Knife Crime

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the petitioners and the Petitions Committee for bringing this urgent issue to our attention. I also thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for his very able and comprehensive introduction to the subject, and I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and thought-provoking speeches. As others have done, I want to start by reflecting on the horror and the personal tragedy that each instance of knife crime represents. Our thoughts and our hearts go out to all who have been impacted, including whole communities such as Havering, Dudley, Hammersmith, Croydon, Wood Green and many others across the country.

The petition—like the debates that we might have tomorrow on the Offensive Weapons Bill—asks where the balance should lie between different policy responses to knife crime. The petitioners have placed their focus on sentencing, and that is entirely understandable, particularly for those who have experienced or been affected by knife crime. Of course, there must be proper and appropriate punishment of offenders. In Scotland, sentencing has been a small part of the response, as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned earlier. Maximum sentences for possession have been increased to five years, and the average length of custodial sentences for knife possession and offences has increased, too, albeit without the introduction of mandatory prison sentences, about which I share the scepticism of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter).

The key point is that sentencing policy in Scotland is broadly in the same ballpark as that in England and Wales. I do not agree that the upsurge in knife crime in too many areas of England and Wales is down to a lack of appropriate sanctions. There is no evidence for that. As the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) said, there is little or no evidence that increasing the length of sentences will have any significant deterrent effect.

I share the views of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. We tend to put far too much faith in sentencing and harsh sentences to fix all of society’s ills, whereas prison often causes more problems than it solves. Short sentences in particular often operate almost as a training camp, as the hon. Member for Croydon Central said. The focus should be on other policy areas, many of which were touched on during the debate and which I will refer to briefly now.

Policing numbers are also relevant, despite the Prime Minister’s protestations. Hon. Members have been almost unanimous about that today, and senior officers have said the same thing. Although I am always reluctant to compare apples and oranges—it can be a crude way to do things—I was struck when I read the other day that in September 2018 there were roughly 32 officers per 10,000 of the population in Scotland, compared with around 21 officers per 10,000 in England and Wales. That is a hugely significant difference. There might be other explanations for it, but if I were an MP in England and Wales, I would ask questions about how that gap had arisen. Members referred to the need for local policing or hotspot policing. That is necessary and we need to see resources invested in it.

I turn to austerity and resources more generally. Last week, witnesses before the Home Affairs Committee were clear that austerity and cuts to services were having a significant impact. The witnesses said that safe spaces, youth clubs and council-funded sports facilities and teams have faced the brunt of the cuts. Those are places where young people find diversion and meet role models, and the cuts undoubtedly have an impact. Services such as social work, employability and mental health are all buckling under the strain, and all those services count in the battle to stem the tide of knife crime.

Some hon. Members referred to stop and search. I agree that that can play a role, but it is far from an answer in itself, and it must be used extremely carefully and in a way that does not risk undermining trust in the role of police. It must be done on the basis of reasonable suspicion. “Intelligence led” and “proportionate” were the words that the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) wisely used.

Tomorrow, or soon, we will debate knife crime prevention orders. We heard some differing views on that subject today. We do not have them in Scotland, and based on what I have heard so far I severely doubt that I would like them to be introduced. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon Central for all the work that she does with the all-party group on knife crime, and for the event that she organised this lunchtime at which we heard from a range of actors about why knife crime prevention orders appear to be filling a gap that does not really exist and that lacks an evidence base. Instead, they risk seriously counterproductive unintended consequences.

Putting that aside, more generally I welcome most of the provisions in the Offensive Weapons Bill. However, it is a small piece of a much bigger picture, and the area where we can make a significant long-term difference is away from purely criminal justice measures. That is where Scotland has already seen some success, if only because we experienced horrendous levels of violence not so long ago that required an urgent response. It is important to remember just how bad the position was. As recently as 2005, the UN talked of Scotland as among the most violent countries in the developed world, and the World Health Organisation referred to Glasgow as one of the murder capitals of the world. Although we still have a long way to go, the evidence points to significant success in reducing violence, as the hon. Member for Romford pointed out.

Recorded violent crime in Scotland came down by 49% over the decade to 2016-17. The homicide rate halved over the decade from 2008 to 2018. Offending by young people has halved since 2008, and various other dramatic statistics show that a long-term public health approach can make a difference. Although other policies have undoubtedly played a part, including those related to sentencing, I think we all know that that public health approach has been responsible for turning the tide.

Such an approach is about addressing the underlying risk factors that increase the likelihood that people will become a victim or a perpetrator of violence. It means an evidence-based, whole-of-Government approach that seeks to tackle the causes of violence, rather than just the symptoms. It is about prevention and early intervention, rather than action after tragic events.

Members know about the work of the violence reduction unit, together with organisations and campaigns such as No Knives, Better Lives and Mentors in Violence Prevention. On the ground, it is about seeking opportunities to divert from prosecution, community alternatives to secure care and custody, and improving reintegration back into the community. That means improving life chances, promoting school inclusions, strengthening relationships and engagement, building life skills, improving health and wellbeing, and trying to improve employability.

None of that is new, much of it is common sense, and all of it has been learned from other cities such as New York and Chicago, and tweaked and honed to work in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland. I hope that the same thing can work over the longer term in parts of England. It is about not directly copying what has gone on elsewhere, but learning what works and what can work, and tailoring it to local circumstances. I welcome, for example, the fact that Mayor Khan has established a violence reduction unit in London.

The UK Government have published their serious violence strategy, which includes a move towards a public health approach. Whether that is a modest change of emphasis or a full-scale rethink, only time will tell; however, to save lives there should be a genuine and cross-Government commitment to pursue that approach, making available the funds that are needed.

I support what the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said when he raised what seems almost to be a lack of urgency in the response to this national crisis—or epidemic, as hon. Members have described it. The problem has been getting worse for the best part of two years, but until now the response has largely been local and operational, rather than strategic and at a national level. If not through Cobra, there has to be another type of serious, cross-Government co-ordination. This matter needs national direction, and it needs it urgently.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

Some of the staff at Nottingham, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, have come from other establishments in other parts of the country, but when they return they will be replaced because we must ensure that Nottingham is fully staffed. That is essential particularly in order to continue with delivery of the key worker programmes so that each prison officer can be paired with six prisoners. That will be vital to getting violence under control in Nottingham.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

9. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his departmental priorities of the UK leaving the EU.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

24. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his departmental priorities of the UK leaving the EU.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

My Department continues to ensure that the necessary preparations are in place to mitigate potential impacts associated with leaving the EU wherever possible. For all scenarios, these preparations remain on track. In a no-deal scenario, we do not expect any immediate impacts on our departmental priorities, although there are risks in terms of pressures on the courts. We will react to longer-term impacts that are harder to predict, such as financial impacts, should they arise.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

In recent years, 15 German nationals have been extradited from Germany to the United Kingdom, including for some very serious offences, but last month that country made it clear that it will no longer extradite its citizens to the UK after Brexit. What other countries does the Secretary of State anticipate will take a similar approach, and what, if anything, can he do to respond to this massive Brexit headache?

[Mr Gauke]

In terms of the European arrest warrant, we have to accept that as a consequence of Brexit the current arrangements will no longer be available, but we will continue to work very closely with EU member states to ensure that we can address this matter as effectively as we can.

Recall of Women to Prisons

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on a typically thoughtful and persuasive case. Indeed, I think that every Member in the galaxy of talent here today has contributed thoughtful and persuasive arguments.

I agree absolutely that hon. Members are right to express serious concern about the huge increase in the number of women recalled to prison. As we heard, the number has tripled since the introduction of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014. That is truly an extraordinary and shocking development. I understand that the latest statistics show that there are 29 recalls to custody for every 100 releases of women offenders on licence. I am not usually one to make comparisons with other jurisdictions, but I will do that today. Although there are difficulties in making direct comparisons, it is interesting to note that in the 10 years to 2015—the figure is not completely up to date—the comparable figure for Scotland is between four and five recalls per 100 releases—one sixth or less of what we are now seeing in England and Wales. We have to ask why that is.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made a very honest speech about how she had been persuaded at the time of the 2014 reforms, but now, in the light of the numbers, she has reconsidered. I think that if I had been in this place in 2014, I would have been attracted by what the Government were apparently proposing, but the numbers in themselves do seem to make a case for repeal of the 2014 provisions relating to supervision after sentences of less than 12 months. At the very least, there must be a significant review of how those provisions are operating. Even during the passage of the Bill, prison reform organisations warned that many people serving short prison sentences have complex and multiple needs, which increase the likelihood of breach of licence conditions. As the hon. Member for Swansea East said, the Prison Reform Trust is among those who have concluded that that is exactly what has happened, referring to a “coercive response” that was brought about by the Act creating a distrust between offenders and responsible officers. The trust stated:

“The threat of recall accentuates the fault lines in relationships that are already fragile, inhibiting women from confiding in their responsible officers about difficulties that, eventually, lead to their recall.”

Accordingly, two fifths of recalls for women are apparently down to a failure to keep contact with a responsible officer, which contrasts with the figure provided by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston that suggests that only a quarter of recalls relate to further offending behaviour.

For the second and final time I will compare this system with how things operate in Scotland. In Scotland there is no automatic requirement to supervise those released after a sentence of less than four years, although judges can impose a supervised release order in certain cases where that would be necessary for public protection. That might provide a better balance and focus than the system introduced in England by the 2014 Act, and a lack of compulsory supervision does not mean that support is not available.

[Chris Evans]

I know this is a strange thing to say, but most people who reoffend were released on a Friday when there is no access to services such as housing, social security or whatever. What is the experience in Scotland? Has anyone considered the days on which prisoners are released?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I must confess that I do not have the answer to that today, although the issue has been flagged up to me previously. I will look at it again to see whether a policy is in place to try to address that issue, as it seems significant.

There is broad agreement that women who are released on licence desperately need more support, and we are finding that supervising officers are simply not able to resolve or help with problems of unstable housing, debt, abusive relationships, mental health and the various other issues that hon. Members have highlighted. In fairness, the Government recognised that in their most recent female offender strategy, published last summer, which notes that a

“lack of access to supportive community services can contribute to recall to custody”

and that the aforementioned problem of not keeping in touch with supervising officers was driven by a lack of safe accommodation, as well as substance misuse and other issues.

Few Members present would not agree that residential support in the community that provides holistic support to turn lives around is far preferable to prison recall. The Government’s strategy document gives various examples of successful residential support options, including the marvellous Turning Point 281 centre in Glasgow. Such places are not soft options; they are a serious challenge to help women turn their lives around and address the root causes of their being on the wrong side of the law, whether that is substance abuse, adult or childhood trauma, financial problems or debt, mental health issues, or domestic abuse. As hon. Members pointed out, we need a coherent, comprehensive and joined-up network of services, and that requires resourcing a whole-system approach with sustainable funding, such as that described by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston.

My most important point—here I agree with everyone who has spoken in the debate so far—is that short-term prison sentences of less than a year are, to all intents and purposes, pointless. As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said, the Scottish Government are moving to a presumption against sentences of under 12 months, which hopefully will lead to a significant reduction in the number of women receiving custodial sentences. I also welcome and support the positive moves made by the UK Government. Short sentences do not allow time or space to address the root causes of offending behaviour, and as hon. Members have said, they often exacerbate existing problems, breaking up families and social networks and disrupting employment and housing.

Reform could make a significant difference and help far more women to turn their lives around than locking them up and making things worse. I encourage and support the Government in that endeavour. Again I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East on securing this debate. She is right in what she has argued for today, and I very much hope that the Government have listened.

Draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 General Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. I want to make a couple of short comments. It is important that we do not underestimate the significance of these proceedings. We are, essentially, re-writing an important piece of primary legislation. Full treaties are basically being dis-applied from the United Kingdom through 84 pretty technical clauses. I just wonder at the outset whether there are ways that we can make this process work better from the point of view of scrutiny.

Importantly, the explanatory memorandum to the draft regulations refers to there having been no formal consultation but some discussions with stakeholders; the Minister named one or two of the stakeholders. However, from what I can see, the explanatory memorandum was written several months ago. I wonder if it would have been possible during that time to ask for written submissions from some of these stakeholders, so that MPs trying to scrutinise such important bits of legislation could see for themselves the expert opinion of the likes of the Law Society or the Bar Council.

I managed to track down a briefing from the Law Society of Scotland. I am grateful to it for having prepared one at such short notice. The Minister will be pleased to hear that it gave the draft regulations a clean bill of health, so we ultimately accept their need and will support their implementation. However, given the significance of these issues, it would have been useful to have seen a little bit more detail than provided in the explanatory memorandum.

The explanatory memorandum makes reference to private international law being transferred to Northern Ireland, to be within the competence of the Northern Ireland authorities, but it is silent on devolution to Scotland. I have not been able to get a definitive view in the time available whether this matter should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Regardless of whether it is devolved or not, I would like some reassurance that there have been close discussions with the Scottish Government about what the draft regulations will mean for the Scottish courts. There usually are such discussions, but I do not see them mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. The White Paper on civil jurisdiction commits to close working with the devolved Administrations. It would be useful to have a flavour of what has been discussed in relation to this particular draft statutory instrument.

Finally, I have a question on an exception that the Minister pointed out, although it is probably for a future day, about our retaining the rules on the jurisdiction in employment cases. Reading through the explanatory memorandum, it seems to me that an employer must sue an employee where the employee is domiciled, which seems perfectly sensible. However, if it is the other way around, the employee has a choice of where to sue the employer, although strangely enough that choice does not include where the employee is domiciled. He could sue in the jurisdiction where he carries out work for his employer but not where he is domiciled.

I totally get that the Government are actually only implementing what the Brussels regulations do at the moment, but I think the situation is slightly strange. The Government have tweaked one or two other Brussels regulations in relation to corporations and associations, so I wonder if they gave any thought to tweaking that one. It seems strange that an employee could not sue where they are domiciled. I am guessing that that would affect someone who lives in, say, Newcastle, but works offshore, three weeks on, three weeks off, in Scottish waters. As I understand it, they would not be able to sue in England. That is probably too technical for today; it is something to think about for another occasion.

Notwithstanding our slight concerns about the degree of scrutiny of something as important as the draft regulations, I understand that they are necessary. We support them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is the latter. We will get there when we are ready, and we are grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

The Law Commission of England and Wales says that working people on low incomes are being systematically denied the right to a fair trial because of restrictive legal aid rules. When will the Government act in this shocking and shameful situation?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard that we are doing a review of legal aid, which will be published early in the new year. I was interested to read the recent Scottish Government report on legal aid, which implements a number of the things that we are already doing, including using technology to help our court processes.

Road Safety and the Legal Framework

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing the debate, and thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It is clear that we have some long-standing road safety campaigners in the Chamber today.

This debate has clearly struck a chord with my constituents, if my inbox is anything to go by. Like many others, they are concerned that the legal system is not quite operating in a manner that is fair, just and consistent between different types of road users. We heard some tragic stories from hon. Members about families who have been affected by dangerous and careless driving through the loss of loved ones, and that of course reminds us what this debate is ultimately all about.

A number of consultations and initiatives have been announced by the Government, although, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth flagged up, they have tended to proceed in a rather slow, piecemeal fashion. This debate allows us to look at a number of the issues in the round.

Ultimately, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) said, what we want to see is a country where there are no fatalities on the road and where road users are as safe as we can make them. Clearly the legal framework has an important role to play. As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk rightly pointed out, this is not about drivers against cyclists or any other road users. The emails that I have received highlight that, as he pointed out, 99.4% of pedestrian deaths in the UK involve a motor vehicle. The key challenge that we have is to answer the question of how we protect other road users against cars and other motor vehicles.

A number of Members made compelling arguments for some of the reforms that are suggested in the report of the all-party parliamentary group on cycling, “Cycling and the Justice System”. From my reading of the report, it contains a lot of sensible ideas. Prevention is clearly better than a cure, and I have no difficulty in supporting revisions to The Highway Code to address ambiguities about the responsibilities of road users—for example, in situations where cars are turning into side roads. I welcome some of the Government announcements on that.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) was absolutely right to mention horse riders’ safety, which constituents have contacted me about. He set out some of the alarming statistics about deaths—both of riders and horses—on the roads. Some 85% of such incidents are caused by drivers passing too fast or too close to horses. Campaigners argue that The Highway Code should include, at the very least, a strengthening of section 215 to include the British Horse Society’s “Dead Slow” advice to drivers on how to pass horses safely.

Among the other APPG suggestions, I would be happy to see changes to the format of driver testing to encourage better behaviour towards cyclists and pedestrians. I certainly would be sympathetic to, and supportive of, increased retesting of those who have committed offences. I am quite surprised that graduated driver licensing has not been brought up today, because I think there is still a strong argument for it. There is strong evidence that the benefits of such schemes outweigh any problems they might cause.

To come to the crux of the matter, the most difficult area of the debate is probably the adequacy of the offences that are applied to bad driving. I suppose that we aim to ensure that offences and the available punishments reflect both the level of blame or culpability in a driver’s behaviour and the impact that that culpable action has. A patchwork of offences seems to have developed over the years, and it is probably now time to consolidate them and ensure that they are comprehensive and fair.

It is absolutely true that there has to be a distinction between careless and dangerous driving, but perhaps those terms are not perfect. After all, careless driving is very often dangerous driving. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made the point that the term “careless” tends to sound trivial; perhaps words such as “negligent” or “reckless” would better reflect the legal distinction in driver behaviour. He also made some good points about the provision of road haulage rest facilities—the statistics show that many people involved in road traffic accidents are driving in the course of employment, so it is imperative that we ensure that those who drive for a living are supported in any way possible to do that safely.

While motor vehicles are the biggest challenge that we face, and cyclists are infinitely more sinned against than they are sinners, there are questions about how the law should deal with careless, reckless and dangerous cycling, as the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk acknowledged. Given that we deal with serious cases by relying on Victorian laws that were designed for horses and carriages, it is probably time for an update to deal with the rare occasions when cyclists cause serious accidents, especially for pedestrians. In Scotland, there are offences such as culpable homicide and culpable and reckless conduct, but it is questionable how appropriate and practical those would be. A new statutory regime appears to be justified, but it is important to clarify that this is about ensuring justice—it is absolutely not about punishing cyclists. As the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, we absolutely want more people to cycle.

On the stage at which offences have been proven, generally I would not seek ever-increasing sentences if education, technology or enforcement can provide an answer. However, it is alarming and surprising that we have on our roads more than 10,000 motor vehicle drivers with 12 or more penalty points on their licence, and that there has been a 60% drop in driver disqualifications in the past 10 years. It is essential that there is research on the reasons for those trends, because certainly they raise concerns that the current legal framework is at risk of being undermined by how it is implemented.

The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk raised the issue of hit and run. I am surprised to hear that the maximum sentence is six months, because that offence is akin to perverting the course of justice. That is something that perhaps has to be looked at again. I also sympathise with what he said about making car-dooring a specific offence. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) reminded us, all of this has to be based on research.

Our roads are certainly safer than in past times, but there is still plenty of room for improvement, and the justice system has a role to play. I thank all Members for their contributions today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We have received a large number of representations from across the country about what we should be doing in relation to legal aid, and we are looking at them carefully. The Labour party has not put in any representations.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

At yesterday’s Sanctuary in Parliament event, we heard about the huge importance of family reunion for refugees, but also about the complexity of the application process. Will the Government support the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), and restore legal aid in England and Wales for such applications?

[Lucy Frazer]

Family reunion is an important issue, and I have met a number of Members to discuss that Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at legal aid broadly and will set out the consequences of our review by the end of the year.

Future of Legal Aid

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Bailey.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), not only on securing the debate but on his thoroughly comprehensive and powerful introduction to the topic. In fact, I also thank all hon. Members for their incredibly insightful contributions.

Since I was elected, barely more than three years ago, I think this is the fourth, fifth or even sixth time that we have been in Westminster Hall to debate legal aid or wider access-to-justice issues, and yet so little seems to have changed. We are still waiting for the review of LASPO to be completed—never mind implemented—although an end appears to be just about in sight, which would be welcome indeed. Persistence in pushing for reform is therefore essential. As other hon. Members have said, the issues are fundamental ones. Legal aid is crucial to access to justice and the rule of law. As many hon. Members have expressed today, LASPO represents a misguided and dangerous undermining of those fundamental principles, putting access to justice beyond the reach of many through changes to the scope and eligibility criteria for legal aid.

As the Chair of the Justice Committee has said, that is not an academic matter. Numerous hon. Members have provided all sorts of practical examples of the impact of those changes on their constituents, whether those cases concern clinical negligence, miscarriages of justice, family matters, domestic abuse, social security, housing, debt or immigration. Hon. Members have referred repeatedly to the creation of advice deserts. That has all been at a time when, as the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) rightly pointed out, demand for some of those services could not be higher. Demand is soaring in cases of social security law and immigration law, at a time when the ability to access good legal advice is plummeting.

At the outset, the hon. Member for Hammersmith referred to what seems to have become the Government catchphrase in debates such as this, and it goes to the heart of what LASPO represents. The phrase jars with me, I have to say. Over and over again, the Government say that legal aid is available to “those who need it most”. That jars with me because the goal of any legal aid system should be that legal aid is available to all those who need it, full stop. By acknowledging that legal aid is available only to those who need it most, the Government in essence seem to be saying that LASPO was a legitimate exercise in the rationing of legal aid, accepting that many who need it will nevertheless not get it. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has said, if people do not get legal aid, that means that many of them simply do not get justice.

All Members have highlighted that LASPO’s flaws have been exposed repeatedly, including by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, the Law Society, the Law Commission and many others. The Justice Committee concluded that the Act had failed to achieve three of its four stated goals. The one successful goal was that of cutting the budget, but that was at the cost of harming access to justice for some litigants.

On that note, it would be interesting to know what LASPO represented for other budgets, including its impact on service provision for homelessness, social work and health. Those services pick up the pieces when people struggle to vindicate their rights under housing law, employment law or social security law. What we do know is the impact that LASPO has had on the courts, as party litigants struggle to make their way through complex litigation. The hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) set that out extremely starkly.

My party supports a comprehensive legal aid system—one that is open-ended, uncapped and demand-led; in other words, one that is much closer to what was in existence in England and Wales before LASPO, and to what still exists in Scotland and, as I understand it, in the Netherlands. The main point that I want to make is that such a system, or a move in the direction of it, as Members have called for today, does not have to be prohibitively expensive. In fact, despite its significantly broader scope and financial eligibility rules—about 70% of people in Scotland would qualify for civil legal aid—the system north of the border still costs slightly less per head of population than that in operation down here, at £25.02, as opposed to £25.54. Why is that?

This week the Library provided me with an interesting set of figures that suggest that although legal aid is provided in many more cases in Scotland, it is done at far less cost. In 2016-17, for example, there were 4,000 grants of assistance per 100,000 inhabitants in Scotland, which is some 75% more than the 2,300 grants per 100,000 inhabitants in England and Wales, but spending in each of those legal aid cases was two thirds higher in England and Wales, at about £1,000, compared with £600 in Scotland.

Those figures seem to be consistent with what far more knowledgeable Members have said today about the value of intervention, even on a small scale at an early stage. One Justice Committee report pointed out:

“The Ministry’s efforts to target legal aid at those who most need it have suffered from the weakness that they have often been aimed at the point after a crisis has already developed, such as in housing repossession cases, rather than being preventive.”

The more comprehensive system in Scotland has meant spending small amounts of money at a better time, so the overall spend in each individual case has been kept lower. Several hon. Members made a similar point about early advice.

Those Library figures are also consistent with the argument that there are other ways to keep the legal aid bill under control. Most of our previous debates about legal aid have highlighted the work of Professor Alan Paterson OBE, an international expert in legal aid. He pointed out as long ago as 2010, when spending per capita in England and Wales was £38, compared with £29 in Scotland, that much of that difference was down to the success of reform of court procedures in Scotland, both civil and criminal, leading to reduced legal aid spending.

The recent independent review of legal aid in Scotland highlighted other ways in which the legal aid budget could be reduced. Indeed, it has been reduced there since 2011. Falling recorded crime means fewer court cases and less criminal legal aid, as does greater use of diversion from the courts through fines. More sensible use of civil courts and jurisdictions has contributed to a drop in civil legal aid spending.

In short, legal aid is a vital part of ensuring access to justice and the rule of law. It should never have been made a victim of austerity, and it was a totally false economy to make it one. LASPO should be ripped up—it was a bad piece of legislation and has proved a total failure. Tinkering around the edges is no longer enough. A comprehensive system is required for England and Wales, and it is required urgently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

It was actually the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) who said that legal aid for housing was not available, and I was trying to highlight that the hon. Member for Westminster North recognised that it is. She makes an important point about legal aid providers. When civil legal aid contracts were recently put out to tender, 1,700 bidders took part, but we need to ensure that people who want to do this work are available to do it across the country, not just in high-density areas, and we need to ensure that there is provision in more sparsely populated areas where those contracts are less lucrative.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

What does the Minister say to the Justice Committee’s suggestion that, although housing may be within scope when people get to the stage of impending homelessness, we should invest smaller sums earlier to avoid catastrophe in the first place?

[Lucy Frazer]

The point that it is useful to nip problems in the bud and address them at the outset, so that they do not escalate, has been made and heard. Changes were made to LASPO to ensure that legal aid was available where people were at their most vulnerable. On clinical negligence, we should make clear that legal aid is available for compensation claims in respect of neurological trauma caused to children early in life due to negligence by medical professionals. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith recognised, by putting such things in the scope of legal aid, we are protecting the most vulnerable.

The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) mentioned social security claims. We are introducing significant technological changes—things such as digitisation and better communication with judges using technology—to make the tribunal system much more accessible.

Many Members, including the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), mentioned family law. LASPO rightly removed most private family matters from the scope of legal aid, but legal aid remains available for mediation in certain family disputes where parties meet the eligibility criteria. Since November 2014, legal aid has covered the costs of the mediation information and assessment meeting and the first mediation session for both parties, even if just one is eligible for legal aid.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith mentioned exceptional case funding. Let me update the figures he gave. The number of people making applications and the number of applications granted have both increased. Some 746 applications for ECF were received in the first quarter of 2018, of which 59%—390—were granted. That is the highest proportion and number of grants since the scheme began.

The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) both mentioned domestic violence. Legal aid is available to those seeking protection from an abuser in domestic abuse cases, and it was granted in more than 13,000 cases last year.

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) raised important points about Wales. She has asked parliamentary questions on a number of matters, and I am happy to meet her to discuss the issues she has raised.

I was interested to hear the points by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) about children. I was pleased to meet him earlier this week to discuss some of those issues.

It is important to set out where legal aid is available, but we recognise the impact of the changes made by the coalition Government in 2012, which many Members rightly highlighted. As all hon. Members know, my Department is looking at the impacts of LASPO. The hon. Member for Hammersmith said he is looking for positive news, but as a former shadow Justice Minister, he knows as well as I do that it would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of the review. We will respond at the end of the year.

I am happy to set out the process, which I outlined at the APPG on legal aid earlier this week. The evidence-gathering process has been comprehensive. My officials met more than 80 individuals and organisations from across the justice system to gather evidence, and they held two rounds of consultative group meetings with organisations, representatives and academics from across the justice system. At a third round of meetings, we will examine opportunities to consider further legal support. Officials will meet the Family Justice Council to discuss its concerns and recommendations in further detail, and are due to have a second meeting with the Civil Justice Council to explore its recommendations further.

I have held a number of instructive roundtables with those who have used our justice system, both with and without legal aid. I have met a number of Members of the House of Lords—last week I sat down with Lord Bach and other members of his commission on access to justice, and I have met Lord Low. Last week, I met the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I have also met many parliamentarians, and individuals from the advice and third sector who work with the most vulnerable in our society.

Alongside those meetings, much material has been submitted throughout the review, and we are considering that. It is clear that there are many issues to consider, from the stage at which advice is sought to types of provider and methods of provision. Many experts highlighted the value that technology can bring to individuals to navigate their rights in the court process.

We now use technology in every part of our lives, and justice should not be immune from that advancement. That is why, through the courts reform programme, the Government are investing £1 billion in updating our justice system for the 21st century. That programme is helping people to access court better, at the same time as changing outdated back-office systems. People can now apply for divorce online, we are trialling online applications for probate, and people can be updated about their social security claim through their mobile phone. Our reforms help vulnerable witnesses to give pre-recorded evidence so they do not need to see their attacker in court, and they enable those who find it difficult to travel due to disability or age to take part in proceedings by video link. That investment will transform how people experience the justice system with digital services, making justice more accessible and straightforward as well as using taxpayers’ money wisely.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

It is important that there are incentives—both carrots and sticks—in the prison system. Good behaviour in prison should be rewarded, just as bad behaviour should be punished. That is the approach that we need to take.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

My party agrees with the Secretary of State regarding the evidence on the inappropriateness of many short-term prison sentences, but community sentences need to be properly resourced to ensure that they work as an appropriate alternative. Will the Government increase funding to local authorities for the delivery of effective community sentences alongside any presumption?

[Mr Gauke]

We need to make sure that the alternatives to custody are effective—that they are not soft options, but that they do enable people to turn their lives around—and that the public have confidence that this is the proper course of action to take. That is our ambition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Once parties have made a decision to get divorced, the law should make it straightforward for them to do so, making it less acrimonious, which makes it better for children. For that reason, on 15 September we launched our reducing family conflict consultation on no-fault divorce.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

People are still having to wait an average of 42 weeks to get a hearing before the immigration and asylum first-tier tribunal, which is a long time to be in immigration limbo. What steps are the Government taking to reduce that time and what do they regard as an unacceptable waiting time target?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that waiting times for tribunals could be reduced. We are recruiting new members of the tribunals; in February and March, we appointed 226 new medical members of the social security tribunal. I am also meeting, and have met twice, my counterpart in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that we can get those waiting times down.

Bedford Prison

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

We have chosen 10 of our most challenged local prisons in order to prove that we can turn them around. One of the problems over the last few years is that we are developing a situation in which people are beginning to feel that there is no solution to these prisons. I believe very strongly that these prisons can be turned around. That is why I have said repeatedly that if I do not succeed in turning round the 10 prisons for this pilot, I will resign. Why is it that I am confident that we can turn these 10 prisons around? Because the fundamental problems in these prisons are relatively straightforward. They are problems of decency, they are problems of drugs, they are problems of support and management on the wings. I believe that we have demonstrated in the best of our local prisons that with the right support and the right investment we can do that, and that is what we propose to do in those 10 local prisons, and what I would expect the House to judge me on doing over the next 12 months.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

What we see today, yet again, is the horrendous impact of austerity cuts on the state of prisons. Prison staffing levels are down by almost one third since 2010, and that contrasts, by the way, with a 14% increase in Scotland over the same period. So we join the calls for significant new resources for new prison officers, for increased staff retention and for equipment and training in the forthcoming Budget.

Specifically on overcrowding, the prisons Minister has spoken about keeping a close watch on how the presumption against short sentences is working in Scotland, but surely he must see that placing people for a few months in institutions like Bedford or Birmingham is utterly counter-productive. He has explained exactly the complex needs that prisons just cannot address, particularly in a short period of time. So instead of watching, surely the time is now for acting on short sentences.

[Rory Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question. Connected to the question of crowding in prisons is the question of how many people are sentenced. The two are clearly related. The Scottish Government have led on the question that the hon. Gentleman now raises: what is the point of sending someone to prison with a three-month sentence? What does that achieve? In effect, it means that somebody is in prison for less than six weeks. Is that really a length of time that allows them to take any kind of punishment and that will deter anybody? Above all, is it enough time to rehabilitate someone—to really turn their life around so that they do not reoffend? The evidence suggests that very short sentences are in fact likely to lead to more reoffending than a community sentence. It is an issue that we need to look at very carefully.