Fenton Town Hall
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years 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 Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this debate, and I put on record his diligence and conscientiousness in championing this worthwhile cause on behalf of his constituents. We have corresponded with oral and written questions, by letter, and we had a meeting earlier today with some of his constituents. I also pay tribute to the 498 brave people who paid the ultimate price so that the hon. Gentleman and I, and the rest of us, could have the privilege and pleasure of being able to discuss matters in the democracy that we enjoy.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the closure of Stoke-on Trent magistrates court was announced in December 2010 as part of the court estate reform programme. Any decision to close a court is not taken lightly and is never easy, but the hon. Gentleman will recall the consultation that preceded the closure, which found that the court offered poor facilities and was non-compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. It had inadequate facilities for victims and witnesses, and there were also security issues. As he knows, the court subsequently closed in December 2012.
The court site incorporates the former town hall which, as the hon. Gentleman said, was built and funded in the late 1880s by William Meath Baker, a benefactor. According to English Heritage, Mr William Meath Baker sold the town hall to the local health board, which was superseded by Fenton urban district council in 1897. It has been in the hands of the public sector ever since. More recently, the freehold of the building was transferred under the Courts Act 2003 to the local magistrates court committee, and then to the Government in 2005. Those are legal provisions, and I like to think that all such transfers have been done according to the law—I say that with reference to the comments made by the hon. Gentleman about legality of ownership.
I note the hon. Gentleman’s view that the Government have never paid any sums of money to Stoke-on-Trent to buy or rent the building but, as he rightly said, we should remember that for more than 100 years maintenance, upkeep and so on has been paid for by the taxpayer. That is not an inconsiderable sum over the years.
The building is operationally surplus to requirements. We have to work within the rules concerning the disposal of surplus property assets. Guidance to Departments is clear: surplus property assets need to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, within six months of being declared surplus for housing and within three years for all other properties, while achieving overall value for money for the taxpayer. It is certainly the case that overall value for money for the taxpayer does not necessarily equate to the highest offer. However, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot simply gift a building that has considerable value.
It is not just the capital receipt that we need to consider. There are temporary costs associated with ensuring unused courts are kept secure and protecting the fabric of each building. By disposing of surplus property assets speedily, we remove the ongoing liability of holding costs. In the case of this particular building, bearing in mind that the level of security, utilities and maintenance has been reduced to a level that is appropriate for a site that has been closed, the holding costs do not come cheaply—more than £108,000 in the past financial year alone. Put simply: we cannot hold on to it indefinitely.
The hon. Gentleman is of course correct to raise the future of the four memorials inside the building. Memorials to those who made the ultimate sacrifice are hugely important and must be protected. We have received advice that a Minton great war memorial cannot be moved without risk of damage. Therefore, the Minton world war one memorial will remain in situ and be preserved in perpetuity with an appropriate legally binding restrictive covenant in the sale contract that states that the memorial is to be preserved.
The hon. Gentleman wanted a bit more clarification about a covenant. A covenant is a contractual promise incorporated in a property contract. It provides for an obligation—in this instance that the memorial will be preserved and looked after not only by whoever ends up owning the property, but by the successors in title as well. A covenant also has consequences for what happens when there is a breach. There can be damages paid or there can be specific performance that can be ordered by a court. It is also important how the property is held: whether it is held freehold or leasehold. In the case of leasehold, it may be possible that forfeiture will follow. That effectively means that the property reverts back to the freeholder. This is a legally binding set of words in a contract.
Robert Flello
That will not reassure the community. If a developer damages the building or gets sued and it reverts back to the Ministry of Justice, the memorial will still be gone.
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point, but he will accept that this is property law. It is the way that thousands of property transactions are conducted on a daily basis for a whole variety of properties, whether they be commercial, residential, industrial or whatever. This is the process of the law of the land under which we operate. We would very much hope that, in parting company with the premises, we would have carried out our due diligence to make sure that any obligations in the contract will be honoured and that we will not get a rogue developer or rogue occupier who would do the damage that the hon. Gentleman fears may happen. I hope he will take on board the point that we will do our utmost to make sure the owner is credible, whether it is a person, corporation or charity.
The three other memorials, depending on who we sell the building to, be they in the public or private sector, will either be removed to the local church or remain in situ. That is something we can look into. If they are removed to a neighbouring church, the work will be carried out at the expense of the Ministry of Justice.
The sale of former court buildings is affected by several factors, including the state of the market, potential future use of the property, including its development potential, and the location. As of 29 October 2014, some 66 former court buildings had been closed under the court estate reform programme and sold, attracting disposable receipts of just under £43 million. Those funds have been used for further investment in the justice system. Stoke-on-Trent magistrates court has been on the market since 2013, and local campaigners have persuaded the council to list it as an asset community value, giving campaigners six months from August last year to raise funds and bid for the building at market value. Further time was set aside to allow the local community association to formulate its bid, culminating in the proposal being put forward for consideration, alongside several commercial bids.
The Department has received several commercial bids for the building, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot say their size for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The bidders view the building as having development potential, but we have also received a bid from Urban Vision on behalf of Fenton community association for a community asset transfer. We are also mindful of the resolution passed by Stoke-on-Trent city council requesting the return of the building. We held discussions with the council, and in early October the council was invited to come up with a viable proposal for returning the building to community use, but none was received.
We cannot afford to continue to leave the building as it is, eating away more than £9,000 every month, including almost £4,500 in rates. As is usual when disposing of surplus property assets with historic significance, there is also a qualitative element in the consideration of bids. We consider not only the purchase offer, but its potential reuse, the financial status of bidders, their ability to maintain the building in the face of significant holding cost and the extent of the estimated continued liability to the taxpayer of the Department holding the property.
In recognition of the hon. Gentleman’s advocacy for the future of the former court building and the views made so eloquently clear to me in our earlier meeting and with an eye to ensuring that we do not close down options too early, I have asked my officials to continue engagement with his constituents. I hope that that engagement, having started at today’s meeting, will continue from tomorrow onwards, but he will be aware that any possible disposal that is novel and contentious will require Treasury approval. Whatever happens, however, let me assure him that the world war one memorial will be preserved, although the future use of the building will be a matter for the preferred purchaser and the council, as the local planning authority.
Robert Flello
On the dialogue with the MOJ, which the Minister says will continue tomorrow, I must stress the point about providing a little protected time—ideally, three or four months—to give the community the opportunity to work up a bid to the satisfaction of the Department.
Mr Vara
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I hope he will appreciate that, in the spirit of openness and transparency, we have to ensure that other bidders are not penalised by our being seen to give preferential treatment to one of them. Much time has been spent on this. There has been a dialogue. We have asked for bids. A business case was requested. It is also possible for community groups to seek assistance from local authorities and other voluntary bodies that help these groups when they approach the Government for such measures. There is a limit to how much assistance we can provide and we are constrained by the law in terms of time limits. We are also mindful of the time that has passed, which we must also take into account. There are also other bidders whom we must take into account so we are not accused of preferential treatment.
Robert Flello
Part of the problem is that letters between the community and the Ministry of Justice were not answered and there was a breakdown in communications. I take on board what the Minister says about getting on with things and about not giving an advantage to anyone, but the community group has been disadvantaged because of the lack of communication.
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman and his constituents raised that with me at the meeting. I have not been able to make intensive research into the issue but I have found out that there were telephone conversations in the period where it was said there was no communication. I hope he will appreciate that at the time of the bidding there was limited information that we could impart to the other parties because that would be seen as being unfair to everyone else. This has been going on for two years and we are not talking about a bidding process covering only the last few months. There is a limit to what the Government can do.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and my officials will be in conversation with his constituents from tomorrow. I pay tribute to the 498 people who paid the ultimate price so that we could engage in this free debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
2. What recent progress he has made on his courts reform programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Since the Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement on 28 March this year, the programme team has been developing the detailed plans required to deliver the programme over the next five years, as well as working to identify the areas where we can make early progress.
Bridget Phillipson
I have lost count of the number of times I have raised with the Minister and his predecessors the wholly inadequate state of Sunderland’s court buildings and the need for a decision. Plans to rebuild the court complex have been on hold since 2010. Will the Minister now acknowledge to staff, to magistrates and to victims that they should not expect a decision this side of the election?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady is aware that I had a meeting with her, along with her colleague, the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), and she has corresponded with me. She talks about having said the same thing over and over again. I have to say to her, over and over again, that there is a courts reform programme and the proposals for the Farringdon road site that she mentions are part of the mix. As we speak, no firm decision has been taken.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Is it not the case that the rationalisation of the Courts Service by this Government has led to a faster, more effective and more efficient system? Therefore, is it not incumbent on us to move forward with further rationalisation as soon as possible, and would the Minister care to comment on the timing?
Mr Vara
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, of course, speaks with considerable knowledge on these matters. We are working apace to try to ensure that our courts are fit for the 21st century in that we have expeditious handing of judicial matters where there is proper protection for victims, defendants, and, indeed, lawyers.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
When victims have their day in court, far too many have to go through a traumatic experience that leaves them feeling like they are on trial themselves. That is one of the reasons Labour Members have been calling for a victims law. When I last raised this from the Dispatch Box, the Justice Secretary dismissed us as “always talking about laws”. Now that the Government have rushed out their own plans for a victims law, will the Minister tell the House when it will be published and explain what prompted his change of heart?
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have done more for victims than his party’s Government did in 13 years. We are making sure that victims, who are often very vulnerable, have proper treatment and are looked after carefully. We have brought in measures that allow victims to have a say in court, which was certainly not the case before. We are bringing up the courts to be fit for the 21st century, which Labour failed to do in its 13 years. That will mean a better experience for victims, as some of the most vulnerable people who attend courts.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
My hon. Friend has twice referred to the 21st century. Will he build into the courts system a free, searchable online record of judgments of civil courts, including, particularly, the property chambers?
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
13. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that the compensation claims of mesothelioma sufferers are handled fairly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
We continue to work with stakeholders to see how we can improve the claims process for these tragic cases.
Mr Bain
Mesothelioma is an horrific industrial disease and its victims deserve much better than the shameful way in which they have been treated by this Government, with their botched consultations, prevarications and delays. Will the Minister, on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, confirm that he will not waste any more taxpayers’ money in further appealing the recent damning judicial review ruling made against his Department?
Mr Vara
We will certainly consider the way forward on that, but I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on what we have done. This Government are putting provisions into the Deregulation Bill that will enable Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to provide information to legal representatives without a court order. We are liaising with the national cancer registration service and others to allow expedited access to medical notes. We also introduced the Mesothelioma Act 2014, which again benefits sufferers and victims. I will not take any lectures from him on that front.
Mike Kane
In the High Court case on the Government’s mesothelioma review, Mr Justice Davis ruled:
“No reasonable Lord Chancellor faced with the duty imposed on him by section 48 of the Act would have considered that the exercise in fact…fulfilled that duty.”
Will the Minister update the House on the Department’s response to that ruling?
Debbie Abrahams
The chair of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK has said that the Lord Chancellor’s plans for addressing the issues facing mesothelioma victims were
“rooted in a culture of secret deals with insurers and flawed consultations which excluded the victims of asbestos.”
Is it not time that the Lord Chancellor honoured the promise he made in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and stopped treating mesothelioma sufferers in this contemptible way?
Mr Vara
Clearly, the hon. Lady did not listen to what I said either. Let me be clear: we are talking about people who are suffering from a very horrific and tragic disease, and this Government are committed to ensuring that victims and sufferers have the best possible way of going through the process, particularly in getting compensation.
As far as insurance companies are concerned, the hon. Lady will be aware that when we had a consultation in July, the submissions by victims and groups such as the one she mentioned stated that they did not like the proposals that were angled towards insurance companies. We listened to those people and did not go ahead with the proposals that the insurance companies would have preferred. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims took through the Mesothelioma Bill earlier this year, which is of benefit to all the sufferers.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is not that Opposition Members are not listening, but that the Minister is not answering this question. Most civilised people would not have to be told that it is wrong to cut compensation for people suffering in great pain from a terrible disease that will kill them in a matter of months. Parliament told him not to do it, victims told him not to do it, the Justice Committee told him not to do it, and so did the High Court, but this Minister is trying to do just that to protect the profits of the insurance industry. Why do the Government always take the side of the strong against the weak?
Mr Vara
Again, I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said earlier. [Interruption.] I am answering the question; it would help if the hon. Gentleman listened to the answer. As I said, we had a consultation in July, and we put forward proposals. We listened to people who made submissions —we listened hard—and we did not go ahead with proposals that would have been of benefit to the insurers. Which bit of that does he have a problem with?
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
7. What steps he plans to take to ensure that people have access to justice regardless of ability to pay.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Government’s reform programme to promote access to justice aims to deliver a simpler justice system that is more accessible to the public. It aims to limit the scope for inappropriate litigation and the involvement of lawyers in issues that do not need legal input, and to support people in resolving their disputes through simpler, more informal remedies.
Heidi Alexander
The Minister will know that since this Government took the axe to legal aid, the number of litigants in person has been on the rise, clogging up the courts, costing time and costing money. How many more people defended themselves in court in the first six months of this year compared with the same period in 2010?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady will be aware that there have always been litigants in person, even before the legal aid reductions. The Government are putting in place measures to assist those people. Moreover, judges are working with us to ensure that they are assisted. We will continue to monitor the position and give assistance to people who are acting as litigants in person.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
18. A retired Welsh judge told BBC Wales last month that cuts to legal aid in the family court meant rising numbers of couples representing themselves, more contested hearings and longer delays in resolving cases, which“must be damaging to the child”.What consideration are the Government giving to the extent to which the system is working in the best interests of children?
Mr Vara
I remind the hon. Lady that the manifesto on which she stood at the last election referred in chapter 5, page 5 to legal aid cuts that would be made if Labour got into government. Perhaps she would like to ask the Opposition Front Benchers whether they intend to reverse the cuts that we have made.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that we disagree with the scale of the civil and criminal legal aid cuts that his Government have made. Has he read the serious recent criticism from a senior judge, Sir James Munby; a retired judge, Sir John Royce, about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) asked a simple question; and Emma Scott, the director of the Rights for Women charity? They have all expressed concern about the impact of the Government’s cuts. Is the Minister aware of their concerns and will he meet them? They are apolitical, serious experts who are genuinely worried about the impact of his cuts.
Mr Vara
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether I have read certain things. Has he read The Law Society Gazette of 24 September, following the Labour conference? The heading was, “Labour will not reverse legal aid cuts—Slaughter”. The reporter states:
“Labour’s legal aid spokesman has warned that the party cannot reverse the cuts of the current government if it comes to power next year.”
It goes on to say—I will be brief, Mr Speaker—that
“in a packed meeting organised by Justice Alliance UK in Manchester…Slaughter said he could not commit to re-establishing legal aid.”
It quotes the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) as saying:
“We’re not going to get in a Tardis and go back to before”.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
8. If he will conduct an evaluation of the effects of the judiciary providing the Department for Work and Pensions and appellants with reasons for their decisions in employment and support allowance appeals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
As part of the implementation, which commenced in March 2014, we will look carefully at the effects of the provision of summary reasons by judges in the social security and child support tribunal. The Department for Work and Pensions will provide feedback to the judiciary on the way in which summary reasons have been used. The Government have no plans to conduct a formal evaluation.
Sheila Gilmore
In the report by the Work and Pensions Committee on employment and support allowance in July last year, we pointed out that there was little point in having summary reasons if they were not used to drive better decisions and, ultimately, to reduce the number of appeals. Surely having a proper evaluation on a clear time scale would be the best way to ensure that that is happening.
Mr Vara
As I have said to the hon. Lady on at least two occasions, the provision of summary reasons is having a positive impact. The Department for Work and Pensions is working with the judiciary and the quality of the decisions that it is producing is much better than before, which is leading to fewer cases going to appeal.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
20. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to review—I understand that the Ministry of Justice was reviewing this matter—the length of time that tribunals are taking to reach decisions on personal independence payments? The amount of time that is being taken is causing great distress for each constituent concerned. I am sure that they would welcome news of a review and evaluation of the length of time that is being taken for appeals.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
9. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of convictions for stalking offences.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
16. What progress he has made on ensuring that members of the public who help others or intervene in emergencies are not prosecuted if something goes wrong.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
We want to encourage participation in activities which benefit others, but people can be deterred from getting involved by worries about risk and liability. The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill, currently before Parliament, will require the civil courts to consider whether a person has been acting for the benefit of society or intervening in an emergency if he or she is sued in negligence or for breach of statutory duty.
Bob Blackman
Clearly we want to encourage good Samaritans to go to the aid of those in distress. What further measures can my hon. Friend propose to ensure that people who assist those in distress are protected from unnecessary legal action?
Mr Vara
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill will send a powerful message to the public that if they are acting selflessly in an emergency to help somebody in danger and something goes wrong, the courts will always consider the context of their actions if they are sued in negligence or for breach of statutory duty.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
21. What estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of providing legal representation for offenders accused of trivial offences whilst in custody in the last 12 months.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Legal Aid Agency does not record whether offences were committed while the offender was in custody, as that is not relevant to assessing eligibility for legal aid. In the magistrates courts relatively minor criminal offences are generally unlikely to pass the interests of justice test.
Mr Turner
Will my hon. Friend reassure me and my constituents, many of whom work in the prisons, that changes made under this Government mean that inmates can no longer get legal aid for frivolous or vexatious causes, such as arguments over damaged property or the condition of their cells?
Mr Vara
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Earlier in this Parliament we reformed civil legal aid so that only the most serious compensation cases are in scope—for example, where there has been abuse of a child or a vulnerable adult, a sexual assault or a significant breach of human rights. Civil legal aid applications, including for exceptional funding, are subject to a merits test, as well as a means test. From 2 December last year, treatment matters, including prison conditions, were removed from the scope of criminal legal aid for prison law.
Mr Speaker
Unusually, we are ahead of time, but most of the principals are present and therefore we shall proceed.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
T5. Last month saw the introduction of a fixed fee for whiplash injury reports, reducing the costs to insurers from several hundreds of pounds to just £180. Has the Minister made an assessment of the impact of this on spurious claims?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The introduction of fixed costs for medical reports is just one element, albeit an important one, in the Government’s whiplash reform programme. We have undertaken a detailed impact assessment of the programme, which we intend to publish very soon.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
T4. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the new national helpline for victims is properly joined up with local information and support services provided by police and crime commissioners?
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
In a recent court case where a child was being considered for adoption, it was reported that the president of the family division described it as “profoundly disturbing” that the parents did not qualify for legal aid and could not afford legal aid representation. Given the lifelong nature of adoption, will the Secretary of State look again at the issue of legal aid funding for these kinds of cases?
Mr Vara
We are in regular dialogue with the judiciary—indeed, I have had a meeting with Sir James Munby—but we have had to take some tough decisions on legal aid. At some £2 billion a year, it was the most expensive legal aid budget in the world, and even after the reductions, it will remain one of the most generous in the world.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
My constituents believe that the emphasis on human rights is leading to an excessively light touch when dealing with unauthorised Traveller encampments. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to enjoy the benefits of human rights, individuals should also acknowledge their responsibilities to abide by the law?
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that former Fenton magistrates court—now Fenton town hall building again—is currently occupied by protesters concerned about the memorials inside it and the building itself. In the past, he has kindly stood at the Dispatch Box and confirmed that the memorials would be protected by covenants if the building was sold, but my constituents are concerned that a developer might simply ignore those and demolish the building anyway, resulting in the loss for ever of these memorials, which are priceless and incredibly important to the people of Fenton. Will he meet me and a delegation of local residents to discuss this matter and, I hope, put their minds at rest, and to talk about the future of the building itself?
Mr Vara
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue and I can give him an assurance that my office has been in touch with people locally this morning. My main concern is that the protesters are safe and secure and that they have proper food, water, heating and other provisions. I am more than happy to agree to a meeting with the hon. Gentleman and the people who are very passionate about this issue.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am a firm believer in the independence of the judiciary, but will my right hon. Friend look into the case of a constituent who was charged and sentenced under court martial? He is firmly of the view, as his superiors can apparently confirm, that he was not given adequate legal representation at any stage of the case. Will my right hon. Friend assist in at least reviewing the process and the natural justice of this case?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Following on from the earlier question about mesothelioma, more than 2,000 Harland and Wolff workers received compensation of £30,000 before privatisation in 1989. On 25 July 2012, it was announced that through the Bill that was to become the Mesothelioma Act 2014 there would be a compensation settlement of between £115,000 and £123,000. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that Harland and Wolff workers in Northern Ireland receive comparative and fair compensation?
Mr Vara
It is crucial that the sufferers of this horrible disease get the full compensation they are due. We are working closely with victims groups and various other groups, as I mentioned earlier, to ensure that the process is as simple and easy as possible and that the compensation that is rightfully due to them and others is received as quickly as possible.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
How many foreign national offenders are there in our prisons and what steps have been taken to return them to serve out their sentences in their countries of origin?
Contingencies Fund
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years 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 requires an advance of £900,000 from the Contingencies Fund in 2014-15 to meet the requirement for a temporary Exchequer grant in accordance with Article 11 of the royal charter on self-regulation of the press.
The Department intends to rely on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act. Accordingly, additional resources of £900,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Justice. In the meantime, the temporary Exchequer grant will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.
Internet Abuse of Members of Parliament
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years 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 the debate. We would all agree that the passion with which he has spoken is abundantly clear and sends out a powerful message on what he passionately believes in, which many of us in the Chamber share. I also pay tribute to the work he has done in this field, which I know he will continue. As he has pointed out, such attacks are particularly abhorrent, and can cause serious distress to the victims, whoever they may be—Members of Parliament or members of the public. I share his concern about the distress and fear that such actions can inflict. No one should have to deal with such abuse.
Let me first make it absolutely clear that anyone who has been a victim of internet abuse should not hesitate to contact the police. The recent convictions of a man for sending an anti-Semitic message directed at the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), and of another who had been found guilty of sending abusive messages to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) after she had supported a feminist campaign, demonstrate the seriousness with which the police and prosecutors take such crimes, and their willingness to take appropriate action.
In June last year, following consultation, the Director of Public Prosecutions published guidelines for prosecutors considering cases that involve communications sent via social media. As with all cases, prosecutions are subject to the two-stage test of whether there is sufficient evidence and whether a prosecution is in the public interest. The guidelines specify that, when considering whether communications sent via social media are capable of amounting to criminal offences, prosecutors should make an initial assessment of the content of the communications and the conduct. Prosecutions may be brought in relation to material when there is a credible threat of violence, when communications specifically target an individual or individuals and may constitute harassment or stalking within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, when communications breach a court order, or when communications may be considered so grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false as to justify prosecution.
Those guidelines seek to strike the difficult balance between protecting freedom of speech and acting robustly against communications that cross the threshold into illegality. They make clear that, while not every communication that causes offence or is controversial or unpopular would justify criminal proceedings, the criminal law is available to tackle abuse that is targeted or of a seriously offensive nature. I therefore urge anyone who has been a victim of such abuse to come forward, in the knowledge that the authorities understand the gravity of that kind of behaviour.
As Members may know, and as those guidelines from the Crown Prosecution Service make clear, a number of offences may be committed by those who abuse others over the internet, including those who abuse members of Parliament. I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman said about inactivity in some cases, but I assure him that the Government are working and engaging with social media platforms, the police and other stakeholders with a view to trying to improve the position. It is by no means perfect, but we are working hard to try to make it a great deal better than it is at present.
There is, of course, plenty of legislation to deal with issues such as this. Internet communication that is grossly offensive or menacing may constitute the commission of an offence under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Section 127(1) makes it an offence to send, or cause to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. The offence does not require an intention to cause anxiety or distress to be proven, and the message does not have to be sent to a specific person. Section 127(2) contains a separate offence of misusing a public communications network for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, either by sending or causing to be sent a false message or by persistently making use of the network. The maximum penalty for offences under section 127 is six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
Sending, delivering or transmitting an indecent, grossly offensive, threatening or false message, or something that is of an indecent or grossly offensive nature, to another, including by means of the internet, is an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, provided that the material is sent with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to a person to whom it is communicated, or to any other person to whom the sender intends it or its contents or nature to be communicated. Even if the content does not meet the threshold required by those offences, internet abuse could still amount to an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 if carried out on more than one occasion. Section 2 of that Act makes it an offence for someone to pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment. Section 4 makes it an offence if the defendant’s course of conduct causes someone to fear that violence will be used against them and he or she knows or ought to know that the course of conduct will cause that fear. The maximum penalty for a harassment offence under section 2 is six months’ imprisonment or a level 5 fine, which is up to £5,000, or both. The offence under section 4 carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both. A court sentencing for an offence may also make a restraining order, the breach of which is an offence with a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. Where the offence is motivated by the victim’s race or religion, the court can take this into account as an aggravating factor and reflect this in the sentence, something we saw recently in the case concerning the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree.
Let me be clear: the Government are not complacent. Changes to the law contained in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, currently being considered in the House of Lords, will increase the maximum penalty for offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 from six months to two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. The offence in section 1 of the 1988 Act is currently a summary-only offence, which means that it can be dealt with only in the magistrates court. As a summary-only offence, prosecutions must be brought within six months. The changes being taken forward in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill also mean more serious offences can be dealt with in the Crown court and that there will not be a time limit for bringing prosecutions, allowing more time for offences to be investigated.
Alongside this, the Government are extending the time within which prosecutions under the Communications Act 2003 may be brought, to allow up to three years, as opposed to the previous six-month limit, to bring prosecutions against people for using the internet, social media or mobile phones to send menacing messages, so long as prosecutions are brought within six months of the prosecutor having sufficient knowledge to justify proceedings. These changes come on top of a raft of Government measures to support victims. Next year, victims’ rights to tell the court how their crime has affected them will be set out in statute, a new nationwide victims information service will be set up to ensure better information and support, and millions of pounds will be invested in improving the court experience.
Where abusive behaviour has occurred on social networking sites, the Government expect social media companies to have robust processes in place to respond promptly when abuse is reported. This includes acting quickly to assess the report, removing content which does not comply with the acceptable use policies or terms and conditions in place and, where appropriate, suspending or terminating the accounts of those breaching the rules in place. The Government have worked with social media to ensure that their practices are sufficiently robust to address online abuse quickly and effectively, and we will continue to do that work. Let me also be clear that online abuse is just as illegal as communications that are offline. The measures also include working with the main companies to simplify and highlight their reporting processes so that users can make reports easily, as well as ensuring that their own guidelines are readily accessible and publicised widely, so that users are aware of the service they can expect.
I hope that I have been able to assure the House that the Government take the concerns expressed today very seriously, and that we already have a strong framework of offences, which we are seeking to strengthen by further legislative changes. The Government will continue to work with social media and the internet industries in the interests of the public, as this is an important and developing area of policy. Hon. Members should be in no doubt that the Government are committed to addressing online abuse in all its forms.
The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the abuse that Members of Parliament receive, and his points have certainly been taken on board. The law applies as much to us as it does to members of the public. Indeed, we have seen recent examples of the law being used to secure the convictions of members of the public who were seeking to abuse Members of Parliament. I thank him again for raising this important subject on the Floor of the House tonight. I know that it will continue to merit attention from colleagues on both sides of the House, because it is an immensely important subject that continues to change in the fast-moving internet arena. For our part, the Government will continue to monitor the situation and to do whatever we can to ensure that Members of Parliament and members of the public are kept as safe as possible from the abuse that is currently out there.
Question put and agreed to.
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Slaughter
Indeed. In responding to this amendment in Committee, in flat contradiction to what I have just quoted, the Minister said:
“Nothing in the Bill suggests that it gives immunity from civil liability. It also does not change the standard of care that is generally applicable… The Bill simply requires the court to have regard to certain factors in deciding what steps should have been taken to meet that standard of care in a particular case.” —[Official Report, Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2014; c. 63.]
As was pointed out ad nauseam to the Minister, the doctrine of negligence in common law has been developed not over years but over centuries. Furthermore, there is already guidance in legislation—the Compensation Act 2006 being the obvious example—insofar as it is needed, but generally the courts do not need guidance in considering all the relevant factors. As I said, however, when we come to clause 3, we will perhaps see what the Government’s ulterior motive is.
I do not wish to labour the point; I simply wish to have an answer from the Minister. Will the Bill—clause 3 or any other part—make any difference to how the law of negligence works in the courts? If so, will he indicate how and explain the motivation? If it does not, what is the purpose of the Bill? I await his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The introductory comments by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) are typical of his form. When he was talking about my interviews yesterday in the media about abuse, I thought for a moment that he might be referring to some abuse that he had hurled at me during a debate, but he did not go that far.
I appreciate that the purpose of amendment 1 is to clarify that the Bill does not confer immunity from civil liability on any individual or change the standard of care that is relevant in claims involving negligence or breach of statutory duty. I explained to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in Committee why I thought such an amendment was not needed, but I am happy to explain our position on this again. As for whether the law has been changed, I will deal with that substantially when we debate clause 3, which is in the second group of amendments for this debate on Report.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Does the Minister accept that if first aid was made part of the national curriculum, there would be a whole generation of young people coming through who knew what to do in a road crash, for example? The first rule for those going to assist in a road crash is to ensure that they and others are not put at risk; in other words, they have to safeguard the patient or patients. Does the Minister accept that if first aid was taught as part of the national curriculum, everybody would know that?
Mr Vara
It is eminently sensible that everyone should have some education in first aid, but as far as the rule is concerned, I will deal with substantive matters of that sort in the next group of amendments. What I will say now, in a general way, is that there is a change, but there is also a message that the Bill sends out, which I will deal with in due course.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wonder whether he could define “heroism”, which is in the title of the Bill. What does it mean? What is the definition?
Mr Sheerman
The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other a long time. We are good friends and I have a high regard for him, but for the minority of us present who were not on the Committee, will he give a pithy explanation of the guts of the Bill? What does he think is really at its heart? He would probably go to the barricades for the Bill; and if so, why?
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we are good friends—I hope his Whips will not hold that against him. He made his contribution on Second Reading and he has certainly made his presence felt in this debate, if not in Committee. The Bill outlines a general responsibility, which must be taken into account by the courts. It sends a powerful message to the courts: when somebody is doing the right thing, the courts must take that into account. As for the decision itself, that will be made by the court, given all the circumstances of the case. That will be fact-specific, but the Bill will tell the court that it must take into account those factors.
Mr Vara
I will give way, but I want to answer the question that was put to me. The Compensation Act 2006 has been referred to; indeed, the shadow Chancellor specifically asked on Second Reading what the difference was between this Bill and that Act. There is a very important distinction, which is that the Compensation Act says that the court “may” take into account certain factors; this Bill says that the court “must” take into account certain factors. We do not have to be lawyers to appreciate that there is a fundamental difference between the two.
The other thing that this Bill does is send a powerful message to the members of the public that if they do the right thing, the court will take that into account and they should not be inhibited from doing the right thing in any heroic acts, social activities or whatever.
Mr Cunningham
I am certainly trying, Mr Speaker.
I am not too familiar with this Bill and I was not a member of the Committee that considered it. One thing strikes me, however. Is not the definition of “self-defence” a factor in the issue? In the past, there have been incidents of people defending themselves yet finding themselves on the wrong side of the law. Is that part of the issue?
Mr Vara
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall do as guided by Mr Speaker, as self-defence is not an issue I am dealing with in connection with this amendment.
The Bill does not change the relevant standard of care that applies when a court is considering whether somebody has been negligent or has breached a relevant statutory duty. The court will continue to look at what an ordinary and reasonable person should have done in all the circumstances of the case. The Bill simply requires the court to have regard to the factors in the Bill before reaching a decision on liability. It does not tell the court what conclusions to draw or prevent a person from being found negligent if the facts of the case warrant it.
As I said in Committee, if in a finely balanced case the court considers the factors in the Bill and decides that this should tip the balance in favour of a defendant who had been acting for the benefit of society, demonstrating a generally responsible approach towards the safety of others during an activity or intervening to help someone in an emergency, we would welcome that outcome. It will be for the courts to decide how much weight to give these factors on a case-by-case basis, but we do not consider that there is any risk of the clause being misinterpreted by the courts as somehow granting individuals immunity from civil liability or changing the standard of care that is generally applicable. In that light, the amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will withdraw it.
Mr Slaughter
I shall not press the amendment to the vote; we can continue our discussion in connection with the second group of amendments. Let me tell the Minister, however, that his explanation has continued to go around in ever-decreasing circles. The two points at the heart of the Bill, raised in a number of interventions, are these. First, is the Minister attempting to change the law or not; and, secondly, is he attempting to fetter the discretion of the judiciary? What he said in respect of the distinction he wishes to make between the Compensation Act 2006 and this Bill suggests that he does wish to do that. Section 1 of that Act says “may”, while this Bill says “must”. If the Minister wants to make that distinction, the only explanation must be that he wants to fetter the hands of the judiciary in dealing with these matters, giving rise to the suspicion that it is entirely inappropriate. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3
Responsibility
Mr Slaughter
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listen carefully to everything he says and give it exactly the due weight it should be given. I am very tempted by the thought that we might push our numbers up by one, but I hope that the Minister may give way on this measure and by the time it emerges from the other place the Bill will be improved at least to that extent.
Clause 3 is quite a dangerous provision. We have not voted against the Bill as a whole, because the Bill on the whole does nothing. Clause 3 will be ineffective if it is passed, but its intention is malevolent. It is harmful to good industrial relations and harmful to health and safety in the workplace, and it is a piece of prejudice that this Government and this Minister should know better than to pursue.
Mr Vara
As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said, the issues were debated at length in Committee; indeed, notwithstanding our very thorough debate on the Bill, three sittings were left spare. Given the track record of the Labour Government, the Opposition’s claim that the Bill is unnecessary is extraordinary.
The hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) have tabled several amendments in relation to clauses 3 and 4. Let me respond first in relation to amendment 5, which would remove clause 3 from the Bill, and explain why it is important for the clause as a whole to be retained. I will then deal with the other amendments.
Clause 3 provides that a court, when considering a claim for negligence or breach of a relevant statutory duty, must have regard to whether the defendant, in carrying out the activity in which the alleged negligence or breach occurred, demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others.
The core aim of the clause is to provide reassurance to ordinary hard-working people who have adopted a generally responsible approach towards the safety or other interests of others during the course of an activity that the courts will always take that into account in the event of something going wrong and their being sued. We also hope that, by showing them that the law is on their side, the clause will give them greater confidence in standing up to opportunistic and speculative claims.
The need for that measure is amply illustrated by the evidence provided to the Committee by, for example, voluntary organisations and the emergency services. The damaging effects of the fear of litigation on people’s willingness to volunteer, and the propensity of some involved in accidents to bring opportunistic and spurious claims, were emphasised.
I am sure that the House will be surprised and indeed appalled by the example given by the Cheshire fire and rescue service, which has been sued by passers-by who have tripped over hoses being unwound by firemen to extinguish a fire. Those rescue workers were clearly acting in an emergency and their priority was to reach anybody who might be inside a burning building—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may smile and laugh, but that case is absolutely true.
The Government believe that it must be right in such cases to require the courts to take into account the general approach of the defendant towards safety during the course of the activity in question.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
I am both fascinated and amazed by the hosepipe case. Does my hon. Friend know what happened to that claim?
Mr Vara
I do not know the outcome, but the fact that those people took legal action in the first place is the issue. People should not feel that they can try something on. My hon. and learned Friend is a distinguished lawyer and will probably know what the outcome would be. Perhaps he would like to enlighten the House in that regard.
The issue was not what the outcome was, but that Cheshire fire and rescue service was taken to court in the first place. To those who may still have concerns about the possible effects of the clause, I would emphasise that the provisions do not direct the courts to the conclusion they should reach and will not prevent a finding of negligence or breach of statutory duty where that is warranted. I am confident that the courts will continue to take a common-sense approach to these cases, and will exercise the flexibility that the clause gives them, so that in each case they reach a just decision, in the light of all the circumstances.
Andy McDonald
What parameters is the Minister setting for courts by including such a woolly, vague and indeterminate word as “generally”? What if someone says, “A week last Tuesday, I behaved really properly, but on this occasion, I behaved like a nutcase”? Which one is it? This is a ridiculous way to go about legislating.
Mr Vara
It is not for me or this place to dictate to the courts the decisions that they should come to. It is for us to make the law, and for the courts to take account of all the facts that may apply to that case and come to their decision. That is how the constitution of this country has operated for centuries, and will continue to, as far as we are concerned. The clause says that if a person carries out an activity in a way that demonstrates
“a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety…of others”,
and, despite their best efforts, something goes wrong and somebody is injured, the court should take full account of the circumstances. That represents a change, in that case law does not currently oblige a court to consider whether a person took a generally responsible approach to safety during the activity in question. I believe that it is a desirable and beneficial change that is both fair and proportionate.
Amendment 3 seeks to limit the effect of the clause to people who have been taking a generally responsible approach to the safety of “employees or bystanders”. The hon. Member for Hammersmith indicated that that was intended to prevent the provision from being interpreted as extending to entirely non-safety-related matters, such as protecting shareholders’ profits.
Mr Slaughter
On a point of clarification, if the Minister is saying that there is a change of law in clause 3 because the “generally responsible approach” is not in case law or statute, is he saying that the provisions in clauses 2 and 4 relating to acting for the benefit of society and acting heroically are in case law or statute?
Mr Vara
As I said in Committee, where we debated this at length, clause 3 does make a change, for the reasons that I just gave. The purpose of the Bill is twofold. First and foremost, it directs the court to take into account certain factors that, at present, it has discretion to take into account under the Compensation Act 2006. Secondly, it sends the powerful message to members of the public who otherwise may not act in certain circumstances that the law is on their side.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) gave the example of a time when she stepped off a bus and saw someone lying on the ground, and was told by people who were standing by that they were worried that they might be sued, and so did not want to do anything, or words to that effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) also gave an example: when he, as a first responder, went to places to give people medical attention, others were standing by, saying that they were afraid of legal consequences and were therefore not taking any risks. The legislation sends out a powerful message to the public that the law will be on their side.
We have deliberately drafted the clause broadly so that it focuses on whether the defendant demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others. This ensures that it will be relevant in a wide range of situations and will enable the courts to take account of all relevant circumstances and apply the provisions as flexibly as possible to achieve a just outcome. The clause is not restricted to personal injury claims and could in principle be applicable in relation to other instances of negligence, such as damage to property or economic loss, where issues of safety may not necessarily be relevant. That is why a broad definition has been used.
Narrowing the clause, as the amendment would, would mean that many bodies such as voluntary organisations, religious groups or social clubs which demonstrate a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of their clients or members would not be able to benefit from its provisions. That cannot be right.
Amendment 6 would remove part of the wording in clause 4 which clarifies what is meant by “acting heroically”. Specifically, it would remove the final words of the clause, which refer to acting
“without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”
I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling the amendment, as we have been considering the issue carefully in the light of similar representations made by St John Ambulance and the Fire Brigades Union during the Committee stage. St John Ambulance indicated that the wording conflicted with first aid practice that discourages first aiders from putting themselves at risk, and the Fire Brigades Union warned that the clause more generally might conflict with advice to the public not to intervene.
After giving this matter further thought, we remain of the view that the courts will interpret the words
“without regard to the person’s own safety”
in accordance with our intended meaning—that a person acts heroically by intervening to assist someone in danger, regardless of the fact that doing so might risk his or her own safety. The example I used in Committee was of a person who sees somebody struggling to stay afloat in a fast-moving current. That person might jump in to help on the spur of the moment, without first deliberating whether he might be putting his own life at risk.
Philip Davies
I do not have an objection on the same grounds as St John Ambulance or the Fire Brigades Union. My objection to the wording that the amendment deals with is that it contains an unnecessary additional hurdle. The clause does not state “or without regard”. It states “and without regard”, which introduces an unnecessary extra hurdle. Even if somebody acts heroically, they may well still have some regard for their own safety, but they may go on to ignore that. However, to say that they must have had no regard for their own safety renders the clause, in my view, unworkable.
Mr Vara
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify the point, and I regret that I clearly have not been able to do so thus far. I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) when he spoke of someone acting spontaneously. If somebody were to witness a situation which required their assistance—for example, if somebody was drowning and it was necessary to jump in and save them—and they were able to do so, I am minded to say that that person would not say, “Well, I need to take account of the law here. If I were to jump in, is account going to be taken of whether I considered this dangerous or not?” If somebody is capable of saving that drowning person, they will jump in and save them. The courts will take account of all the facts of the case and I am confident that the present wording is necessary, the courts will take account of everything, and it will not be held against anybody that they may temporarily have considered danger.
Philip Davies
I appear to be speaking in a different language. I clearly cannot get through to the Minister so I will try to phrase my objection in a different way. Can he give us an example of something that would not be covered that should be covered if the wording ended after the word “danger”? What scenario that he wants included would not be included if the wording stopped at “danger”?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend will appreciate that hypothetical examples are somewhat redundant, given that I mentioned earlier the independence of the judiciary, and that it is for the courts to decide on the facts of each case. I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and predict specific circumstances. It is for the court to take account of the specific facts in a specific case.
We do not consider that the clause will be misinterpreted by the courts or the public as somehow excluding people who did in fact have regard to their own safety or other interests, perhaps in the split second before they dived in, but decided to intervene anyway. Nor do we think that it would be interpreted as sending a signal that members of the public should recklessly expose themselves to danger. We think that the wording and intention of the clauses are clear, and, on balance, we do not think that the amendment is necessary. I hope that on the basis of my explanation, the hon. Member for Hammersmith will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment. In the event that he wishes to press amendment 5, which would delete clause 3, I would urge the House to reject it.
Mr Vara
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank all hon. Members who served in Committee, and those who have spoken on Report. It has been an interesting and lively debate, although there has been disagreement at times. I also say a big thank you to members of the Bill team and to the Clerks for their advice and support throughout, which have been much appreciated.
Although this is a short Bill, its three substantive clauses are nevertheless important. As I said earlier, the responsibility clause will reassure ordinary hard-working people who have adopted a generally responsible approach towards the safety of others during the course of an activity that the courts will always consider the context of their actions in the event that something goes wrong and they are sued.
We do not want people who try to do the right thing to worry constantly that somebody will take them to court. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has been clear from the outset that he wants to reassure owners of small businesses and other employers who live in fear that an opportunistic or disgruntled member of staff may bring an unfounded negligence claim at the drop of a hat. In such circumstances, we hope that the Bill will give responsible employers greater confidence that there is no need to worry about defending themselves in court.
This is not just about protecting employers from negligence claims brought by employees, and in Committee we heard worrying examples of how the compensation culture can affect other organisations. As I mentioned on Report, the Cheshire fire and rescue service talked about members of the public bringing claims after they had tripped over fire-hoses in broad daylight, ignoring the flashing lights and liveried firefighters who were attending the scene of an emergency. It cannot be right that unjustified claims are brought against members of our emergency services who are doing their best in difficult conditions to save the lives of others. The Campaign for Adventure also warned that a litigious climate can produce a culture of fear that inhibits innovation, exploration, learning and altruism. We are committed to defeating that culture of fear.
The Bill will help all those hard-working individuals, organisations and small businesses who do the right thing and adopt a responsible approach towards the safety of others in the course of an activity by ensuring that that is taken into account by the court in the event of a claim. It will help to discourage speculative and opportunistic claims, and give confidence to responsible employers—and others—to resist them.
The social action clause will help to foster an environment of civic-mindedness and promote volunteering by reassuring those who make a positive contribution to society that the law will be on their side in the unlikely event that they are sued. Members of the House might recall that the coalition agreement included a commitment to
“take a range of measures to encourage volunteering and involvement in social action.”
That is precisely what we have been doing through the many initiatives that we have backed to increase participation in civil society, and I am glad that the proportion of people volunteering is steadily rising. The Bill will build on the progress we have already made by tackling the perception of the compensation culture, which can influence the willingness of people to volunteer. We know that worries about liability remain a real issue for some would-be volunteers. In his evidence to the Bill Committee, Dr Justin Davis Smith of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations confirmed that the fear of being sued prevents
“a significant proportion of people getting involved”.––[Official Report, Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Public Bill Committee, 4 September 2014; c. 11, Q14.]
We hope that the social action clause will go some way to allaying the fears of people who are deterred from getting involved. Parliament has a significant role to play in highlighting what is valued in society. The Bill seeks to deliver a positive message. It is a message that social action is desirable, a message that responsible behaviour will be recognised, and a message that the law is on the side of those who undertake socially beneficial activities.
The final limb of the Bill, on heroism, addresses another key area of concern. Unfortunately, often people are unwilling to intervene in emergencies because they are worried they might be sued and ordered to pay damages if they try to help. At previous stages of the Bill we heard examples of such behaviour, both from Members and from those giving evidence to the Bill Committee. The Bill therefore seeks to address such concerns by reassuring the public that if they act heroically by selflessly intervening to provide assistance in an emergency, that will be taken into account by the courts should a claim of negligence be brought against them.
As the examples I have given demonstrate, the Bill applies to a wide range of situations and emphasises that the actions of those who seek to serve their communities are valued by the law. It will be relevant to those who act for the benefit of society by engaging in organised voluntary activities, or to those who perform acts of kindness for individual members of the community, such as assisting an elderly neighbour with day-to-day tasks. It will be relevant to those who demonstrate a generally responsible approach to the safety of others, whether in the work environment or in other contexts, and to those who selflessly assist others in emergencies. All of those people will be able to rest assured that full account will be taken of the context of their actions, should something go wrong and they are sued.
I emphasise again that the Bill does not confer immunity from civil liability for those whose actions fall within the scope of the Bill. Those who are injured by negligence will continue to have access to legal redress, and the Bill will not remove the court’s ability to do justice in an individual case. Courts will continue to be able to consider all the facts of an individual case, and nothing in the Bill will prevent a person from being found negligent if the circumstances of the case warrant it.
There has been some criticism of the Bill, particularly from members of the legal profession. I want to make it absolutely clear that this is not a Bill aimed at pleasing lawyers. It is a Bill that gives support and reassurance to ordinary people who act responsibly and for the benefit of society. The Bill adopts a fair and sensible approach that allays the fears of those who wish to undertake socially beneficial action, reassures organisations and individuals that a responsible approach to safety is recognised, and encourages a culture of altruism, not one of compensation. I commend the Bill to the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
1. Whether he has any plans for further court closures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
With the exception of recently published proposals on Abergavenny magistrates court and Caerphilly magistrates court, Bracknell magistrates court, Knutsford Crown court and Spalding magistrates court there are no plans for further court closures.
Nick Smith
How many courts closed since May 2010 have yet to be disposed of?
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
As the Minister says, the Ministry of Justice is consulting on the closure of Caerphilly court in my constituency. The proposal from the MOJ is, frankly, back-of-the-envelope stuff. It will create enormous inconvenience for my constituents, and what is more, the local MP has not even been consulted. Is that acceptable?
Mr Vara
There has been a consultation of which the local MP is aware, and he, like anyone else, is entitled to give his view in that. We are constantly reviewing the courts estate to ensure that it meets operational needs. If any decisions are to be taken on the hon. Gentleman’s particular court, I hope that he will have been active in making his views heard.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Yesterday, leading counsel told the High Court that the Lord Chancellor was causing
“very serious harm to the…criminal justice system”
and described his modus operandi as
“a caricature of fairness: empty abuses, bluff and bully, divide and rule”.
Beyond the closure of hundreds of courts and law firms and the destruction of legal aid, what else does the Lord Chancellor have in mind to undermine the rule of law, which his oath of office requires him to uphold?
Mr Vara
I have to say, it really is rich of the Opposition to talk in such terms. Here we have a party that is constantly criticising, yet has said that there will be no more money available in the unlikely event of it being in government. The Opposition really do need to sort out their act: they need to decide whether they are opposing for opposition’s sake, and, if they do want reforms, where the money will come from and how much.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
9. What steps his Department has taken to prevent insurance fraud.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to tackling insurance fraud. We are banning lawyers from offering inducements in personal injury claims and are legislating to penalise fundamentally dishonest claimants. We are also consulting on a requirement for lawyers to undertake previous claims checks on whiplash claimants, which will combat fraud at source.
Stephen Mosley
It is estimated that insurance fraud and exaggerated claims cost some £2.1 billion last year, with motor insurance alone costing about £811 million. Ultimately, it is not the insurance companies that pay out, but the consumers, who pay for it through higher insurance bills. What further measures is my hon. Friend taking to tackle the compensation culture in this country?
Mr Vara
The compensation culture to which my hon. Friend refers means that honest drivers are having to pay higher premiums because of abuses, especially in whiplash claims. That is why the Government have put in place measures to deter unnecessary speculative and exaggerated claims, while ensuring that genuine claimants can come forward and have proper redress. In the first phase of our measures, which will start next month, there will be fixed costs of £180 for medical reports, which in the past had been as high as £700.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There have been many examples across the whole United Kingdom of scams being carried out by a number of individuals with different insurance companies. Is it not time that insurance companies exchanged ideas and ensured that they are forensically competent in dealing with fraud?
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
10. What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
12. What progress his Department has made on its courts rebuilding programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service continues to keep the use of its estate under review to ensure that it meets operational requirements.
Bridget Phillipson
Last November, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) met the Minister to press the case for the much-promised rebuilding of Sunderland’s court complex, but unfortunately, since then, nothing has happened. Will he now join us, visit Sunderland and see the state of the existing court buildings and the impact these new courts could have in the regeneration of the city centre?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady is right to refer to our meeting about this matter and will be aware that in March we announced a court reform programme to ensure that the courts and tribunals of this country met the expectations of the public in the 21st century. Any decisions about the site in Farringdon row in Sunderland will be taken in the context of that reform programme. Currently, no decisions have been taken about the site.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Unless the Ministry of Justice commits capital funding to Wrexham magistrates court, it will be in the peculiar position of having no custody facilities. Will the Minister commit capital funding to construct cells at the court?
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
13. What plans he has for the completion of the court estates reform programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The court estate reform programme has been important in improving efficiency through the closure of poor quality and underused court buildings. Through the programme, 140 courts have closed and these closures are expected to generate estimated savings of £152 million. The last court in the programme, Alton magistrates court, closed last week on 5 September 2014.
Richard Graham
The Minister will know that our courts in Gloucester are barely fit for purpose. Land was bought for new courts by the previous Government, but they diverted the funds elsewhere. Will he confirm that the site will be marketed as soon as possible to help city regeneration, that the successful bidder for HMP Gloucester will be announced soon and that a new justice centre in the city centre will be considered positively for all courts and tribunals once the justice review is finished?
Mr Vara
First, may I commend my hon. Friend for the diligence and conscientiousness with which he has pursued the interests of his constituents? I fully appreciate the circumstances of the courts in Gloucester and am mindful of the prison’s closure and the position of the car park. As I have said, a court reform programme was announced in March and any decisions will be taken as part of that programme.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
14. What progress his Department has made on increasing the provision of restorative justice programmes for offenders.
Guardianship of Property and Affairs of Missing Persons
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 2 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 8 April 2014, I made a written ministerial statement reporting the statement of the same date made by my noble Friend, the Minister for civil justice and legal policy, Lord Faulks QC, announcing that the Ministry of Justice was continuing to prepare a consultation paper on the possible creation of a status of guardian of the property and affairs of missing persons and that it intended to publish the paper as soon as possible and in any event by the end of August—Official Report, 8 April 2014, column WS126.
I am pleased to announce that the consultation paper “Guardianship of the Property and Affairs of Missing Persons” was published on 27 August and that the consultation period will close on 18 November. The consultation paper is aimed at anyone with an interest in the property and affairs of those who go missing and I should like to encourage anyone with such an interest to respond.
The Government will decide whether to create a status of guardian of the property and affairs of missing persons once they have considered the responses to the consultation. My noble Friend, Lord Faulks QC, will make a further statement at that time.
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 4 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 thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, whether with speeches or interventions.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice indicated in his opening speech, the core aim of the Bill is to ensure that people, especially employers, who generally take a responsible approach towards the safety of others during an activity, feel confident that the courts will take full account of this in the event that they are sued. Employers should not be prevented from growing their businesses by irresponsible employees who seek to harm them financially by bringing unfounded negligence claims. The fear of litigation can force businesses to go further than they need to when planning and managing for health and safety risks, which in turn can have a damaging effect on growth. The Bill should reassure employers who adopt a generally responsible approach towards the safety of others during the course of an activity that the courts will always take full account of the circumstances prior to making a decision on liability.
The social action clause is part of a wider package to fulfil a coalition agreement commitment. Figures published last year showed that the proportion of people volunteering at least once a year increased from 65% in 2010 to 73% in 2013. This is due partly to the initiatives that we have been backing to support people getting involved in their local communities. For example, the National Citizen Service programme for 16 and 17-year-olds saw 40,000 young people give more than 1 million hours in 2013 to socially useful activities. The Step Up to Serve initiative, launched last November by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, aims to double the number of young people aged between 10 and 20 participating in social action by 2020. Earlier this year, in April, the Prime Minister launched a new volunteering award called “Points of Light”, which recognises outstanding individual volunteers who are making changes in their community and inspiring others.
Those are only a few of the initiatives that are happening on a local basis all around the country. The commitment that people show to volunteering is something that they and we can be proud of, but we also know that volunteering rates could be increased further if barriers that deter people from getting involved are removed. That is where the Bill has another important role to play. We want people to feel confident about participating in activities that benefit others without worrying about what might happen if something goes wrong and they find themselves defending a negligence claim in the civil court.
The same goes for good Samaritans who might be deterred from intervening to help somebody in an emergency in case they are sued for making the position worse. The perception of legal risk can be a bar to positive action. As the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, the Bill should provide a valuable reassurance to people who are acting for the benefit of society or intervening in emergencies: that the court will take the context of the person’s actions into account when reaching a decision on liability.
As I have said, I am grateful to those who have contributed to this debate, although I must say that I am somewhat disappointed, but not surprised, by the tone adopted by the Front-Bench spokesmen for Her Majesty’s official Opposition. They ask for examples; I suggest that they need only refer to Hansard to see an example given by their colleague, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who said in a debate:
“I once stepped off a bus and found a lady lying on the pavement in front of me. There was a group of people around her, but none of them had done anything. Some of them said, ‘I don’t want to be sued.’”—[Official Report, 10 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 489.]
That is an example from one of their own colleagues, and of course—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) chunters away from a sedentary position, as always. He says that that is the only example, but if he had taken the trouble to read Hansard, he would know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) also gave an example from his experience as a first responder.
Mr Slaughter
There were two such hon. Members—who have now been mentioned three times—but there were a couple today who took the opposite view, including my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Education. I believe there were 50 Members of the other place who spoke in the debate and not one of them mentioned that issue. This is a turkey of a Bill; the hon. Gentleman ought to admit it.
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman says I have given two examples. That is two more than the number of times he has repeated the same question, over and over again. I am sorry that he does not like the answer, but he will have to live with it.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) was quite candid in his comments. I have to say that while I respect his distinguished career in the law and his legal brain power, on this issue I will respectfully disagree with him. What we are trying to do is consolidate the measures elsewhere in the statute book in one Bill. Also, as my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary made clear, we are seeking to send out a powerful message to public: that when they do the right thing, the law will take them into account.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke in support of the Bill. As he rightly put it, we should judge the Bill by its content, not by the number of clauses. He asked whether it would be extended to Northern Ireland. That is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, as it is a devolved matter, but I will certainly be following with interest to see what progress is made by the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is comforting that he has put on the record his support for the measure.
We need to be clear that there is nothing in the Bill to stop an employee bringing a negligence claim against an employer. [Interruption.] Clearly the paymasters of the Labour party, the trade unions, have been lobbying it hard, as was abundantly clear from the way Labour Members spoke about their friends in the trade unions. The Bill is not designed to reduce standards of health and safety in the workplace or to leave workers without a remedy where they have been injured by the negligent actions of an irresponsible employer. It will, however, provide valuable reassurance to employers who have taken a responsible approach to safety, but end up in court when, for example, an employee suffers an injury that simply could not have been foreseen by any reasonable person. The Bill will send the powerful message that the courts will always consider the employer’s general approach to safety in the course of the activity in question before reaching a decision on liability.
The courts will, of course, need to consider in every case whether someone was acting for the benefit of society or adopting a generally responsible approach to the safety of others in the course of a particular activity. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) chunters away from a sedentary position. All I will say to him is “Where are your Back Benchers?”
Sadiq Khan
I am intervening to ask whether the Minister can tell us the difference between the position created by the Bill and the position under the Compensation Act 2006. It is a simple question: what is the difference?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Mr Khan, you have got your point on the record. Everyone is joining in the shouting across the Chamber, and it is very undignified. Minister, will you please continue your speech?
Mr Vara
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy to continue, in a reasoned and measured way.
As I was saying, the courts will need to consider in every case whether someone was acting for the benefit of society or adopting a generally responsible approach to the safety of others in the course of a particular activity. However, as has already been pointed out, the Bill will not preclude them from considering any other relevant factors. It will not give medics, police officers, teachers or anyone else immunity from being found negligent if all the circumstances of the case warrant that. Nor will the Bill have any bearing on criminal liability. If a person’s conduct amounts to the commission of an offence such as gross negligence manslaughter, there may be criminal as well as civil repercussions.
I believe that the Bill will serve an important purpose in reassuring a wide range of people that the law will treat them fairly, and that they should not let worries over being sued deter them from making a valuable contribution to society. Again, I thank all Members who have contributed today. I simply say to Opposition Members that they should illustrate their observations by their actions. If they really mean what they said earlier, where are their Back Benchers, and why will they not be voting against the Bill?
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill: Programme
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 14 October.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration o of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(John Penrose.)
Question agreed to.
Presumption of Death Act 2013
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 4 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 of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy, Lord Faulks, has today made the following written ministerial statement:
I am pleased to announce that I have made a commencement order, “The Presumption of Death Act 2013 (Commencement and Transitional and Saving Provision) Order 2014”, bringing the remaining provisions of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 into force on 1 October 2014.
Oral Answers to Questions
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
One of the factors that drives up costs is the problem of discovering documents relating to medical and HMRC records. What discussions is my hon. Friend having with other Departments to make sure that we can speed up the process of disclosure?
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
Does it not tell us everything we want to know about this nasty Government—doing a rotten deal with Tory funders in the City to the detriment of dying people?
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
11. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on jobs in Newport of the privatisation of Ministry of Justice shared services.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
14. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of provision of interpreters and translation services in court.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
There have been dramatic improvements in performance in the last two years and we continue to manage contracts to ensure that the improvements continue. We appointed independent assessors to carry out a review of interpreter quality standards earlier this year and look forward to receiving their recommendations shortly.
Valerie Vaz
The reality is that a constituent of mine who was sitting on a jury had to have the court adjourned for four days while it looked for a translator. Why have the payments to Capita Translation and Interpreting increased from £7 million to £15 million over the past two years?
Mr Vara
It is always regrettable when there are such individual circumstances, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that I cannot comment on specific cases. However, dramatic improvements in performance have occurred in the last two years and Capita routinely fills 95% of requests. On funding, I hope that she appreciates that in the first year of the contract, £15 million of British taxpayers’ money was saved.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
T5. Hereford county court is a highly effective and important local institution. However, there is a break clause in the lease for the court premises for this next year. If the court has to move, has the Secretary of State considered co-locating it with other public services in Hereford? Can he reassure local people that, whatever happens to the premises, Hereford will continue to have a county court?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I can tell my hon. Friend that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is aware of the break clause in the lease for Hereford county court’s premises for next year. The Courts and Tribunals Service continues to keep the use of its estate under review to ensure that it meets operational needs.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
T2. Judge Robert Martin has heavily criticised the Government’s welfare and justice changes, saying that the work capability assessment is in a state of “virtual collapse”, and that the loss of legal aid funding“has severely reduced the help and support available to claimants to pursue their legal rights”.Why does the Justice Secretary think that it is acceptable to deny access to justice to people who are sick, disabled or poor?
Mr Vara
I think we need to put things into perspective here. Before the reductions to legal aid were made, Britain had one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world, costing the taxpayer £2 billion. After the reductions have gone through, £1.5 billion will still go towards the legal aid system. That is a lot of money; it is one of the largest amounts being paid into any legal aid system in the world, and I can assure the hon. Lady that £1.5 billion buys a lot of legal aid.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
T7. Will my hon. Friend the Prisons Minister update my constituents on his Department’s success or otherwise in regard to the sale of Reading prison?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Prisons Minister for meeting me and Billy Bragg recently to discuss the issue of guitars in prisoners’ cells. I welcome the fact that the Minister confirmed that his decision will be taken on the security advice that he receives. Has he had that advice, has it told him that this is a manageable risk, and when does he expect to be able to make an announcement?