17 Jun 2014 : Column 1061
This new Clause makes it an offence for a police officer and certain other persons to exercise the powers and privileges of a constable in a way which is corrupt or otherwise improper. It supplements the existing common law offence of misconduct in public office.
Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care worker offence
(1) It is an offence for an individual who has the care of another individual by virtue of being a care worker to ill-treat or wilfully to neglect that individual.
(2) An individual guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both);
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine (or both).
(3) “Care worker” means an individual who, as paid work, provides—
(a) health care for an adult or child, other than excluded health care, or
including an individual who, as paid work, supervises or manages individuals providing such care or is a director or similar officer of an organisation which provides such care.
(4) An individual does something as “paid work” if he or she receives or is entitled to payment for doing it other than—
(a) payment in respect of the individual’s reasonable expenses,
(b) payment to which the individual is entitled as a foster parent,
(c) a benefit under social security legislation, or
(d) a payment made under arrangements under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 (arrangements to assist people to select, train for, obtain and retain employment).
(a) all forms of health care provided for individuals, including health care relating to physical health or mental health and health care provided for or in connection with the protection or improvement of public health, and
(b) procedures that are similar to forms of medical or surgical care but are not provided in connection with a medical condition,
and “excluded health care” has the meaning given in Schedule(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: excluded health care).
(6) “Social care” includes all forms of personal care and other practical assistance provided for individuals who are in need of such care or assistance by reason of age, illness, disability, pregnancy, childbirth, dependence on alcohol or drugs or any other similar circumstances.
(7) References in this section to a person providing health care or social care do not include a person whose provision of such care is merely incidental to the carrying out of other activities by the person.
“adult” means an individual aged 18 or over;
“child” means an individual aged under 18;
(a) a local authority foster parent within the meaning of the Children Act 1989,(b) a person with whom a child has been placed by a voluntary organisation under section 59(1)(a) of that Act, or(c) a private foster parent within the meaning of section 53 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
(9) In relation to an offence committed before section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference in subsection (2)(b) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1062
(10) In relation to an offence committed before section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 comes into force, the reference in subsection (2)(b) to a fine is to be read as a reference to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.—(Jeremy Wright.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
This establishes a criminal offence of ill-treatment or wilful neglect of an individual by a care worker who is paid to provide the individual with health care, other than excluded health care (see new Schedule NS2), or adult social care. It sets out the penalties on conviction for the new offence.
Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence
(1) A care provider commits an offence if—
(a) an individual who has the care of another individual by virtue of being part of the care provider’s arrangements ill-treats or wilfully neglects that individual,
(b) the care provider’s activities are managed or organised in a way which amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the care provider to the individual who is ill-treated or neglected, and
(c) in the absence of the breach, the ill-treatment or wilful neglect would not have occurred or would have been less likely to occur.
(a) a body corporate or unincorporated association which provides or arranges for the provision of—
(i) health care for an adult or child, other than excluded health care, or
(ii) social care for an adult, or
(b) an individual who provides such care and employs, or has otherwise made arrangements with, other persons to assist him or her in providing such care,
subject to section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: excluded care providers).
(3) An individual is “part of a care provider’s arrangements” where the individual—
(a) is not the care provider, but
(b) provides health care or social care as part of health care or social care provided or arranged for by the care provider,
including where the individual is not the care provider but supervises or manages individuals providing health care or social care as described in paragraph (b) or is a director or similar officer of an organisation which provides health care or social care as described there.
(4) A “relevant duty of care” means—
(a) a duty owed under the law of negligence, or
(b) a duty that would be owed under the law of negligence but for a provision contained in an Act, or an instrument made under an Act, under which liability is imposed in place of liability under that law,
but only to the extent that the duty is owed in connection with providing, or arranging for the provision of, health care or social care.
(5) For the purposes of this section, there is to be disregarded any rule of the common law that has the effect of—
(a) preventing a duty of care from being owed by one person to another by reason of the fact that they are jointly engaged in unlawful conduct, or
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1063
(b) preventing a duty of care being owed to a person by reason of that person’s acceptance of a risk of harm.
(6) A breach of a duty of care by a care provider is a “gross” breach if the conduct alleged to amount to the breach falls far below what can reasonably be expected of the care provider in the circumstances.
(a) references to a person providing health care or social care do not include a person whose provision of such care is merely incidental to the carrying out of other activities by the person, and
(b) references to a person arranging for the provision of such care do not include a person who makes arrangements under which the provision of such care is merely incidental to the carrying out of other activities.
(8) References in this section to providing or arranging for the provision of health care or social care do not include making payments under—
(a) regulations under section 57 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (direct payments for community services and carers);
(b) section 12A of the National Health Act 2006 (direct payments for health care);
(c) section 31 or 32 of the Care Act 2014 (direct payments for care and support);
(d) regulations under section 50 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (anaw 4) (direct payments to meet an adult’s needs).
“Act” includes an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales;
“adult”, “child”, “excluded health care”, “health care” and “social care” have the same meaning as in section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care worker offence).—(Jeremy Wright.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
This establishes a criminal offence committed by care providers, i.e. bodies and certain individuals that provide or arrange for the provision of health care, other than excluded health care (see new Schedule NS2), or adult social care. It applies where ill-treatment or wilful neglect of an individual has followed a gross breach of a duty of care by the care provider.
Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: excluded care providers
(1) A local authority in England is not a care provider for the purposes of section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence) to the extent that it carries out functions to which Chapter 4 of Part 8 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 applies.
(2) Where a body corporate has entered into arrangements with a local authority in England under Part 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 (social work services for children and young persons), the body is not a care provider for the purposes of section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence)to the extent that it carries out relevant care functions of that authority (as defined in that Part of that Act) under those arrangements.
(3) A local authority in Wales is not a care provider for the purposes of section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence)to the extent that it—
(a) carries out functions under Part 2 of the Childcare Act 2006;
(b) carries out the education functions of the authority (as defined in section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996);
(c) carries out the social services functions of the authority (as defined in the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970), so far as relating to a child.
(4) In this section, “local authority” means—
(a) in England, a county council, a metropolitan district
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1064
council, a non-metropolitan district council for an area for which there is no county council, a London borough council, the Council of the Isles of Scilly and (in its capacity as a local authority) the Common Council of the City of London, and
(b) in Wales, a county council or a county borough council.
(5) In this section, “child” has the same meaning as in section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care worker offence).—(Jeremy Wright.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
This excludes from the scope of the offence in new clause NC46, relating to care providers, local authorities when carrying out their wider children‘s services functions and other organisations when carrying out those functions on a local authority‘s behalf.
Care provider offence: penalties
(1) A person guilty of an offence under section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence)is liable, on conviction on indictment or summary conviction, to a fine.
(2) A court before which a person is convicted of an offence under section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence)may make either or both of the following orders—
(whether instead of or as well as imposing a fine).
(3) A “remedial order” is an order requiring the person to take specified steps to remedy one or more of the following—
(a) the breach mentioned in section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence)(1)(b) (“the relevant breach”);
(b) any matter that appears to the court to have resulted from the relevant breach and to be connected with the ill-treatment or neglect;
(c) any deficiency in the person’s policies, systems or practices of which the relevant breach appears to the court to be an indication.
(4) A “publicity order” is an order requiring the person to publicise in a specified manner—
(a) the fact that the person has been convicted of the offence;
(b) specified particulars of the offence;
(c) the amount of any fine imposed;
(d) the terms of any remedial order made.
(a) may be made only on an application by the prosecution which specifies the terms of the proposed order,
(b) must be made on such terms as the court considers appropriate having regard to any representations made, and any evidence adduced, in relation to its terms by the prosecution or by or on behalf of the person convicted, and
(c) must specify a period within which the steps specified in the order must be taken.
(6) A publicity order must specify a period within which the requirements specified in the order must be complied with.
(7) A person who fails to comply with a remedial order or a publicity order commits an offence and is liable, on conviction on indictment or summary conviction, to a fine.
(8) In relation to an offence committed before section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 comes into force, subsections (1) and (7) have effect as if they provided for a fine on summary conviction not exceeding the statutory maximum.—(Jeremy Wright.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
This sets out the penalties available following conviction of the offence in new clause NC46 relating to care providers. Courts will have powers to impose fines or to make remedial or publicity orders (or any combination of those options).
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1065
Care provider offence: application to unincorporated associations
(1) For the purposes of sections(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence)and(Care provider offence: penalties), an unincorporated association is to be treated as owing whatever duties of care it would owe if it were a body corporate.
(2) Proceedings for an offence under those sections alleged to have been committed by an unincorporated association must be brought in the name of the association (and not in that of any of its members).
(3) In relation to such proceedings, rules of court relating to the service of documents have effect as if the unincorporated association were a body corporate.
(4) In proceedings under section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence)or(Care provider offence: penalties)brought against an unincorporated association, the following apply as they apply in relation to a body corporate—
(a) section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (procedure on charge of offence against corporation);
(b) Schedule 3 to the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (provision about corporation charged with offence before a magistrates’ court).
(5) A fine imposed on an unincorporated association on its conviction of an offence under section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence)or(Care provider offence: penalties)is to be paid out of the funds of the association.—(Jeremy Wright.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
This sets out how the new criminal offence in new clause NC46 relating to care providers is to be applied in relation to unincorporated associations, including partnerships.
Care provider offence: liability for ancillary and other offences
(1) An individual cannot be guilty of—
(a) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence under section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence), or
(b) an offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (encouraging or assisting crime) by reference to an offence under section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence).
(2) Where, in the same proceedings, there is—
(a) a charge under section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence)arising out of a particular set of circumstances, and
(b) a charge against the same defendant of a relevant offence arising out of some or all of those circumstances,
the defendant may, if the interests of justice so require, be convicted of both offences.
(3) A person convicted of an offence under section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence)arising out of a particular set of circumstances may, if the interests of justice so require, be charged with a relevant offence arising out of some or all of those circumstances.
(4) “Relevant offence” means an offence under an Act, or an instrument made under an Act, dealing with—
(a) health and safety matters, or
(b) the provision of health care or social care.
“Act” includes an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales;
“health care” and “social care” have the same meaning as in section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care worker offence).—(Jeremy Wright.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1066
This provides for there to be no individual liability for ancillary offences connected to the new criminal offence in new clause NC46 relating to care providers. It also makes provision in relation to proceedings before a court where the same circumstances result in the commission of both the new offence and another relevant offence.
Personal injury claims: cases of fundamental dishonesty
(1) This section applies where, in proceedings on a claim for damages in respect of personal injury (“the primary claim”)—
(a) the court finds that the claimant is entitled to damages in respect of the claim, but
(b) on an application by the defendant for the dismissal of the claim under this section, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the primary claim or a related claim.
(2) The court must dismiss the primary claim, unless it is satisfied that the claimant would suffer substantial injustice if the claim were dismissed.
(3) The duty under subsection (2) includes the dismissal of any element of the primary claim in respect of which the claimant has not been dishonest.
(4) The court’s order dismissing the claim must record the amount of damages that the court would have awarded to the claimant in respect of the primary claim but for the dismissal of the claim.
(5) A costs order made by a court which dismisses a claim under this section may require the claimant to pay costs incurred by the defendant only to the extent that they exceed the amount of the damages recorded in accordance with subsection (4).
(6) If a claim is dismissed under this section, subsection (7) applies to—
(a) any subsequent criminal proceedings against the claimant in respect of the fundamental dishonesty mentioned in subsection (1)(b), and
(b) any subsequent proceedings for contempt of court against the claimant in respect of that dishonesty.
(7) If the court in those proceedings finds the claimant guilty of an offence or of contempt of court, it must have regard to the dismissal of the primary claim under this section when sentencing the claimant or otherwise disposing of the proceedings.
“personal injury” includes any disease and any other impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition;
“related claim” means a claim for damages in respect of personal injury which is made—
(a) in connection with the same incident or series of incidents in connection with which the primary claim is made, and(b) by a person other than the person who made the primary claim;
“claim” includes a counter-claim and, accordingly, “claimant” includes a counter-claimant and “defendant” includes a defendant to a counter-claim.
(9) This section does not apply to proceedings started by the issue of a claim form before the date on which this section comes into force.—(Jeremy Wright.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
This new clause requires a court to dismiss in its entirety any personal injury claim where it is satisfied that the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest, unless it would cause substantial injustice to the claimant to do so, and makes certain related provision.
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1067
Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: excluded health care
Excluded health care
1 (1) For the purposes of section (Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care worker offence), “excluded health care” means—
(a) health care provided on the premises of an educational institution listed in paragraph 3, subject to sub-paragraph (2);
(b) health care provided at accommodation provided by an educational institution listed in paragraph 3 for an individual being educated at the institution, other than accommodation provided in connection with a residential trip away from the institution;
(c) health care provided at a children’s home or a residential family centre in respect of which a person is registered under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000;
(d) health care provided on a part of other premises at a time when the part is being used entirely or mainly for an education or childcare purpose;
(2) Health care is not excluded health care if it is provided on a part of the premises of an educational institution listed in paragraph 3 at a time when the sole or main purpose for which the part of the premises is being used—
(a) is not connected with the operation of the institution, and
(b) is not an education or childcare purpose.
(3) Health care is not excluded health care if it is provided on the premises of a hospital to an individual who is being educated there by reason of a decision made by a registered medical practitioner.
Use “for an education or childcare purpose”
2 A part of premises is used “for an education or childcare purpose” when it is used—
(a) for the purposes of education provided for an individual being educated at an educational institution listed in paragraph 3 in circumstances in which the institution requires the individual to attend at the premises for that purpose;
(b) for the purposes of education provided for a child of compulsory school age under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 or section 100 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (provision of education in cases of illness, exclusion etc);
(c) for the purposes of education provided for a child of compulsory school age as required by section 7 of the Education Act 1996, otherwise than by regular attendance at an educational institution listed in paragraph 3;
(d) for the purposes of early years provision or later years provision provided in England by a person who is registered, or required to be registered, to provide such provision under Part 3 of the Childcare Act 2006;
(e) for the purposes of later years provision provided in England for a child who is aged 8 or over in circumstances in which a requirement to register would arise under Part 3 of the Childcare Act 2006 if the child were aged under 8;
(f) for the purposes of childminding or day care provided in Wales by a person who is registered, or is required to be registered, to provide such care under Part 2 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 (nawm 1);
(g) for the purposes of a holiday scheme for disabled children in England carried on or managed by a person who is registered to carry on or manage such schemes, or required to be so registered, under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000.
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1068
Educational institutions
3 The educational institutions mentioned in paragraphs 1(1)(a) and (b) and (2) and 2(a) and (c) are—
(a) a maintained school (as defined in section 20(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998);
(b) a maintained nursery school (as defined in section 22(9) of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998);
(c) an independent school (as defined in section 463 of the Education Act 1996) entered on a register of independent schools kept under section 158 of the Education Act 2002;
(d) an independent educational institution (as defined in section 92(1) of the Education and Skills Act 2008) entered on a register of independent educational institutions kept under section 95 of that Act;
(e) a school approved under section 342 of the Education Act 1996 (non-maintained special schools);
(f) a pupil referral unit (as defined in section 19 of the Education Act 1996);
(g) an alternative provision Academy (as defined in section 1C(3) of the Academies Act 2010);
(h) a 16 to 19 Academy (as defined in section 1B(3) of the Academies Act 2010);
(i) a sixth form college (as defined in section 91(3A) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992);
(j) a special post-16 institution (as defined in section 83(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014).
Definitions
4 In this Schedule—
“childminding” has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 (nawm 1);
“children’s home” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Care Standards Act 2000;
“day care” has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 (nawm 1);
“early years provision” has the meaning given in section 96 of the Childcare Act 2006;
(a) does not include higher education;(b) includes vocational, social, physical and recreational training;
“health care” has the same meaning as in section(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care worker offence);
“higher education” has the meaning given in section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996;
(a) in relation to England, has the same meaning as in section 275 of the National Health Service Act 2006, and(b) in relation to Wales, has the same meaning as in section 206 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;
“later years provision” has the meaning given in section 96 of the Childcare Act 2006;
“premises”, in relation to an educational institution, includes detached playing fields but does not include land occupied solely as a dwelling by a person employed at the institution;
“residential family centre” has the meaning given in section 4 of the Care Standards Act 2000.—(Jeremy Wright.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
This excludes from the scope of the offence in new clause NC45 health care provided in specified education and childcare settings.
Brought up and added to the Bill.
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1069
Extent
Amendments made: 2, page 63, line 18, leave out “16” and insert “16(1) to (4)”.
This amendment is consequential on the insertion of subsection (5) of clause 16 (which was inserted in Public Bill Committee)
.
Amendment 45, in clause 66, page 63, line 18, at end insert—
“() section(Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges);”.
This amendment provides for new Clause 44 to extend to England and Wales only.
Amendment 47, in clause 66, page 63, line 18, at end insert—
“() sections (Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care worker offence), (Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence), (Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: excluded care providers), (Care provider offence: penalties), (Care provider offence: application to unincorporated associations) and (Care provider offence: liability for ancillary and other offences);”.
This amendment provides for the new clauses relating to ill-treatment and wilful neglect by care workers and care providers to extend to England and Wales only.
Amendment 3, page 63, leave out line 19.
This amendment and amendment 4 are required so that the amendments in Part 5 of Schedule 4 (further amendments relating to contracting-out secure colleges) have the same territorial extent as the legislation that they amend (see clause 63(1)).
Amendment 50, in clause 66, page 63, line 19, at end insert—
“() section (Personal injury claims: cases of fundamental dishonesty);”.
This amendment provides for new clause NC51 to extend to England and Wales only.
Amendment 48, page 63, line 20, at end insert—
“() Schedule(Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: excluded health care);”.
This amendment provides for new Schedule NS2, which contains exclusions from the new offences relating to ill-treatment and wilful neglect by care workers and care providers, to extend to England and Wales only.
Amendment 4, page 63, line 21, at beginning insert “Parts 1 to 4 of”.
Amendment 7, in title, line 2 after “conviction;” insert “to make provision about offences committed by disqualified drivers;”.
Amendment 46, in title, line 2 after “conviction;” insert “to create an offence of the corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges;”.
Amendment 49, in title, line 2 after “conviction;” insert “to create offences involving ill-treatment or wilful neglect by a person providing health care or social care;”.—(Jeremy Wright.)
6.9 pm
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Let me start by thanking all the right hon. and hon. Members who served in Committee, spoke on Report
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1070
and took part in the debates on the Bill. It has benefited from the interesting and lively debate that we have had—
[
Interruption
.
]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Lord Chancellor but will Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quietly and swiftly and show due deference to him?
Chris Grayling: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretaries of State for Justice, my hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). Their excellent work in Committee and on Report has guided the Bill to this stage. I also thank members of the Bill team and the Clerks for their advice and support.
This is an important Bill that toughens up sentences for serious and repeat offenders and strengthens the justice system. I have always been clear that those who break the rules should face the consequences and that protecting the public is our top priority. As a result of the action that the Government are taking, we are reducing crime, toughening up the justice system and giving victims the support they both need and deserve. We are making sure that hard-working families feel safe and secure in their local communities. This Bill is yet another step in delivering our promises and guaranteeing that security.
We are not a Government who legislate without taking into account the views of Parliament. We have listened carefully to the valuable discussion and debate in this House and the Bill has been improved as a result. Many colleagues in this House have rightly expressed concern that sentencing for those who cause death or serious injury by driving while disqualified has been inadequate. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue. That is why we have added measures to the Bill to ensure that the courts have the power properly to penalise those who step back behind the wheel after being disqualified from driving and cause death or serious injury. It is right that they should face a longer sentence for doing so. It is clear from the discussion on Report and in previous debates that concerns remain about the penalties available for other serious driving offences. That is why we have committed to carrying out a wider review over the next few months, which we hope will address many of the points that have been raised.
We also had a very interesting debate in Committee and on Report on child grooming. In an age of constantly changing modes of communication, it is vital that our laws provide the utmost protection for children. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) suggested changes to the law on malicious communications. We agreed that that offence should be triable either way and subject to a higher penalty. In doing so we have also provided the police with more time to investigate those offences. That is a step forward in keeping children safe in the modern world and I commend my hon. Friend for her contribution to this Bill.
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1071
To be bipartisan, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) also suggested changes to the law on child grooming following her excellent work with Barnardo’s on child sexual exploitation. The Government have committed to considering whether changes to the law on meeting a child following child grooming are required and we are open to the arguments she has been making.
Let me turn to the provisions on secure colleges. I can only say that I am disappointed by the position taken by Opposition Members on the proposals. Youth reoffending rates are far too high and the system as it stands is not working well enough. Secure colleges represent an opportunity to change the way we detain and rehabilitate young offenders and prevent them from embarking on a life of crime. My vision is for young people to have access to high-quality education and training that will allow them to fulfil their potential. My vision is of detaining young people in an environment that is less like a prison and more like an educational institution with a fence around it, where we can ensure not only that they lose their liberty as per the orders of the court but that we maximise the time we have them with us to ensure that we equip them in the best possible way so that they do not reoffend afterwards. That is all the more important if a young person has set out on the wrong path in life. It is beyond me how the Opposition can criticise these once-in-a-generation reforms, which put education at the heart of youth custody, which seek to equip young people with the skills they need to turn their backs on crime and which give those who have broken the law the opportunity to make a fresh start in life.
There has been much debate about the detail of the secure college regime and the pathfinder college. Let me be clear that no final decisions have been made on who will be accommodated in the pathfinder. Those decisions will be taken as plans for the pathfinder are developed and in light of careful analysis of the needs of the youth custodial population and the impacts on different groups. Our plans for the rules that underpin the secure college provisions will be subject to public consultation. They will be published during the passage of the Bill to benefit from the wealth of expertise within the youth justice sector.
I hope that hon. Members from all sides recognise the genuine opportunity that such a new regime offers us to tackle youth reoffending and to help make a positive impact on the future for young offenders. Of course we are still developing some of the details, but the Bill lays down the foundations for a transformative approach to youth custody. I urge the Opposition to think again before they play politics with the future of young people who will genuinely benefit from both the education and the regime that the Bill is designed to provide, and to turn away from the siren voices that say that this is a new brutal regime. It is about a positive experience for young people in the hope that we can turn their lives around. Who can disagree with that?
Finally, I turn to judicial review. I fully recognise that judicial review is an important issue, which has been reflected by the debate and the interest that the House has shown. I remain firmly of the view that the Government are right to take action. Too often unmeritorious cases clog up the system, wasting time and taxpayers’ money. Judicial review is important. It should always remain available for well-founded challenges that raise issues of
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1072
genuine significance. It also enables individuals to sort out a situation where they have faced, for example, maladministration from a public body, but I do not accept that the system should allow pressure groups to use judicial review as a PR stunt, or as a means of delaying properly made decisions—often decisions made in this House—while the taxpayer foots the bill.
The recent case concerning the remains of King Richard III illustrates exactly why we need reform. My decision to grant a licence to exhume Richard III’s human remains was challenged by the Plantagenet Alliance. It was a spurious and nonsensical claim brought as a stunt, and those bringing the claim hid behind a shell company to avoid facing the costs of doing so. They all claimed that they were members of the family of the Plantagenets. Well, I suspect that most of us in the Chamber are to some extent descendants of the family of the Plantagenets. It was not an issue in which there was any obvious family involvement. It was, as I say, a stunt. Because the company did not have any assets, an absolute protective costs order was sought and granted.
In the end the High Court upheld my decision as lawful, rational and fair, but we and our constituents were still left to pick up the tab for defending the challenge. At a time when difficult decisions are being taken across the public sector and when people are losing their jobs because of the need to rationalise to tackle our deficit, can Members honestly say that that was a good use of the judicial review process and of hard-working taxpayers’ money?
Applications for judicial review for cases that stand little prospect of success put undue pressure on the courts and on other essential public services and can unduly frustrate decisions that were properly made. The reforms in the Bill were developed following a full public consultation. They are aimed at improving, not scrapping, the judicial review process so that it is not open to abuse, and so that genuinely arguable cases can proceed quickly to final resolution.
In summary, the Bill is an important piece of legislation that has benefited from the scrutiny of this House and the additions that have been made as a result. In this legislation, the Government are ending automatic early release for dangerous criminals, child rapists and terrorists, we are restricting the use of cautions for serious offences, and we are toughening up sentences for prisoners who go on the run. We are taking the action that the public expect to help keep them safe and secure.
The Bill will also help us to modernise court processes and to work to break the cycle of youth reoffending. It is about rehabilitation as much as it is about tough action in our justice system. That is the mix we need in our justice system. People need to be properly punished when they offend, on behalf of the victims as well as on behalf of justice, but we also need to do everything we can to turn their lives around once they have offended so that they do not come back and commit crimes all over again. That is the philosophy of this Government. That is what underlies the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
6.19 pm
Sadiq Khan:
I also begin by thanking Members from both sides of the House who have worked extremely hard during the passage of the Bill. The respective
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1073
Front-Bench spokesmen have given a lot of time to the Bill and the various officials, Clerks and Members’ advisers have also worked hard.
There is no point beating about the bush—this is a poor Bill. We know that the Justice Secretary was sucking up to the Prime Minister when he begged his Cabinet colleagues earlier this year for Bills—any Bills—to fill the gaping hole in the parliamentary schedule. What he brought forward was a mish-mash of leftovers. Ministers have thrown into the Bill their scrag ends and afterthoughts, making for an incoherent mess. It is a Christmas tree Bill on which many baubles have been hung.
The Bill includes proposals for toughening up sentences. No one disagrees with the need to keep the public safe, but part 1 is about repairing the damage done by the Lord Chancellor’s predecessor, the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who abolished indeterminate sentences for public protection—IPPs—in 2012. The Justice Secretary is clearly embarrassed now by the actions of his predecessor, but he was not embarrassed when he marched through the Aye Lobby in support of the abolition of IPPs in 2012. Were it not for the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, there would be little need for part 1 at all. Madam Deputy Speaker, you know, from your long experience, that a Government are in a mess when they reverse legislation that they themselves passed only two years ago.
The Justice Secretary’s secure college plans in part 2 are supported by no one. He calls them borstals when speaking to his Back Benchers, but uses softer language when he is talking to others. He is fooling no one. There is no evidence base to support the model. He has no justification for spending £85 million on a 400-place youth prison when the numbers of young people behind bars are down 65%. Nothing has been said on whether girls and the very youngest offenders will be thrown into the same prison, putting them in danger. The plans are so rushed and half-baked that the use of restraint being proposed is illegal. Yet Ministers have pushed ahead, with contracts being agreed on the construction before Parliament has even approved the measure—a discourtesy to colleagues in the Commons and the other place. This teenage Titan prison is a monument to the Justice Secretary’s ideologically fuelled hobby horses. The money would deliver so much more if spent on education, training and skills in existing establishments rather than on an unsafe vanity project.
On judicial review in part 4, the Lord Chancellor continues with his assault on our citizens’ rights. Not content with trying to dismantle legal aid and railing against human rights, he is now trying to limit judicial review as a means by which communities and citizens challenge the illegality of actions taken by public authorities, citing one or two bad cases to justify changes that affect many other potential good ones. I will not rehearse the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and I have already expressed on these judicial review changes during the Bill’s passage, but it is ironic that on the eve of the Magna Carta’s 800th anniversary, when the Prime Minister is claiming to want to teach our children of its significance, the Government are depriving citizens and communities of their rights to challenge power.
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1074
We should not forget the 18 new clauses and schedules that the Justice Secretary tabled on Report—14 for today’s debate alone, some of which we have not even discussed. Those have received no decent scrutiny form the House. That indicates the disdain that the Justice Secretary shows towards this place.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): I was unfortunate enough to practise at the Bar when the previous Government had 13 years and dozens of criminal justice Acts, most of which were highly inefficient and a great bar to proper justice. In relation to judicial review, what was the situation compared with Magna Carta 800 years ago and prior to 1971? We still have a judicial review system, however imperfect the right hon. Gentleman may think it is, and to criticise it as something that Magna Carta would lose by is laughable.
Sadiq Khan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the Prime Minister’s article that was published on Sunday in which he talked about the importance of citizens’ rights and of empowering citizens, reminding us of a 13th-century king who gave citizens power to challenge power. The Justice Secretary clearly does not understand that it is ironic that, at a time when Ministers are reminding citizens of Magna Carta, they are taking away and diluting some of those citizens’ rights to challenge power. If he thinks that is acceptable, that is for him to explain. In the context of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, the changes to legal aid, and the attacks on human rights, the hon. Gentleman will accept when he is outside the Chamber—
Sadiq Khan: I appreciate that a reshuffle is due and the hon. Gentleman needs to impress the Whips, but he will recognise during a quieter moment—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order. The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) knows that in all professional practice one stands when one is speaking; otherwise one does not speak.
Sadiq Khan: I was reminding the House of the 18 new clauses that the Justice Secretary brought before the House today, 14 of which we have seen for the first time and many of which have not been debated. His lack of respect for due process has led to him crow-barring many new proposals into the Bill. Some of them have merit, but we should at least have been able to debate them in detail. We have been deprived of that opportunity.
The clauses on wilful neglect by social care workers are a welcome move, as is the new offence regarding police corruption. However, without further scrutiny we do not know whether they, or the changes to planning decisions and personal injury claims, will do as the Government claim or whether there will be any unintended negative consequences. What is more, there are no impact assessments, so there is no sense of how much they will cost and who will benefit.
Efforts to tackle repeat knife crime are to be welcomed, even though the Government could not come to an agreed position. I am disappointed that during the course of his speech the Secretary of State made no
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1075
mention of knife crime—that is one of the downsides of other people writing your speech for you. Ministers should give up any pretence that this Government are any longer a coalition. They are not; they are disintegrating by the day.
Unlike this Government, we have focused on the issue at hand, as it is only right that the seriousness of a second knife offence is recognised. It is crucial to send a strong signal that carrying a knife is unacceptable, even more so for those who repeatedly do so. The new clauses still give judges the power to apply important discretion as there may be circumstances when a prison sentence might not be appropriate. More importantly, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service will still have complete discretion to decide whether somebody should be charged with the relevant offence, despite what some would have us believe.
However, Labour Members know that it is a huge disservice to victims of knife crime to pretend that this change in the law is a panacea; it is not. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who is now in his place, recognises, as he said, that we need to do much more to educate people that carrying a knife is unnecessary and unacceptable, working in schools, colleges and youth clubs, and with families, to tackle the problem. Those approaches are not mutually exclusive. Only then will we divert people away from a destructive lifestyle.
Given the long list of unanswered concerns and late additions to the Bill that have passed without scrutiny, Labour Members cannot give it our support. Once more, we will be looking to the other place to refine and improve on these proposals and rescue the Government’s Bill from mediocrity.
6.28 pm
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): I support this Bill. It contains important measures, including tougher sentences for terrorist offences, an end to automatic early release for paedophiles and terrorists, a reduction in the use of cautions, and streamlining of certain court procedures. I fully support the clampdown on the handing out of cautions for serious and repeat offenders. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) on his excellent and successful new clause on knife crime. We need to send out the clear message that repeat knife crime will not be tolerated.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con): Hertfordshire is a very safe place to live—one of the safest in the country. However, just over a week ago in my constituency, an argument got out of control and resulted in two people stabbing one another, so knife crime is a problem. If we do not stop the scourge of people carrying knives, we will not be able to stop people using them.
Angie Bray: I agree that the issue is about sending a message that carrying knives is not acceptable, so education will be a part of it and the deterrent effect will be a part of that.
I want to speak briefly to clause 19 in part 1, largely because it started life as a new clause that I tabled in Committee. To my delight, it was accepted by Ministers at that stage, with welcome support from both sides of the Committee. The clause proposes a small but potentially highly significant change to the Malicious Communications
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1076
Act 1988, making offences under it either-way rather than summary-only offences. In short, it will allow magistrates to refer certain malicious communication offences—the most egregious, at least—up to the Crown court for tougher sentencing.
The other crucial aspect of the change is that the six-month time limit on bringing a case to court will be dropped, leaving more time to investigate where necessary. I hope and believe that one of the key effects will be to provide for much tougher penalties for the worst cases of cyber-bullying and, consequently, that there will be much more of a deterrent.
My interest in pursuing this matter was first aroused by a visit to my Ealing surgery by constituents whose daughter had been the victim of appalling sex texting by a neighbour. The girl was 14 at the time and he was in his 40s. They were desperately disappointed, because even though the man admitted to the texts, the Crown Prosecution Service was unable to identify an offence that the courts could accept. He eventually walked free from the Crown court and any chance of prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act had gone because of the six-month time limit.
That appalling situation was unacceptable—there must be many more like it—and it needed a legal remedy. After taking advice from numerous colleagues with a legal background, including the Attorney-General, whom I thank for his time, the local police and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, I saw this small but important change shaped and accepted by my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary and his ministerial team. I thank Ministers for their ready support for the measure and I am delighted that it was incorporated into the Bill with the support of all those who served on the Committee. The family who came to see me are so pleased, and I hope much good can come from it.
6.32 pm
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab): I welcome the additional support for victims and their families in the Bill, but I think it would have been improved if my new clauses 8 and 9 had been accepted.
I congratulate the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children on last week’s launch of its “Order in Court” campaign to give more support to vulnerable young witnesses in the criminal justice system. I read in Saturday’s edition of The Times that there is to be a rethink about how cross-examination of witnesses in sex abuse cases is conducted in court, to try to deal with the aggressive, hostile and prolonged questioning of witnesses, which can be very traumatic.
I recently spoke to a witness in one of the Rochdale child sexual exploitation trials, as part of the report on CSE that I am preparing for Tony Lloyd, the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester. She told me that one of the worst experiences of her life was the treatment she underwent in court. She said:
“There is not a word to describe how bad it was. I have never ever experienced anything like that in my life and I never want to experience anything like it again. It was like one attack after another. One of the barristers was not even asking me questions. He was just shouting at me and the judge kept having to tell him to stop shouting and move on, and he kept asking questions that he was not supposed to ask. When I could not remember things they made me feel really bad.”
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1077
I welcome the fact that in the past year, 600 judges have been on a special training programme on dealing with vulnerable witnesses so that they can enforce appropriate behaviour by advocates. I think that means they can stop them from bullying witnesses.
Sarah Champion: I, too, am sad that my hon. Friend did not get an opportunity to debate her new clauses, because they were very powerful. She has cited an example of one girl. I have spoken to girls and boys across the country, and the expression that keeps coming up is that they find going to court another form of abuse. A number of them withdraw; the case closes because they cannot stand the trauma.
Ann Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for her support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order. Before the hon. Lady responds to the intervention, I must remind her that at this point in proceedings we are discussing what is in the Bill, not what is not in it. I am sure she will bring her remarks around to what is in the Bill.
Ann Coffey: I welcome the additional support for victims and their families, but the Bill would have been improved slightly if my new clauses 8 and 9 had been inserted. I was trying to explain what is happening because I wanted to make the point that although I welcome many of the things in the Bill, there are limitations to how it deals with vulnerable witnesses going through the courts.
We legislate, and sometimes we think that legislating is enough, but of course it is not. The Bill will not have the impact it should have on vulnerable young witnesses in court if some of the underlying issues are not dealt with. For example, the number of requests for registered intermediaries for young vulnerable witnesses in court has increased, but the number of registered intermediaries has decreased. The Government need to look at that issue if they want to support the measures in the Bill and to improve the situation for victims and their families.
The same applies to the pilots currently being undertaken in three courts under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. I hope that they will show that pre-recording cross-examination of witnesses, as well as of their statements, will improve the quality of such cross-examinations and improve witnesses’ experience of giving evidence. At the moment, they sometimes have to wait for years—up to two years—before they come to court, which puts their life on hold and prevents them from being able to recover from their very traumatic experiences.
I fully accept that the Bill is designed to improve the support given to witnesses in court, but I hope that the Government will look at the effectiveness of, and learn from, the measures already in place. They must understand that legislation by itself is not enough unless there are the means to implement it, with both the resources of registered intermediaries and the sympathetic environment in which section 28 pre-recorded cross-examination of witnesses can take place.
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1078
As the Bill goes through the Lords, I hope that the Government will look at the use of remote sites, such as the sexual assault referral centre in Manchester, which is one of the best SARCs in the United Kingdom—it would provide a very good environment for rolling out pre-recorded cross-examination—and at how to extend the use of pre-recorded cross-examination, which would benefit many young witnesses.
Finally, what goes on in our courts is not very transparent. It is very difficult and expensive to get transcripts of court proceedings. I know that there has been some talk of filming court cases, but a first step might be to make transcripts available online. It cannot be right that what goes on in our courts is only visible—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order. The hon. Lady might be making a very interesting—and possibly worthy—point, but it does not relate to the Third Reading of the Bill, so I am sure that she will conclude her remarks with that matter.
Ann Coffey: I entirely accept what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you will appreciate that it is sometimes very difficult in the House to say what you want to say at the point when you can say it.
6.39 pm
Dr Huppert: I hope I will not detain the House for too long. I have had the opportunity to speak about many of the issues in Committee. It is good that so many members of the Public Bill Committee are in the Chamber. I have just two specific issues to flag up before we pass the Bill from this House to the other place; I suspect that neither of them will be a surprise to Ministers.
The first issue is the entire aspect of part 4 of the Bill on judicial review, particularly the provisions on interveners. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), for his earlier comments about how he sees the Supreme Court approach as a way forward. I look forward to working with him to come up with something that will enable judicial review to continue and interveners to act sensibly, in a way that is helpful to the court and to British justice. There is a lot of work still to be done on that issue in the other place. I suspect that their lordships will be interested in other aspects of part 4. I dare say that they will be able to improve much of it.
It is a shame that amendments that could be made in this place are so often made in the other place, whether that applies to this example or not. There are a number of instances when it is this House that should act. Members of this House should not be asked to vote for things if the Government intend to change their mind later on.
I touched on the other issue that I want to raise in my comments on the Queen’s Speech. It is the issue of revenge porn. I notice that the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) has secured an Adjournment debate on that issue. I hope that provisions can be slid in between clauses 19 and 20 because the issue relates to both those clauses. I hope that the Secretary of State will look carefully at the matter and listen carefully to the right hon. Lady. The issue could be addressed in the Bill. Had I thought of that early enough, I would have
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1079
proposed an amendment to part 1, but we dealt with it before I was ready. However, I am happy to send in my ideas. I hope that we can make those changes and make the Bill substantially better.
6.41 pm
Guy Opperman: I was not able to be here earlier in the consideration of the Bill, so I will speak briefly on Third Reading—to the delight of colleagues, I am sure.
I welcome the Bill. I sat on the Public Bill Committee. As ever, the Opposition are full of criticism but short on solutions. The shadow Secretary of State spoke fondly of a reshuffle. Of the two of us, it is more likely that he will be reshuffled than I. The idea that Magna Carta will be so affected by the Bill is as laughable as some of his earlier suggestions. Magna Carta survived very well for several hundred years before the reform of judicial review and the like, and it will continue to survive very happily on the back of the Bill.
I should declare that I have practised in the fields of judicial review and criminal law. The previous Government, in their 13 years and with their dozens of criminal justice Bills, were, without a shadow of a doubt, the worst Government there has ever been in respect of criminal justice. I assure the House that that view is shared universally by one and all at the criminal Bar.
My last client in a judicial review was the shadow Chancellor. I represented him when he was Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. In that judicial review, the feeling was shared by one and all that far too much judicial review was going on and that it needed to be reformed. I welcome the fact that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has tackled something that has been patently obvious to High Court judges, practitioners and everyone who has been involved in the payment of taxpayers’ money for judicial review.
I welcome the proposals that we dealt with in Committee on drug testing in prisons. The idea that we are proposing a mini-Titan prison—I think I caught those words correctly—is a dramatic misunderstanding of what constitutes a Titan prison and what constitutes a reasonably sized prison for young offenders. I also welcome the changes to electronic monitoring.
Finally, on knife crime, I welcome and support the changes that have been brought about by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who has done a great service to the House.
6.44 pm
Sarah Champion: I want to put on record my abhorrence at the idea of the giant children’s prison. Not one of the witnesses we heard from spoke favourably about it. I know that it is being packaged as an educational establishment, but there is nothing in the Bill to tell us that there will be qualified teachers and social workers or anything about the level of education that the children will be offered.
Particularly worrisome for me is that, given that only 4% of the young people and children in the prison population are between the ages of 12 and 15, the vast majority of the young people will be much older than that, and only 4% will be girls—out of 320 young people, about 12 will be girls. Those girls might have committed crimes, but there is an awful lot of evidence
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1080
that when girls commit crimes, it is normally because they are coerced into it, or they are acting up because of some gross abuse that has already happened to them and it tends to be a cry for help. I find it deeply abhorrent to put them in a very testosterone-led environment, and worry for their psychological futures.
I also find the fact that there was no commitment for there to be qualified teachers extremely worrying, and it confirms to me that the college is just a holding borstal, rather than an educational establishment as it is described. I also found it troublesome that there is a lot of mention of restraint in the Bill, and some of the techniques being used are not legal according to the UN—that should not be happening, particularly to children. Again, I make a plea to the Secretary of State to please consider that matter.
Chris Grayling: Can the hon. Lady draw my attention to where in the Bill the word “restraint” appears?
Sarah Champion: Standing here now, no I cannot, but I will be happy to provide that evidence. If the Secretary of States gives me a couple of minutes I could probably dig it out of the Bill.
6.46 pm
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
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1081
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
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1082
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.
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
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1083
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—
7 pm
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 12 May)
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
European Union Documents
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),
European Semester
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 10522/14 and Addendum, draft Council Recommendation on the United Kingdom’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on the United Kingdom’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10679/14, a Commission Communication: 2014 European Semester: Country-specific recommendations: Building growth, No. 10459/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Belgium’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Belgium’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10462/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Bulgaria’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Bulgaria’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10464/14, a draft Council Recommendation on the Czech Republic’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on the Czech Republic’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10466/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Denmark’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Denmark’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10468/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Germany’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Germany’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10471/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Estonia’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Estonia’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10479/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Ireland’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Ireland’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10481/14,
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1084
a draft Council Recommendation on Spain’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Spain’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10482/14, a draft Council Recommendation on France’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on France’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10483/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Croatia’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Croatia’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10484/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Italy’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Italy’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10487/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Latvia’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Latvia’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10489/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Lithuania’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Lithuania’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10491/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Luxembourg’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Luxembourg’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10493/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Hungary’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Hungary’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10497/14, a draft Council Decision abrogating Decision 2010/407/EU on the existence of an excessive deficit in Denmark, No. 10498/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Malta’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Malta’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10500/14, a draft Council Recommendation on the Netherlands’ 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on the Netherlands’ 2014 stability programme, No. 10502/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Austria’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Austria’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10504/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Poland’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Poland’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10505/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Portugal’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Portugal’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10510/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Romania’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Romania’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10512/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Slovenia’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Slovenia’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10515/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Slovakia’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Slovakia’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10517/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Finland’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Finland’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10519/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Sweden’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Sweden’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10524/14, a draft Council Recommendation on the implementation of the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States whose currency is the euro, No. 7413/14, a Commission Communication: Results of in-depth reviews under Regulation (EU) No. 1176/2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, and an unnumbered Commission Occasional Paper: Macroeconomic imbalances: United Kingdom, 2014, No. 16171/13, a Commission Report: A single market for growth and jobs: an analysis of progress made and remaining obstacles in the Member States, No. 15808/13, a Commission Report: Alert Mechanism Report 2014, No. 15803/13, a Commission Communication: Annual Growth Survey 2014, and No. 16348/13, a Draft Joint Employment Report accompanying the Commission Communication on the Annual Growth Survey 2014; further notes that the documents support the priorities of this Government to encourage structural reform, reduce the deficit and invest in UK infrastructure, and that the Government’s long term economic plan is working and the economy is growing, but that the job is not yet done and the Government is seeking to create a more resilient economy which supports sustainable growth; further notes that Help to Buy is having the desired effect of supporting first time buyers across the country to purchase a home; further notes that housing policy is a matter for Member States and not the Commission; and rejects the Commission’s proposal on council tax revaluation in the UK Country Specific Recommendation, which could raise council tax bills for hard pressed families.—
(Harriet Baldwin.)
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1085
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 18 May (Standing Order No. 41A).
petitions
Public Inquiry into Hormone Pregnancy Test Drugs
7 pm
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): I present a petition on behalf of my constituent, Ms Nicola Williams, from the members of the Association of Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests who have collected several hundred signatures to call for a public inquiry into the use of oral hormone pregnancy test drugs that were used in the 1960s and ’70s.
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that children were born with serious deformities due to hormone pregnancy test drugs taken by expectant mothers between 1953 and 1975; further that the Petitioners are concerned that as the surviving victims enter their forties and fifties many of them may face a host of new problems as their bodies continue to suffer; further that no official warnings were issued about these drugs until eight years after the first reports indicated possible dangers; further that the Petitioners believe that some doctors continued to prescribe the hormone pregnancy test drugs to pregnant women after official warnings from the Committee on Safety of Medicines; and further that the Department of Health in the past has rejected requests for an inquiry into these matters.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to set up an Independent Public Inquiry.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Palestinian Water Rights
7.2 pm
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD): I wish to present a petition on behalf of my friends and constituents in Kendal Amnesty International who, on and after world water day earlier this year, sought to put the petition together, calling on the UK Government to urge the Government of Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinian people to adequate and safe water supply.
The Petition of a resident of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioner believes that the Government of Israel is not respecting the human rights of the Palestinian people by failing to ensure that they have an adequate water supply.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Government of Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinian people to adequate water supply.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1086
Water Safety
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
7.3 pm
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab): Just under a year ago at the start of the six-week summer holiday on 23 July 2013, 15-year-old Tonibeth Purvis from Barmston in Washington in my constituency, and her friend Chloe Fowler who was 14—she was from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson)—tragically died after drowning in the River Wear at Fatfield in Washington. It was a lovely hot sunny day, much like we saw last week and will hopefully see again this summer. To cool off, Chloe jumped into the river. Unfortunately, that particular stretch of the River Wear has a fast current and is up to six metres deep in the middle. It is full of hidden hazards, as many rivers are. It was not long, therefore, before Chloe sadly got into difficulty. Seeing her friend in trouble, Tonibeth immediately jumped in to help her, along with a number of other friends they were with. They quickly found themselves in trouble as well, Tonibeth to the point where she was also overcome. The emergency services were called immediately, shortly before 3 pm. Unfortunately, by then it was already too late. Tonibeth was not located until 8.49 pm, and it took a huge team of emergency service workers—who by all accounts were fantastic—another hour to find Chloe.
The only saving grace of this terrible tragedy is that more young people did not die that afternoon. As her friends said in paying tribute to her in the days following the tragedy, Tonibeth died a hero, trying her best to rescue her friend. She was quite rightly recognised for that heroism as the winner of the editor’s choice award at the Sunderland Echo’s Pride of Wearside awards in November last year. As a mother myself, I do not know if that brings much comfort to her family. I sincerely hope it does.
The parents of Tonibeth and Chloe are not the only ones currently living through the nightmare of losing a child to drowning. Drowning is the third most common cause of accidental death among children in the UK. According to the response I received from the Office for National Statistics to a parliamentary question I tabled in September last year, between July 2008 and December 2012 coroners recorded 48 accidental deaths of children and young people aged under 20 in natural water. That is 48 individual tragedies, 48 families devastated and 48 schools, colleges and wider communities affected—and one persistent problem. Those figures may not tell the whole story, as coroners figures only record the primary cause of death.
The figures for deaths in water—the water incident database, or WAID, statistics compiled by the National Water Safety Forum—were put at 47 for under-20s in 2011 alone and another 42 in 2012. Those figures show that this is primarily an issue for boys, who account for 78 of the 89 deaths in those two years. None of these figures, of course, include Tonibeth and Chloe or any other young people who lost their lives last summer or since. I understand that in the six-week hot spell we had last summer there were 36 deaths. Of course, many other children and young people have come close to
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1087
losing their lives. Some have suffered serious injuries or been left traumatised by getting into trouble in the water. When we take all age groups into account, there are some 400 deaths a year, which is the equivalent of one every 20 hours.
The fact is that the vast majority of these individual tragedies can be avoided if people possess a basic understanding of how to look after themselves and know what to do in an emergency, whether it happens to them or others.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this subject to the House for consideration. In my constituency, unfortunately, we have had similar experiences, usually during warm spells of weather. Does she think that advertisements and warnings should be sent out through local press and local government to ensure that people are aware of the dangers in quarries, rivers and the sea? Those are the danger spots whenever the weather is warm.
Mrs Hodgson: I will come on to prevention shortly.
The Royal Life Saving Society was, opportunely, in Parliament today, hosted by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who had hoped to attend the debate. It held a briefing session for MPs and peers on this very subject ahead of drowning prevention week, which begins on Monday 23 June and runs until 29 June. It conducted research last year that found that 68% of people said they would not know what to do if they saw someone drowning, or how to treat them even if they were able to recover them safely from the water. However, in spite of that self-awareness of lack of capability, 63% of those people said they would still jump in to try to save a family member who was drowning, and 37% said they would even do so to try to save a stranger.
Most victims of drowning are alone, but it is little wonder that the kind of selflessness and heroism that was displayed by Tonibeth can so often lead to an even deeper tragedy. In the hope of preventing such tragedies, the RLSS has made a number of demands in its “manifesto for water safety”, which I think require close consideration by the Minister and, indeed, other members of the Government.
The RLSS argues that schools should ensure that every child is taught the basic principles of water safety, and personal survival skills. That means that children should understand the risks involved in various water environments such as currents, loose banks and vegetation, and should know how best to enter and exit water, which includes what it is best for them to do if they fall in. It means that they should be able to orientate and contort their bodies in the water, especially if they are caught in a current and need to turn to face the direction in which it is taking them so that they avoid hurting themselves and do not miss opportunities to grab something. It means being familiar with the typical survival skills that would generally occur to us, such as treading water, making ourselves buoyant, and swimming in clothing. Swimming itself is, of course, a very important skill, but it is also important to be taught the techniques that make it possible to rescue other people safely, which include keeping their heads back and above water.
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1088
The current school curriculum mentions safety, but the target of being able to swim 25 metres by the end of primary school is the real priority for most schools. Being able to swim 25 metres would certainly help, but doing so in a warm, clear swimming pool with lifeguards at hand is completely different from having to swim 25 metres, or even 5 metres, in a cold lake or a river with a strong current and hidden hazards.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab): My hon. Friend was right to list all the water safety skills that children should be taught, but does she agree that every school leaver should be a life saver? Should not all young people be taught cardiopulmonary resuscitation, how to place people in the recovery position, and other ways of saving people’s lives once they have been rescued?
Mrs Hodgson: Yes. Those are all valuable life skills. If I had to choose an overriding priority, I would choose water safety education and survival skills.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): I thank the hon. Lady for what she said earlier about the work of the Royal Life Saving Society UK and its visit to the House. Does she agree that, ahead of the summer months, Members in all parts of the House have a unique opportunity to promote the drowning prevention message to young people in particular? Is that not something that we can all do together now, in the short term?
Mrs Hodgson: Yes, I do agree. I should like to think that, following the debate, an all-party parliamentary group could be set up. Perhaps it could be led by the hon. Gentleman, who showed such great leadership in organising today’s event in which the RLSS highlighted the importance of life-saving. I can think of no better gentleman to chair such a group. I should be more than happy to be a qualifying member, as, I am sure, would other Members who are present this evening.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the RLSS argues that water safety education should be extended, in an age-appropriate way, to key stages 3 and 4. It believes that such education should be directed at the age group that is most likely to take risks around water and get into difficulty as a result, and that parents should be notified about their children’s progress. In the context of the tightening of budgets, it also recommends that schools should consider focusing on pupils who cannot swim. I am sure that many young people would be disappointed if they were told that they could not take part because they had already got their badges, but there is some sense in doing that, as long as the competent swimmers receive good-quality provision in some other sporting activity at the same time. The RLSS also calls for Ministers to give schools a clear understanding of what is expected from them in this regard, and then to ensure that progress is inspected and reported on so that schools are accountable to parents for that progress.
The Minister may be aware of a survey by the Amateur Swimming Association which found that nearly 20% of schools, and 25% of academies, do not know their swimming attainment rates, or do not offer swimming at all. It also found that 51% of primary school children are unable to swim the minimum of 25 metres by the time they leave primary school. This concern about the
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1089
decreasing priority given to swimming is echoed by Councillor Fiona Miller, who represents the Washington East ward in my constituency, where this tragedy occurred, and who is also a swimming teacher. She also reminded me that many schools used to get resources on water safety and many other things from the Youth Sport Trust, but increasing numbers of those schools are reviewing their membership of this body in light of fragmented and squeezed budgets. These figures and concerns are extremely worrying, so I hope the Minister is able to provide some figures of his own, particularly on the provision of swimming in primary academies, which are not bound by the curriculum at all.
The RLSS also calls on the Government to provide support for an annual public awareness campaign highlighting drowning risk, which would be useful for adults and children alike, as well as to ensure that there are sufficient safe places that children and young people can go—and can afford to go—to swim during the summer holidays, or indeed at evenings and weekends. I hesitate to make this point because I do not suggest for a moment that there is any causal link between the Government’s actions and any drownings, but Labour’s free swimming initiative provided such a valuable opportunity for so many young people to swim safely and to learn to swim at any time, but especially over the school holidays, and it is a great shame that it was scrapped.
There has certainly also been an increasing threat to public swimming baths as councils struggle to balance their budgets in extremely challenging times. In my constituency, campaigners found out just this week that they had been successful in lobbying to save Castle View enterprise academy’s pool, which is widely used by the whole community, including local primary schools, from having to close its doors. As savings become ever harder to make for local authorities, the future of other pools across the country will increasingly come into question, and many of them will not get the reprieve that this particular one has had, and some may have to put up prices.
I know that there was a degree of indecision at official level as to which Department was to answer this debate. The prevention of drowning accidents, and therefore of the loss of lives and serious injury, is a cross-cutting issue, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport all have a stake in this, as do their local and national partners and agencies, but, as we know, there is always a risk with cross-cutting issues that they will fall between the cracks in both Whitehall and at a local level, rather than the overlap helping to bridge those gaps. Just as in so many other areas, one of the best preventive tools that Government have at their disposal is our education system, and therefore although I admire—and, indeed, like—the Minister who is here tonight, I am disappointed that an Education Minister is not here to respond. Just as with healthy eating and lifestyles and sex and relationships education, this is an area in which we can, through education, give children and young people the skills and knowledge they will need at the very point in their lives when they will need it, as well as for when they grow up,
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1090
and not just in order to pass exams or help them get into Oxbridge, but to help them lead safe and healthy and, therefore, long and happy lives.
I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on what his Department and others across Government are doing to this end, and I ask whether they will look at the very modest and sensible recommendations from the RLSS, and what further ideas and policies the Government may be convinced to explore in the near future to help to prevent another tragedy like the one that shook Sunderland last year, and which has left such a devastating gap in the lives of Tonibeth’s and Chloe’s family and friends.
As I mentioned earlier in my speech, drowning prevention week is next week. It is a great initiative usually aimed at primary schools, but this year it is being expanded to secondary schools as well. As far as that campaign will reach, however, it will not reach all schools and it will not reach all children. It would be a major, and very timely, boost for this campaign if the Minister was able to say tonight that the Government will take some of the RLSS calls for action on board, or perhaps come forward with some other proposals, so I look forward to hearing his response.
7.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond): I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this debate. Let me say at the outset that I am aware of the tragedy that happened last July in her constituency, and the Government very much sympathise with the families of the two girls involved. The hon. Lady is right to say that the incident highlights why we must do all we can to raise awareness of the dangers of water, and the measures we can and are putting in place to ensure that such an incident does not happen again.
I am responding on behalf of the Government as the Minister with responsibility for maritime issues, but as the hon. Lady pointed out, water safety and drowning prevention are not topics that fit neatly within the remit of any single Department. Having heard her speech, I, like her, rather wished that an Education Minister was responding. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, for example, actively promotes participation in water-related sports and activities. The Department for Education promotes water safety awareness and swimming through the national curriculum. The Department for Communities and Local Government has a role to play through local authorities, which have responsibility for beach safety and act as navigation authorities for some of our inland waters. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a role in the management of many of our inland waters through bodies such as the Environment Agency and the Canal & River Trust. The Health and Safety Executive, within the Department for Work and Pensions, also has a clear interest where the worlds of water and work come together.
Alongside all those Departments and agencies is a whole host of non-governmental groupings, sport governing bodies and charities that make up a matrix of interested parties with a role to play in supporting water safety and the prevention of drowning. My own Department’s primary interest is through the excellent work of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which includes Her
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1091
Majesty’s Coastguard. That agency’s regulatory role focuses on the safety of commercial shipping and fishing operations, but most of the search and rescue incidents with which Her Majesty’s Coastguard deals are firmly rooted in recreational activities such as boating, sailing, enjoying our beaches, swimming off coasts and walking our fantastic coastline. It follows that encouraging people not to get into difficulty in the first place—prevention of the wider sort that the hon. Lady mentioned—is by far the best approach, which we encourage across the whole of Government.
More than 200 Members of this House represent coastal constituencies and will doubtless join me in encouraging the general public to get out and about and have fun near the water. According to Visit England, in 2012 there were 147 million day visits to seaside and coastal locations across the whole of Great Britain, and inland we have lakes, canals and other stretches of accessible water that the public can enjoy. However, that enjoyment is enhanced if people take personal responsibility for their own safety, understand the difficulties and dangers, treat water with the respect it deserves, and understand what they can do to have fun and stay safe.
My Department and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have supported the work of the National Water Safety Forum, an umbrella body that brings together all those promoting water safety messages, including expert organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the RNLI, the Royal Life Saving Society, the Canal & River Trust, the British Sub-Aqua Club, British Swimming, the Chief Fire Officers Association and many more. For many years, my Department has made a financial grant to that forum through the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which provides administration and governance support. That funding has facilitated the development of the forum and allowed it to mature into a body that shares understanding of statistical information and data, and uses that to help local authorities, sport governing bodies and lifesaving organisations plan their own safety communications. As the forum matures and shows its worth, so its membership are increasingly making a financial contribution to the forum, because they recognise that it is a body in which they can all share best practice.
The National Water Safety Forum recognised that there were different databases capturing different levels of information about water-related incidents. The hon. Lady referred to a number in her speech. The information that is recorded by the MCA on national search and rescue records, for instance, is different to that recorded by the RNLI and other rescue services. What was needed and has now been put in place is a single database that commands the confidence of all the bodies that contribute to it and use it. That has been achieved through the water incident database, which, as the hon. Lady knows, is known as WAID. It provides a single version of the truth and has captured information about fatalities and all water-related incidents since 2007.
The hon. Lady mentioned a number of inland fatalities. In 2010, the number of water-related fatalities was 420. Thanks to WAID’s initiative and the communication plans of its umbrella bodies, the message started to take hold. The number of fatalities has dropped quite dramatically and continues to fall, and it is now 50 fewer than it was two years ago. We need to do more, but the trend is going in the right direction.
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1092
Analysis shows that most of the water-related fatalities occur in rivers, followed by at the coast and then in the sea, and that is exemplified by the sad incident that the hon. Lady has described. The most common activities that people are engaged in when tragedy strikes are walking, running, swimming and, in some cases, angling. A major campaign, which has been run and targeted at people who are close to rivers or water, involves the promotion of the wearing of lifejackets. The seas around the UK coast are cold. Professor Mike Tipton, a leading academic in this field, has shown that the first and most immediate danger to people in the water is not the drowning, but the sheer cold water shock, which then leads to drowning. Wearing lifejackets on rivers and at sea buys time and keeps people alive until they can be rescued.
Mrs Hodgson: I do not want to pre-empt anything the Minister might say with regard to education, and I am aware that he is not an Education Minister, but is he able to comment on the Royal Life Saving Society’s campaign and its calls for Government action, or will he commit to meeting the Education Minister to take the matter forward?
Stephen Hammond: I will touch briefly on education. We certainly welcome what the Royal Life Saving Society has said, and we recognise that next week is national drowning prevention week. I will commit to asking my colleagues in the Education Department to reply to the hon. Lady more fully if my remarks do not provide her with the answers that she wants.
Many agencies have a strategy for safety. The MCA, for instance, focuses on very simple safety messages, urging those going on the water to get trained, check the weather, wear a lifejacket, avoid alcohol and make sure that someone else knows what they are going to do. Volunteer coastguards are based in their local communities, and they spend a lot of their time putting those messages across to schools and community groups, and the MCA uses its presence on social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to do the same.
In January this year at the London boat show, I was pleased to support the Royal Yachting Association’s launch of its safety advice notices, encouraging safety in boating, yachting and sailing communities. It used the style of language that was right for its target audience. The RNLI has a proud record of heroism at sea and it holds a special place in British maritime tradition. It has run an excellent campaign called “Respect the Water,” the thrust of which is to encourage people to take care when they are near rivers or near the shore and to make sure that they are properly trained.
Six years of evidence shows, unfortunately, that one of the major causal factors in fatalities, particularly in young men, is alcohol. A number of organisations are sending out the message that people should not take alcohol and play around by the water, because that can have serious consequences. We welcome similar efforts by the RLSS, which include drowning prevention week next week. The prevention of drowning is a shared responsibility in every sense. As I undertook a moment ago, I will ensure that one of my colleagues in the Department for Education responds more fully to some of the points that the hon. Lady made about education.
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1093
We all want people to enjoy our beaches, our coast, the seas and the inland waters. However, we want them to understand the dangers, take responsibility for their safety and heed the advice of the many experts in the area. The RNLI’s mantra, “respect the water”, is spot on. The Government will continue to support and encourage safety awareness and swimming in the national curriculum. We support the efforts of the National
17 Jun 2014 : Column 1094
Water Safety Forum to ensure that people understand the greatest risks and to promote the campaign for safety, so that tragic incidents such as the hon. Lady described at the start of her speech will become an increasing rarity.