and a representative of the Legal Aid Agency better to understand their concerns. The judicial business group will consider carefully the impact on magistrates’ rotas. Those considerations will take into account the need to balance travel time and costs against maintaining their competencies and sittings across the range of work.
I understand the concern that some of the changes may result in increased travel for victims and witnesses in the north of the county, which is why the criminal justice system is looking at ways to overcome that, especially by making the most of video technology. That would mean that victims and witnesses may, in some instances, be able to give their evidence from the local police station or local court via a video link. The increased use of video technology in the courts is a key part of the Government’s modernisation plans for the criminal justice system, and I, for one, welcome its use for those purposes.
It is important to remember that the proposals for Worksop magistrates court will serve to benefit all court users while improving performance and service delivery, and creating better value for money. Worksop has the lowest effective trial rate in the area. In 2013, 34.6% of trials that were listed actually went ahead as trials. In the same year, in 20% of trials, the defendant changed their plea to guilty at the court door, causing the trial to collapse. As only one court operates at the site, when a trial collapses, the court has no other work to do. Conversely, if more than one listed trial is ready to proceed, there is no scope for that trial to be heard elsewhere in the building, as there is only one operational court. That happened in 10% of trials listed at Worksop in 2013, and it is the highest instance of ineffective trials in the area. When that happens, the trial has to be adjourned and relisted for another day, leading to further delay. Proposals in the consultation seek to make better use of court time for magistrates and court users while improving performance and service delivery. That will be brought about by combining resources in one building, thus providing increased flexibility to dispose of the work load in a more efficient manner.
Criminal business in magistrates courts has reduced nationally. We have a duty to court users to deliver an efficient and effective service across all parts of our business, and we believe the proposals will help to do both. I reiterate that this is a local initiative, which is being appropriately managed through the consultation paper. Local justice is about visible and continual engagement with communities. It is working with local criminal justice agencies to understand the issues that affect those communities and what can be done to resolve them.
Local justice does not mean providing a courthouse in every town or city that hears every type of business. Quality, speed and efficiency of the service that is provided, and a safe, comfortable environment for court users that commands respect for the justice system, are much more significant to the delivery of effective local justice across communities. The lay magistracy serves as a vital link connecting the criminal justice system to local communities, and it is important to ensure that magistrates continue to play a central role in the system of summary justice.
We will continue to work closely with the judiciary and other key stakeholders as we consider how best to harness the potential of the magistracy through our wider reform programme. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman that the Government are serious about working with magistrates and the judiciary to improve the local and regional administration of justice in the county of Nottinghamshire, and nationally. Again, I congratulate him on taking the opportunity to put on record in the Chamber his views, and I very much hope that my response has given him some comfort that the consultation is not about closure.
Question put and agreed to.
Civil Court System (Fees)
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I have today laid and published the Government’s response to part one of the consultation “Court Fees, Proposals for Reform” which ran from 3 December 2013 to 21 January 2014.
For many years, the civil court system has operated under the principle that those who use the courts should pay the full cost of the service they receive. However, this has not yet been achieved in practice and, last year, the deficit was more than £100 million. At a time when we have made deficit reduction our top priority, the Government do not believe that the courts can be immune from the tough decisions we have had to take in order to bring public spending in line with what we can afford.
It was within this context that the consultation outlined the Government’s approach to reducing the cost of the court system to the taxpayer in two parts. The first part “Cost recovery” set out proposals to align court fees with the cost of the service provided, to move closer to our long-term goal of cost recovery through fees. The second part “Enhanced charging” set out proposals to charge users of some court services more than their cost, where they can afford to do so.
We received 162 responses to the consultation from a range of stakeholders including the judiciary, legal representative bodies, voluntary organisations, business representatives, and members of the public.
Having carefully considered the views of stakeholders, the paper published today sets out the proposals we intend to take forward in response to the cost recovery proposals in part one of the consultation. The Government will announce their response to enhanced charging proposals in part two of the consultation to this House in due course.
The changes set out in the consultation response will see fees rise for some court users so that they will pay the full cost of the service they receive, reducing the taxpayer subsidy for those able to afford higher fees and ensuring that in cases such as judicial review, those bringing claims have a more proportionate share in the financial risks of the proceedings.
In building the package of changes, the Government have sought to continue to protect the most vulnerable court users. Those with limited financial means will be able to access a system of fee remissions to ensure that they are not denied access to the courts. In addition, the scrapping of the £75 application fee for domestic violence injunctions will help thousands of women seeking non-molestation and occupation orders, while the decision to freeze many fees in family applications at current levels will assist those who need to access the courts to resolve difficult family issues.
The Government will be laying the relevant statutory instruments to implement most of the changes announced in the consultation response today and the changes will take effect on 22 April 2014.
Copies of the consultation response will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
An online version of this consultation paper will be available at:
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/court-fees-proposals-for-reform
.