Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

I will quote one of those letters when I have given way to my hon. Friends.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Constituents have written to me saying that they have been at their current address for the last 20, 30 or 40 years, but that they have received nothing to tell them about the changes.

[Owen Smith]

That is an extremely common experience for MPs, because the letters sent out in 1995 by the then Tory Government were neither use nor ornament. I have got one here that was sent to a woman on 13 June 1995. This letter has five pages, and not one of them mentions that the pension age is going to rise to 65. In fact, every single page refers to the fact that the state pension age for women is 60. The final page offers the extraordinary suggestion that

“a form inviting you to claim your State Retirement Pension will be sent to you”

a few

“months before you reach 60.”

This happened in the very month that the Bill that became the 1995 Act was going through this House under that Government. That is a measure of what a desperately poor job they did of informing people.

State Pension Age (Women)

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mhairi Black]

I want to make some progress.

Some people say, “You should not have to be written to. It’s your pension, you should be keeping an eye on it. You should be looking out for reports and things, and take responsibility.” But when giving evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, financial journalist Paul Lewis told us that after researching this himself he could barely find any reporting of the issue at all in 1995. There were a few small press cuttings from the business pages at the back of some newspapers. A freedom of information request revealed that the Government did fund “broader” awareness campaigns, which ran in waves between 2001 and 2004, but that these campaigns

“did not focus on equalisation in particular”.

In fact, only one of the press adverts in those campaigns was focused on this issue—one press cutting roughly seven years after this had already been passed into law. It is quite evident that this whole thing became a total mess. I do not know whether it was not reported deliberately, for political reasons or fear of ramifications, or whether it was a genuine accident, but what I do know is that women were not notified. It was not reported and they were not given enough time to be able to make appropriate arrangements.

This brings us on to the Pensions Act 2007, which increased the equalised state pension age from 65 to 66 between 2024 and 2026. It gave all affected people 17 years’ notice. That is fair enough, but then we come on to what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned, the Pensions Act 2011. That came along and said, “Forget the 17 years’ notice, we’re going to rush this through. We need to do this right now.” The 2011 Act accelerated pension age equalisation for women and the subsequent increase to 66, effective from October 2016 onwards, meaning that affected women had only five years’ notice to try to remedy life plans that had been in place for years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

When the latest changes to pensions were made in the Pensions Act 2011, Labour Members objected to them. We had many debates about the issue—I remember speaking in them—and focused especially on the double-whammy effect on women, but the Government went ahead and passed the legislation.

I want to explain to the Minister what my constituents have written to me—I will read some of it out—about how women are being affected by the changes. Every one of the women who has contacted me has said that they agree with state pension age equality, but they object to and have difficulty with the way in which it has been implemented, particularly the acceleration of the increase and the lack of information.

Some of my constituents who are directly affected by the changes have told me that, even now, they have not received any communication or formal notification of the changes from the Department for Work and Pensions. That is utterly unacceptable, given the gravity of the changes. Posting notices in women’s magazines and Sunday supplements is both patronising and ineffective. None of the women I have spoken to are readers of such publications; they found out about the changes through word of mouth.

As the increase in the pension age is literally life-changing, far more notice should have been given ahead of the changes, and the Government should have ensured that everyone affected can plan for their future. One lady I spoke to told me that she has lived at the same address for the past 30 years and has not received anything. There is no excuse for that. To suggest that people somehow knew what was happening is wrong.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I fully recognise that there has been a breakdown in communication from successive Governments, but does the hon. Lady have a practical solution to deal with that?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I will come on to the practical solution later in my speech.

Women have told me that their other major concern is that, even when they have been notified, they have not had enough time to prepare for the major changes in their lives. One of my constituents is 62 years of age and she was due to retire at 62 years and three months. However, she will now have to work until she is 65. Understandably, that has caused a great deal of distress and uncertainty for her, because she had been planning to retire in a few months’ time. Her plan was to co-ordinate her retirement with the birth of her grandchildren so that she could look after them and not have to resort to having the Government pay for their childcare. The changes have thrown her life into turmoil and, of course, the Government will now end up paying for that childcare.

Another constituent has told me that, anticipating retirement at 60, she took voluntary redundancy aged 58 and a half when her company was seeking to downsize. She was later informed that she will not be able to access her state person until she is 66 years of age. She now finds herself unemployed and having difficulty finding another job, because of her age. She has been left in financial hardship as a result of not being notified about the changes to the state pension age until it was too late. She is not the only example; many thousands of women across the United Kingdom are in the same boat.

The discrepancy of two years and two months for women born between April and December 1953 is simply confusing and unfair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government were told as much in the debates in 2011. It means that, for some constituents, the difference is about £14,000, which is a lot of money. Again, it is not just a few of my constituents who have been affected, but women across the country.

Hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them not just once, but twice, with a lack of appropriate notification, and retirement plans have been shattered, with devastating consequences. The Government seem to have failed to recognise the severe impact that the speed of the implementation of those changes has had on those women. The changes have not affected men to the same extent, as their state pension age has not been increased by such a large amount and they have had much more notice. The pension system has historically discriminated against women, and the new changes are yet another example of that.

I urge the Government to reconsider the provisions and to diminish their impact by making transitional arrangements that are fairer for those women affected.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I have listened with great interest to the hon. Lady’s speech and to those of other Labour Members, particularly to their references to transitional arrangements. I wonder whether she could help me. What does she mean by and what would she suggest as “transitional arrangements”, how much will they cost and how will we find the money?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has given me extra time for this speech. There are many different ways in which to deal with the issue; there is not one panacea or simple solution. If the Government want a comprehensive response from me about the way forward, I am very happy to put together a detailed plan about how to deal with this issue.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Conservative Members are constantly asking what a practical transitional plan might look like. Surely it is the responsibility of the Government to bring forward such a plan, which the House can then debate. This is an abdication of responsibility.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is typical of this Government’s approach to such things.

[Mark Durkan]

My hon. Friend may recall that a further transitional arrangement was proposed when the Bill went through in 2011. In October 2011, an arrangement was proposed that would have meant nobody had to wait more than a year, rather than up to 18 months, to reach their pension age. It would have cost £10 billion over 10 years, and it would have meant having a common state pension age in 2022. That was proposed, but the Government rejected it.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which I hope has helped the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins).

As I have said, I am very happy to pen a very detailed plan to help such ladies, but if I write it, I would like the Government to promise to implement it. Perhaps the Government will give me an assurance that, when I come up with suggestions about how to deal with various problems, they will say, “Yes, you are right: the hon. Member for Bolton South East has come up with a solution, and we will actually implement what she says.” Will the Minister make me such a promise?

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

Let me put a rational question back to the right hon. Gentleman. How is it that senior members of our society have reached a point at which they feel they might be a burden? The increasing secularisation of society has contributed to this, because the Christian principle of honouring our fathers and mothers must have become weakened if our parents and grandparents are starting to feel that they are a burden to us.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Mrs Spelman]

I should like to make a bit more progress before I give way.

Assisted dying should be the absolute exception, not the rule. In practice, the law as it stands has seldom been used to convict anyone for assisting someone else to die. Strong laws protect vulnerable people. The existing law protects the elderly, the disabled and those who might otherwise feel pressured to die. It is difficult to prove definitively that someone has not been coerced. It would be almost impossible to pass a law that could definitively prove one way or another whether an elderly person had been coerced.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. I agree with what she is saying, and I should like to give the House a small example of why that is the case. My mother is 83 years of age and has a number of health issues. Last year, she was in and out of hospital, and in April this year she was told by the consultant that she did not have much time to live. In May, she was given about three days. My mother has now recovered and is very healthy again. Before I left home at 5 o’clock this morning, I had tea and biscuits with her, and she was walking about. She has recovered, but when she was suffering, she was saying, “I feel I am a real burden on my family. I can’t do this.” She was very emotionally distressed, and she still sometimes gets distressed, but she has survived and she is now healthy.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

The Minister may be aware that when the Bill was in Committee, we heard from a number of experts, including charities, doctors and other people working with young people and offenders, and they said that the way that the secure colleges had been set up as large institutions was completely unsuitable for young people.

[Andrew Selous]

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady on that point. I understand the concerns that she raises. Is she aware of how the secure college is designed? We will, for example, have 12-bed units for the more vulnerable groups, which could include girls and children under 15. There are 20-bed and 10-bed units. We believe that it will be possible to offer that proper support. The set-up will allow smaller groups of young people to foster that sense of community, belonging and close relationship with those that will be looked after.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I rise to speak against the Government’s motion to disagree with the other place, and in favour of Lords amendment 74. I give notice of our intention to vote against the Government’s motion tonight.

This debate is about sparing girls and young children—the most vulnerable offenders—from a flawed, expensive and potentially dangerous institution, with which the Government should not be going ahead. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said and will respond to some of his specific points in a moment, but would not the Government’s proposal for secure colleges be a step in the wrong direction for our youth justice system? It is a plan without any real supporting evidence.

Even the Government’s own impact assessment accepts that their plans are untried and untested and the Government have not been able to produce a single independent expert to vote for the proposal. The NSPCC, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and nearly 30 other leading children’s charities have publicly condemned the plans as “expensive and dangerous”.

Let me be clear: improvements need to be made to youth custody. Reoffending is still too high and education can and should play an important role in the rehabilitation of young offenders, so I welcome the efforts that Ministers are making to improve the delivery of education in young offenders institutions where it is not good enough. At a time when the youth custody population is falling, however, Labour does not think that construction of a new type of prison is the correct way to proceed.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one aspect of rehabilitation is being able to keep in contact with family and close ones? It is proposed that this college will be in Lincolnshire and there will be only one in the whole country, so my hon. Friend can imagine the travelling that the parents of the children will have to do to visit. That completely defeats the object of rehabilitation.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the evidence explains that small units that are closer to home with a higher staff ratio are more suitable, particularly for girls and young offenders who have complex needs.

Let me respond now to some of the Minister’s points about the accommodation of girls and young children. We know that girls and children under the age of 15 are overwhelmingly in the minority in the youth custody population. In 2012-13, 95% of children in custody were boys and 96% were aged between 15 and 17. If those ratios were reflected in the 320-bed secure college, the Government would be accommodating fewer than 20 girls and about a dozen younger children together with nearly 300 older and troubled teenage boys. That has all the makings of an incredibly intimidating environment with real safeguarding concerns for the most vulnerable offenders and it is why large facilities such as young offenders institutions only accommodate boys over the age of 15. It also helps explain why, as I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), all the evidence shows that small units closer to home with a higher staff ratio are most suitable for girls and young offenders with complex needs. Ignoring the evidence in deciding the composition of the secure college would create a near impossible task for the college principal as the regime would inevitably need to be designed to cater for the needs of the majority, making it all the more likely that the needs of the minority would slip through the cracks.

The problem is compounded by the fact that Ministers have not carried out an equality impact assessment on how girls and younger offenders would fare in a secure college. That was confirmed in a written parliamentary answer to me on 16 June and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights earlier this year. The Committee’s report on the scrutiny of the Bill stated:

“We note that the Government does not appear to have carried out any equality impact assessments of the proposed secure colleges policy, and we recommend that such assessments should be carried out and made available to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.”

I remind the Minister of his Department’s response to the Committee’s report. It claimed:

“We believe that the pathfinder Secure College, an establishment”

comprising

“distinct accommodation units and capable of supporting different regimes for the various groups of young offenders, will provide…an individualised service.”

My simple question for the Minister is as follows: how? How will those warm words be delivered in reality? The House has been given no credible information about what life inside a secure college would be like for those young people.

We know that young people in custody have complex needs: mental health issues, learning disabilities, drugs, alcohol and problems of domestic abuse and family breakdown. However, the Government have proposed no credible plan for how the secure college would cater for those needs. They have not explained how they will be able to deliver better results at a lower cost than has been possible in other youth custody environments or how they would do so when the average time young offenders spend in custody is only 79 days.

Right hon. and hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Let me remind the Minister of the Secretary of State’s letter to the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights earlier this year. Describing the secure college proposals, he said:

“The Bill establishes the secure college in law. Beyond the legal framework, the legislation does not specify details of the regime to be delivered within the secure college.”

The most obvious example of that is the secure college rules.

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister also talked about plans to house girls and the youngest offenders in distinct accommodation units, which makes the design of the secure college very important. I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to look at the proposed plans for the secure college, as it does not take an architect's eye to see that this is not “a school with a fence around it”, as the Secretary of State has described it. The plans are all but identical to the plans for a young offenders institution to be built on the very same site that the Government cancelled earlier in the Parliament. Although there might be plans for distinct accommodation in the secure college, the Bill contains no requirements for separate facilities in any future secure colleges.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Effectively, the secure colleges are the old-style Borstals, and everybody knew that they did not work.

[Dan Jarvis]

Indeed. One of the fundamental problems is that there is no credible evidence to support the proposal and no independent experts who are prepared to put their names to it.

Let me ask the Minister for a number of guarantees. If separate facilities are his solution to the issue, why are they not provided for in the Bill? Even if they were, fencing off girls and the youngest offenders is not the answer. It is likely that they would still be in the minority in the separate areas and they would also be cut off from the facilities on the main site for most of the time. There would also still be times when girls and children as young as 12 would need to be moved and escorted across the main site. That would be a recipe for intimidation and it is precisely why youth custody has moved away from accommodating different age groups on the same site. Such sites are more difficult to run and mean that children have to spend more time locked up and fenced off for their own protection, hindering any hope of rehabilitation.

Let me finish by putting it on the record that if we are elected in five months’ time, the next Labour Government will not wish to go ahead with this poorly thought through proposal. The Government have said that they want to cut the cost of youth custody, but wasting £85 million of public money on a vanity project that will do little to rehabilitate young people is no saving at all. Last week, Leicester city council refused a planning application that looks likely to delay the project. Will the Minister say when he expects construction to start and whether the final contract will be signed before the election?

Anyone and everyone who has scrutinised the secure college proposal has seen it for what it is: an ill thought through cost-cutting exercise with a veil of education draped over it. Throwing girls and the youngest children into the mix would be an accident waiting to happen. The other place has had the wisdom and common sense to say so and this House should agree with them.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

I do wonder whether a period of six weeks is required. Presumably the proposal relates to a typical case in which those who are likely to object have followed the earlier processes of the application in great detail. After the original decision there may have been a planning appeal, and they will surely have all their arguments prepared and be ready to move before six weeks have passed. That period seems fairly generous in the circumstances. I wonder how much longer the process is likely to take, and how much High Court capacity there is for dealing with such cases expeditiously.

While I am keen to defend the green fields in my patch from inappropriate development, and am very accustomed to the techniques that we sometimes need to use for the purpose, I am also aware that we need land for building, and that people sometimes object to developments in certain locations that independent-minded people would deem perfectly reasonable. I suspect that in the case of applications of that kind, we might get into difficulties. I am pleased to see that you know exactly what I mean, Mr Deputy Speaker. When we seek to represent our constituencies, we all try to balance such considerations. I am strongly in favour of new growth and new development, but I am equally strongly against its taking place in certain localities where I would find it objectionable, as would many of my constituents.

Let me make two more brief points. I note that new schedule 3 proposes an amendment to the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. It states, of course, that leave cannot be granted without the High Court’s approval, but I think that the main issue is whether it poses problems of a different kind, which, given that hazardous substances need to be controlled carefully, might make a more timely result even more crucial.

The new schedule also refers to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether any different considerations apply when someone’s property is the subject of compulsory purchase. I would expect a higher standard of proof, and more rights for people to object, to apply when the estate or the council envisages a better use for land that they own than when a piece of land which is near to where they live, but which belongs to someone else, has been subject to various planning processes and the owner wishes to develop it. I think that those are slightly different cases, and that litigants should be given more protection when they are subject, under the Act, to a compulsory purchase to which they object or which they do not welcome.

I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify some of those points.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

The Government tell us that they want to make changes to the judicial review process because too much money is being spent in court and people are making frivolous, vexatious or irrelevant claims, but the statistics do not bear that out. It is true that there has recently been an increase in the number of judicial review cases, most of which have involved immigration. However, under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, immigration cases now go to the upper tribunal to be resolved. In reality, the number of cases dealt with by judicial review is no greater than it was some years ago. I must therefore tell the Government, with all due respect, that the cost-based argument is complete hogwash. Something else is motivating the Government and, in particular, the Secretary of State, who has made the telling comment that judicial review is generally

“a promotional tool for countless Left-wing campaigners.”

In his speech, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) listed a number of organisations that were not of the “loony leftie” variety. The Government’s motivation has become clear, and I think that it is very sad for our judicial system that they are curtailing the basic right of judicial review for the sake of their own political agenda.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) seemed to suggest that virtually all judicial review cases were frivolous and a waste of time, and that we did not need the process. He even made what I would describe as the rather irrelevant political point that in the 1970s the Labour Government had not been particularly pro-judicial review. Governments of all complexions make wrong decisions, but that does not mean that 40 years later a political party cannot change its mind about a matter such as judicial review. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, although I do not know whether he still practises.

[Robert Neill]

Does the hon. Lady not understand the point that I was making? It is erroneous to suggest, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) did, that placing a restriction or limitation on judicial review undermines fundamental freedoms, Magna Carta and so forth. In fact, it is a fairly recent innovation in our public and administrative law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I happen to believe otherwise, and I do not think that I am alone. For instance, Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, has said that

“there is no principle more basic to our system of law than the maintenance of the rule of law itself and the constitutional protection afforded by judicial review.”

I agree with him. Although the concept is only 30 or 40 years old, it has resulted in one of the most revolutionary developments in our legal system.

It is very easy to say about some of the more political cases, “These are loony leftie agendas”, but the hon. Gentleman may remember from his study of the courts—I remember studying them when I was doing my law degree—the number of cases where judicial review came in and was the only mechanism open to people who had suffered incredibly because of decisions made by a local authority, a public authority or the Government. To say that judicial review only came into being about 40 or 50 years ago and that it is a new concept is irrelevant. It may be newish, but it has had an important effect on our judicial system, and there are a lot of rights and benefits that people now take for granted—whether they are in a care home or one of the many different types of institution in our country, or in respect of public authorities that pass legislation or take actions that affect a whole range of ordinary people. For such people who are not able to get justice, it is judicial review and our courts being proactive that allow them to have their rights asserted. The hon. Gentleman talked about Lord Denning. It is absolutely right that he was one of the most brilliant judges we have had, and he truly helped ordinary people.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that judicial review can be used by people on the right as well as the left—and, indeed, it is so used—and that the Government probably would not welcome a judicial review from UKIP any more than they would from the Greens? Are certain things not so political that they ought to be hammered out here in Parliament and in general elections, not in court?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Walter Bagehot talked about the fact that in our system we needed the three separate bodies—the Executive, the judiciary and obviously Parliament—and that all three must be strong to be able to act as a check on each other.

The fact that we in Parliament are elected does not mean that we do not make mistakes. In the history of Parliament, some appalling pieces of legislation have been passed which have turned out to be wrong. It is only because we have a strong judiciary and a proper judicial review system that those pieces of legislation have been found to be wrong. It is because of that that ordinary people have been able to get justice—the people of this country, the people we are supposed to be representing.

[Robert Neill]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that in a democracy the remedy for bad legislation is at an election, through removing the legislators? That is democracy.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

To have the courts second-guessing the legislature undermines democracy.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Both hon. Members cannot be on their feet at the same time. If the hon. Lady gives way to the hon. Gentleman, she must let him make his point before jumping back up. Bob Neill, have you finished?

[Robert Neill]

Yes.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Although we talk about democracy, bad laws have been created, and we cannot wait five years until the next election for such laws to be changed. I say with respect to the hon. Gentleman that that would be completely wrong. If an election takes place tomorrow and a bad law gets passed, are you really saying our people should have to wait five years and change the Government?

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I think I am getting a little confused, and it may be entirely my fault. I was under the impression that judicial review was about challenging in court the method by which the decisions of public authorities and the Executive had been arrived at. The judicial review court does not say that a decision was right or wrong; it criticises the process. So there is no question of a court repealing legislation, as the hon. Lady seems to be implying.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with that. Those of us who have been practitioners of law—a few such Members are present—will know that since coming into existence judicial review has been revolutionary for our country. We do not have a written constitution, and Lord Woolf has said:

“In our system, without its written constitution embedded in our law so it can’t be changed, judicial review is critical”

and the Ministry of Justice is showing a

“remarkable lack of concern for the precision of the facts”.

You might say, “Well, maybe Lord Woolf has an agenda here because he’s a lawyer and perhaps he wants money to be available,” but I am sure that highly respected individuals such as Lord Dyson and Lord Woolf, who understand the issue about the public purse as well legal matters, would not be saying these things if they did not believe that these parts of the Bill are fundamentally wrong.

In the 21st century, when we have now got a society that is fairer and kinder to its people, it is sad to have a go at people who are challenging the might of the state. Local authorities, institutions and Departments are still more powerful than the individual litigant or even pressure groups. You may not agree with a pressure group’s policy, but they are not as strong as the might of the state, and we should always have equality of arms. That is one of the fundamental principles of our law. You cannot have one side—local authorities and Departments—with all the money at its disposal and the best legal brains available against the ordinary person on the other side who has none of those benefits, or even pressure groups, who often do not have enough money to be able to spend hundreds and thousands of pounds on top barristers. They therefore cannot afford to lose.

We have to have parity of arms, instead of the state effectively using this opportunity to strangulate and stop the individual—the little person—or even the pressure group, many of which represent a group of our people who are interested in an issue. Pressure groups do not exist just for themselves: they are there because a whole lot of people in the country object to something or feel that there is a problem with an issue. They do not have the resources and they are being strangulated, yet the hand of the state is being strengthened.

I am surprised that a Conservative Government are trying to do this, as they have always taken pride in protecting liberties. What you are doing through all the various provisions and the changes being made to the judicial review, however, is effectively preventing the ordinary person from challenging the decision.

We say that judicial review will somehow make civil servants or public officials think, and wonder whether they might be challenged. Well, I think that is right. In a proper democratic system, local authority or state civil servants should be thinking about the effects of their actions. They should not be above the rule of law. They should be thinking about whether everything is right or not.

As a lawyer who has done some judicial review cases in my life and as somebody who worked in the Crown Prosecution Service as an in-house lawyer, I think it is right that a decision made by a prosecutor should be subject to challenge. When I am making my decision on whether a case should or should not proceed, it is right that that should be able to be challenged, because that would make sure I did my job properly as well as holding me to account. That is very important in our system. Civil servants and local authority officials absolutely should have to look over their shoulder to see whether they are making the right decision, because at the end of the day they are paid by the state and they are supposed to represent and govern our country in a proper way. If they are acting properly, professionally and honestly, they have nothing to worry about from judicial review. Only people who are not acting properly should be worried about judicial review.

[Robert Neill]

What would the hon. Lady say to the residents of Wickford near the Dale farm estate whose local council was found by the courts to have acted entirely properly, but removal of a Gypsy Traveller site was delayed for years by the abuse of the judicial review process? What defence does she have for those people?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am not going to talk about individual constituents in particular constituencies, and I cannot comment on their issues, but your using that example as a reason to constrain judicial review is not very credible. In doing so, you are detracting from the seriousness and importance of judicial review. By introducing this provision, you are effectively reducing the number of cases in which judicial review can take place. It is very easy to say, “The local authority got involved but the Traveller sites could not be removed and there were delays”, but that is just one small aspect of judicial review. You and I know—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have let “you” go a few times, but in fairness, I am not guilty of any of this and I certainly did not want to intervene in the Dale farm situation.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I got a bit carried away.

In a civilised society and a democratic country, access to law is very important, and that includes judicial review and those who have been charged with criminal offences. It is fundamental to a civilised society. The Government’s proposed restriction of judicial review is wrong and will cause problems. I ask them to reconsider, especially as immigration cases have now been taken out of the judicial review process. The number of judicial review cases is therefore similar to past levels, so the argument that there are too many such cases and money is being wasted is not credible.

It has been said that people can simply go for judicial review without any challenge: that they can walk into the High Court and say, “I want a judicial review” and get one. Everybody knows that the first thing someone has to do is to seek leave to obtain judicial review. High Court judges are some of the best and most experienced legal brains in the country; they do not grant judicial review applications willy-nilly and then set a hearing date. Many people apply for leave—that is the important part—to seek judicial review, but those applications are sifted and a lot are rejected. Weak, frivolous and vexatious cases get thrown out, and only a very few go on to the next stage, at which leave is granted for judicial review to be considered and a date is set. The sifting stage takes out all the rubbish anyway, and only the good cases of substance and merit go forward. Then, a full hearing takes place and in some cases, people are successful and in others not.

So the suggestion that I can somehow walk in off the street and ask for a judicial review and the court will grant it and set a time for it is a load of rubbish. I am surprised that Members who should know better—who know that that is not the situation—are trying to suggest that that is happening in our courts. It is not. Very few cases reach judicial review, which is still only sparingly used, but it is very important and fundamental to our legal system.

I remind Members that although we now accept that we can challenge the decisions taken by the various local authority and Government Departments and institutions such as quangos, there was a time when we could not. It is only because people are able to challenge the decision-making process that, today, we have a much fairer, much more equal society in which ordinary people feel that they get justice. That was not the case 40 or 50 years ago, and if we compare the situation then with now, we see it has improved tremendously, and active judicial review has been the biggest source of that improvement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I was on the Committee when this matter was debated, and the Bill contains a number of provisions that concern me and my hon. Friends. One of those relates to the secure colleges that the Government seem to think are a panacea or solution for young people who get involved in the criminal justice system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, we heard from countless experts and not a single one said that secure colleges as envisaged by the Government were right or would work. There were questions about whether the college would be segregated and how large the units should be. From the Government proposals it seems that the secure colleges will be large institutions, and it is not guaranteed that segregation will occur and that girls will be in one environment and boys in another. There was not even any information about what will actually happen.

The experts accept that there is no harm in having an educational establishment, but it must be a small unit in which children are looked after. It should be almost like a home, but obviously with an element of rehabilitation and education thrown in. At the moment, the way the secure colleges are envisaged makes it seem as if the old-fashioned borstals are being brought back. We all know that they were completely useless and a waste of time, and they did not rehabilitate or help young people. The new secure colleges are going down the same line.

The Government have not said whether they are willing to put in the resources needed to run a proper establishment for young people, and teach them to mend their ways and stop committing criminal offences. There are issues such as restraint and what methods will be used, and how we deal with young people who misbehave a bit but do not commit offences and how we tackle violent or disorderly behaviour in the secure colleges.

A whole lot of things are missing. That is one reason why many people on the Committee—certainly Labour Members—were concerned about the secure colleges because there is not enough information about them. With all the debates that have taken place, I hope the Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor—I know he is here—will listen and that when the secure colleges are introduced, they will be properly checked and resourced, and that they will deal with issues relating to young people. It is well known that a lot of young people who end up in the criminal justice system often come from broken homes or abusive families, and they often have physical and mental health issues. They need to be looked after, so that they can become good citizens and not continue to be a problem for the state.

Punishment is of course an element of dealing with someone who commits a crime, but another should be rehabilitation. When someone commits a crime, everyone says, “Throw the book at them. Give them the longest possible sentence.” The idea is that that will stop them committing crimes. They may not be able to do anything while they are in prison, but we know that many people who come out of prison end up back there. From my experience of representing young people, and indeed defendants generally, the last thing in their mind when they commit a crime is that they will get five, seven or even 20 years for it. They do not think about the possible sentence: they just see the opportunity that has arisen or they commit offences because of their background.

We have been obsessed in the past few years with the idea that longer and longer sentences of imprisonment will stop the problem of crime, but they will not. We spend thousands of pounds incarcerating an individual, but if we spent our resources at an earlier stage in people’s lives to help and support their families, we would get better balanced citizens. The punitive approach of the criminal justice system should in fact be more about rehabilitation. Until a couple of centuries ago, someone who stole a sheep would be hanged, but that did not stop people committing that offence or other minor offences with the same punishment.

[Dr Huppert]

I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying about prevention. How did she vote a few moments ago, when we discussed exactly that issue in relation to knife crime—whether we should lock people up or try to prevent it?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I have never said that people should not be imprisoned. When people commit serious offences, or repeat an offence, they should be given prison sentences. My point is that we incarcerate too many people for far too long. No one here will disagree with that point—[Interruption.] Well, some seem to think that people should be in prison for ever. But we know that if we bang people up for a long time, it just costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, whereas if they are on the outside and we help them by rehabilitating them and perhaps finding them accommodation and a job, their lives can turn around. That is where the money should go, but that does not take away from the fact that some people should be imprisoned for a long time, depending on the seriousness of their offences.

[Julie Hilling]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some people, both young and older, need to be removed from society, but where we put them while we attempt to rehabilitate them is an important factor? Putting a lot of young people together in a secure college does not work. The most effective form of “treatment” for young offenders is small units where they can get individual attention and help to divert them from the path of offending.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady replies to that intervention, I know that she will be careful to stick to discussing secure colleges which is a matter in the Bill, rather than straying back to the subject of sheep stealing, which is one of the few things not in the Bill.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She and I were on the Bill Committee and I know that the Government members on it could not have helped but be struck by what was said by the experts—different people such as probation officers—who were dealing young people. They were all saying that secure colleges were a bad idea.

[Ann Coffey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we do not have a category of “victims” and a category of “offenders”? Often when one looks into the offenders’ histories, one finds that they themselves have been very early victims. Putting offenders into secure accommodation because they are offenders does not take account of the fact that they themselves are victims and they can become victimised within that environment.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree and can give an example to the House of a case I had when I was a prosecutor. A young man, aged about 14, was in a care home. He set light to a curtain but realised quickly what he had done and tried to put out the flames. He did, and nobody was injured. People might think that he should have been put into prison and have the key thrown away. But let me tell the House the circumstances of that young man’s life. On the day in question, the young boy had been in court to give evidence against his mother’s boyfriend, who had sexually abused his younger sister. When he arrived at court to give evidence against his mother’s boyfriend, immediately upon seeing him she punched him in the stomach. He burst out crying and ran away from the court to the care home where he did this, before realising what he had done. That is the sort of thing we do not see in the headlines. The headlines would say, “14-year-old boy let off by the courts” if he received a conditional discharge or was not dealt with severely. Young people’s circumstances cannot be mentioned in public so people do not realise that a lot more can be happening in their lives than they think.

We know that most young people who have committed crimes have been abused themselves, either sexually or physically, or have been neglected or had cruel treatment. They are often psychologically damaged and the last thing they need is to go to a borstal-type school. What they need is structure in their lives and someone to care for them who will make life better for them.

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend is making good points, particularly about the secure colleges and why young people need to be in a supportive environment. I want to apologise to the Secretary of State. I used the word “restraint” but he was right; “reasonable force” is the correct terminology. However, I still do not think that “reasonable force” is appropriate in a place that is meant to be nurturing young people.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I shall now move to other aspects of the Bill, as I have made my point about secure colleges.

I want to refer to judicial review and I stand by the comments that I made earlier. The argument given against judicial review is that it is costly and that too many people are vexatiously seeking judicial review. As I said, one cannot just go to the court and say, “Can I have judicial review?” One has to seek leave to apply for judicial review and that application is assessed by a judge of the High Court, who are meant to be the ablest legal minds in the country. I know that they will not say to an applicant, “Yes, you can have it and we will use the court’s time.” They will not. They will review the case and look at the papers. Then, if they think there is merit in the application, they will take it one step further, look at the case and set it aside for a hearing. The Government seem to think that there are many so-called frivolous or vexatious judicial review applications, but many of them would be sloughed away by the internal judicial process in any event. Very few cases actually get to judicial review and—

Shrewsbury 24 (Release of Papers)

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, I am not going to give way at the moment. It is very important that people should understand the conditions that applied at the time. People who were going about their ordinary activities were subjected to intimidation. I became the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood in 1983 and I saw constituents of mine who were trying to go to work in Littleton colliery having bags of urine thrown at them by striking miners from south Wales.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, I will not give way. This was in the day of the flying pickets. These people would go around the country supporting trade unions that were engaged in that kind of intimidation, even though they themselves had absolutely nothing to do with the strike or industry in question.

The statistics make interesting reading, because it was at this time after the second world war that Britain was going substantially down the tubes. Successive Conservative Governments had failed not only to turn back but to arrest the ratchet of socialism that had driven through this country in the immediate post-war years. [Interruption.] I see that that has huge support on the Opposition Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman who proposed the motion.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman obviously knows the answer to that question. I have no idea. I was not involved in the trial and I was not at the trial, but I was involved in the public debate at the time.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I will give way to the hon. Lady in a minute.

I remind Opposition Members that in Margaret Thatcher’s excellent book, “The Downing Street Years”, she wrote about the Government’s attempts to deal with trade union legislation. At one point she says that

“when a dispute did occur the trade union was able to exercise what amounted to intimidation over its members—‘lawful intimidation’ in the unhappy phrase coined by Labour’s former Attorney-General, Sam Silkin.”

At the highest levels of the Labour party at that time, such practices were basically endorsed. I say to right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that the country has moved on. If the Labour party wishes to occupy the Government Benches once again—I very much hope that it will not—its Members must understand that the public out there do not want to see any return to such behaviour or to hear any sympathy expressed for it.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) has been extremely persistent and I am delighted to give way to her.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is talking about the dispute. The motion is about the request for papers. The Government cite national security as a reason for not disclosing those papers. What does national security have to do with an industrial dispute?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I will address that point in one moment. I only wish to make two further points and one of them will address the hon. Lady’s question.

Robert Carr, who became a peer in the other place—I will continue to refer to it as the other place, Madam Deputy Speaker—was accused of conniving with the police and the security forces at the behest of the construction industry. That is a conspiracy theory. Those of us who knew Robert Carr cannot imagine that he was anything other than a charming, polite and reasonable Home Secretary. I do not think that he was in the business of conniving.

Let me conclude by coming to the point that has been raised a number of times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

That is a good point, and as things develop more and more information is known. Some further information has been gathered by Eileen Turnbull, and I am sure other Members will refer to that in their contributions.

On 20 September 1972, a letter was sent to all NFBTE regional secretaries around the country from its head office in London. It was headed “Intimidation Dossier”. The dossier was presented to the Home Secretary, Robert Carr, who had previously been Secretary of State for Employment and overseen the introduction of the contentious Industrial Relations Act 1971. Out of 85 instances of alleged intimidation and violence detailed in the dossier, only six related to north Wales. Despite the undeniable fact that most incidents occurred elsewhere, the Home Secretary instructed the chief constables of West Mercia and Gwynedd police forces to carry out an inquiry into picketing in north Wales during the strike. Let us not forget that, as was said earlier, none of the pickets was cautioned or arrested on the day, the unions did not receive any complaints from the police about the conduct of the pickets, and photographic evidence shows that the police were present and mingling freely with strikers. Some police had their hands in their pockets—hardly intimidation.

We now know that of the 900 statements taken, 600 were disregarded by the authorities, presumably because they failed to corroborate what the police hoped they would say. On 11 October 1972, Robert Carr told this House that in his opinion there was no deficiency in the law as it stood, and the problem lay with enforcement. In other words, he was pressuring the police who he believed had failed to do their job properly. A few days later, the then Attorney-General, Sir Peter Rawlinson QC, gave a speech to the Tory 1922 committee in which he used strikingly similar language. Following that, we know that of the 200 or so pickets identified, just 24 were carefully selected for a political show trial at Shrewsbury Crown court, and charged with the offence of intimidation under section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

As my hon. Friend may be aware, criminal lawyers in the legal community know that conspiracy charges are always used when there is no evidence of a substantive proper charge. It is the last resort.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

No, I want to try to be helpful, and out of respect for the hon. Member for Blaydon, let me, please, unusually for me, be uninterrupted; I want to respond to as much as I can.

May I tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and other colleagues that, not just as the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, I completely understand the issue to do with health and safety and decent wages generally and in the building industry in particular? I have campaigned on this issue. I understand the dreadful health and safety record in the past. Strong trade unions, particularly in the building industry over the past 40 years, were hugely important in ensuring that wages and conditions were better, which, thank God, they are now. I pay tribute to those who were part of that effort.

At the end of this episode, there were convictions for affray, unlawful assembly and conspiracy to intimidate. They are serious offences. They have led to people going to prison. I will return in a second to how the justice issues may be addressed. I know about the intensity of people’s views. I know about the efforts made to get the petition to the current number of signatures. I am clear what people hope I can say.

The Government are, of course, committed to transparency. We are agreed that as much information as possible should be in the public domain. The public would expect that, and the principles of the Freedom of Information Act, enacted by the Labour Government and now fully in force, are ones that we are expected to implement.

Most of the papers that relate to the Shrewsbury 24 are already available in the National Archives for public inspection. Of the records that date back to 1972, over 90% are available. Only 625 documents, I am told, are not yet publicly available—[Hon. Members: “Only.”]—across the Government, in relation to that year. The only material held by the Cabinet Office that is not available and that is the information at the heart of this debate is one report and three paragraphs—one in each of three separate documents—which I shall return to later.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Hughes]

No. If I have time a bit later, I will, but I am trying to make sure that all the information is on the record.

There has already been a decision, taken in principle by the Labour Government and implemented by this Government, to reduce the age at which historical records are made available. The period is coming down now from 30 to 20 years. [Interruption.] No “buts”. In parallel with that, we are reducing the maximum duration of the exemptions from disclosure from 30 to 20 years. That has started this year, and the period will also reduce, so that people in future will not have to wait as long to see records. So those are good changes, but let us be specific about the matters that relate to the request for these papers today.

The current law is, and the consistent practice has been, that under section 34 of the Public Records Act 1958, public bodies are allowed but not required to retain records after they would usually be required to be transferred to the National Archives—so, after the old 30-year period, which is reducing. Retention is allowed where it is necessary for administrative purposes or for “any other special reason”.

Since 1967, when Lord Gardiner was Lord Chancellor in the Labour Government, all Lord Chancellors—five Labour, five Conservative—have been satisfied that where the transfer of security and intelligence records would prejudice national security, they can be retained on the “other special reason” basis. That approval is recorded in an instrument, signed by the Lord Chancellor, which is more commonly referred to as the security instrument.

The current approval that governs security and intelligence records was, as colleagues have said—the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) referred to it—given by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) when he was Lord Chancellor on 19 December 2011. That does indeed last until 2021. That is public; it has been on the website. However, these papers are due to be reviewed by the Cabinet Office for their security and sensitivity every 10 years, as all other papers are, and they will fall to be reviewed next year, in 2015. I should like to tell the hon. Member for Blaydon respectfully that I suggest that he and his colleagues, who have a rightful interest in their being revealed, address that office and that deadline, and I will personally take an interest in this issue in the time up to next year, when they fall to be reviewed for their security.

What are the specific documents? One is a Security Service report, and the other three are single paragraphs, each of which has been redacted from letters and memorandums. The first was in a letter from the director general of the Security Service to the Cabinet Secretary dated 10 January 1975, which is public apart from one redacted paragraph. It refers—it is not a secret—to the fact that the assessment was that there was Communist party activity in relation to the campaign. The second was in a minute dated 13 January 1975 from the Cabinet Office to No. 10, which has been released apart from a single paragraph. The third was in a minute from No. 10 to the Cabinet Office dated 15 January 1975.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I shall come on later in my speech to the individual criticisms made of the changes, if the hon. Lady can be patient.

To return to the overall context, more victims will have the opportunity, through greater use of the victim personal statement, to tell the courts how crime has affected them. There will be compensation for victims of overseas terrorism and, following the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there will be a new victims commissioner—directly to address the point of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan)—who will present the views of victims clearly, with integrity and with force to Westminster, to Whitehall, to the media and to the public at large.

On top of all this—and more, such as putting funding for rape support centres on a sustainable footing and opening new centres, with more to come where there are gaps in provision; and such as ensuring better support for the victims of human trafficking through a contract let last year with the Salvation Army—we will raise up to £50 million extra from offenders to pay for more and better services for victims. The changes to the victim surcharge came into effect on 1 October, which means revenue will start to be received next spring, building on the success we have had over the past year in raising money for victims through the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996—some £800,000 so far, with more to come.

The consultation also set out proposals to reform the criminal injuries compensation scheme. It announced that for victims of overseas terrorism, there would be a scheme for existing victims going back to 2002 and another scheme for future victims. We published the Government response to the consultation in July. In sum, this record demonstrates that we are determined, as we said in the consultation, to get it right and ensure that victims of crime get the help they need to cope with, and recover from, the effects of crime. That is the context.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I was about to come on to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, but I will of course give way to the hon. Lady.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. As we understand the criminal injuries compensation scheme, 90% of people who could currently qualify for compensation will no longer do so under the proposed regulations. If that is not correct, will he assure us that all the people who can gain compensation currently will still be able to do so?

[Damian Green]

Certainly not all of them will, but I am distinctly dubious about the 90% figure. Let me explain why. There are two problems with the scheme as it stands: the policy rationale, which is flawed, and the scheme’s affordability. The policy problem is that the scheme is not currently clear just what a crime of violence is. It allows awards to be paid to people, for example, who have themselves committed violent crimes and to people who, perhaps many months previously, had already recovered from the minor injuries they had received. The Government are clear that in some circumstances where someone has, through no fault of their own, been a victim of a violent crime, it is right to provide financial assistance. That is, I think, something that Governments of all parties have maintained over recent years; we certainly want to do so. We also need to be clear, however, that where people have sustained relatively minor injuries, from which they will recover fairly quickly, small sums are not the best way to help them. Our investment in services, which I set out at the start of my speech, means that quality provision will be available to support victims at the point of need.

Criminal Justice System

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Tony Lloyd]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Let me add one extra thing. It would be desirable if any such debate were heard on the Floor of the House and not simply in a Committee Room, so that the full House can be persuaded of the merits of any changes and can vote accordingly. That would be in the interests of people up and down the length and breadth of this land.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and the Minister on taking up her new post. She and I worked on the Justice Committee together. I am sure that she is aware that the Government’s proposals on criminal injuries compensation would mean that more than half of victims would get nothing and almost 90% of others would get very little. If the coalition is really serious about victims, it should scrap the proposals and carry on with the current scheme.

[Tony Lloyd]

I am bound to agree, because I spoke in the debate on the scheme some weeks ago when it struck me as perverse that we talk about things such as permanent scarring or permanent speech impediments being minor. Many people listening to the debate would conclude that their view of what is minor is not consistent with the changes that the Government are proposing. It is important that we establish that point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I will consult the Attorney-General, who is no doubt preparing the Government’s defence in this case. This is obviously a hugely difficult issue; the case has gone through the courts here and is now going to be heard in Strasbourg. Whatever one’s feelings about the narrow facts of the individual case, there are wider issues about the enforcement of religious rights in employment, and I have no doubt that they will be properly canvassed. I will consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Will the Justice Secretary confirm that, despite Ministers’ claims to the contrary, judges will be left with no option under the proposals in the Justice and Security Bill but to grant closed material proceedings?

[Mr Clarke]

I disagree. It is certainly my intention—this is the way in which the Bill is drafted—that there will be closed material proceedings only when the judge is satisfied that there would be a risk to national security if the evidence were to be given in open court. We are not taking into secrecy or excluding from the court any evidence that is heard in court at the moment. For the first time, we are creating an opportunity for the judge to consider intelligence evidence, but that will happen only in those cases in which the judge is satisfied that national security is involved.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I shall be brief. I pay tribute to the Government for the moves that they have made on the Bill and I welcome the progress on the definition of domestic violence. Although they have extended the range of evidence that will be required, there is still some way to go. I recall that last week the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) suggested that the time limits might be up to three years.

I am speaking on behalf of a constituent who came to see me a few weeks ago. She had been habitually abused—emotionally abused—over a number of years. The last straw for her was when her husband tried to set fire to her. She went to hospital. She has medical evidence but she did not want to press any charges. She is, understandably, so traumatised by the experience that she has been through that several months after the incident she can barely speak. She is years away from being able to take to a court or tribunal the levels of evidence that have been suggested. I support amendments 2B and 196B, particularly on her behalf.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), I welcome the amendment on mesothelioma and the moves towards a review, if there is to be one. Oldham is not far from Rochdale and many of my constituents worked in the industry. Once people are diagnosed with the disease, they are, unfortunately, likely to be dead within 18 months. It would be outrageous if 25% of the damages were taken from them. I support amendment 31, but I acknowledge the moves that the Government have made.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I wish to place on record my gratitude to the Lords for their amendments and for their hard work. I also place on record my gratitude to the Opposition Front-Bench team for all the hard work that they have done on all aspects of the Bill, and to my hon. Friends and some on the Government Benches who have fought against certain provisions of the Bill.

I welcome the Minister’s concession on industrial diseases, including mesothelioma, and the fact that the Government will review the issue. I hope they will abandon the proposal to make victims contribute to the lawyers’ costs if they are successful. I ask the Government to consider other industrial diseases that should be placed in the same category, such as industrial deafness, industrial blindness, severe spinal degradation, leukaemia, cirrhosis of the liver and other organ damage.

It cannot be said that people suffering from those conditions are out to make a quick buck. Although we support the idea of a limit on insurance claims or the suggestion that the victim should pay a contribution towards the damages, it is disgraceful that the provisions should apply to people affected by serious illnesses. To say to people who suffering from such illnesses, “By the way, once you have gone through the process of proving your case, your lawyers will have to take their costs from your damages” cannot be right. It is plainly unfair and unjust. I can see that the Lord Chancellor disagrees with me. If I am wrong and he wishes to intervene, I am more than happy to give way.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

I just want to say that the lawyers do not have to take 25% of the compensation. All the costs are recovered from the defendants in a case that has been won. It is only those costs that are irrecoverable from the defendants that can sometimes be recovered. In a straightforward case there is no reason for anything to be recovered over and above that, and lawyers should not automatically take 25% of the claim and say that it is for their costs.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

But there is nothing to stop them doing so. The legislation should be simple and straightforward: a person’s compensation, whatever it might be, should be theirs and the legal costs should be a separate item that they can claim for. If I am awarded damages worth £100,000, I should get £100,000 and not have to pay £25,000 to someone else. Any legal costs should be paid separately by defendants’ insurance companies, which are incredibly rich and have loads of money that they can—