Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gloria De Piero]

We are again confronted with the reforms in the Bill, which will cost the NHS at least £6 million a year and taxpayers at least £140 million a year, the Government admit. Even they accept that it will result in more than 100,000 injured people not pursuing a legitimate claim that they could pursue now; we say the figure is far higher. Insurers, meanwhile, will get an extra £1.3 billion of profit every year. The Government say that they will hand 80% of that to consumers in the form of reduced premiums, but they have said that before, and insurers have saved over £11 billion since the last Government reforms in this area, in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Despite a brief dip in 2012-13, premiums are now higher than ever.

The Government have moved a little on the Bill, and in Committee the Minister confirmed what he intimated on Second Reading: that vulnerable road users will be exempted from both the Bill and the small claims limit. That is welcome. As Labour has done repeatedly throughout the process, we will attempt today to make the Bill fairer still by setting out some key amendments.

New clause 1 would ensure that the whiplash small claims limit could be increased only in line with inflation based on the consumer prices index, and it follows Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendation that increases should come in £500 increments and only when inflation justifies them.

One of the most disappointing aspects of this package of reforms is the Government’s attempts to sneak through key changes to the small claims track limit through the use of statutory instruments. Today we want to give those changes the scrutiny they sorely deserve and put them in the Bill.

Whereas the threshold for getting legal representation for personal injuries is currently £1,000, the Government are trying to raise it to £2,000 or £5,000, which will make a massive difference to someone injured through no fault of their own. That position is supported by a raft of experts, including some in the Minister’s own ranks—the Tory Chair of the Select Committee on Justice for one. The White Book, which I took the trouble of sharing with the Minister in Committee, shows that there was an effective 20% increase in the small claims limit in 1999 when special damages were removed from the calculation of the limit. I note that the Lord Chancellor conceded in his letter to the Chair of the Justice Committee dated 15 August 2018 that 1999 is the correct date from which to calculate an increase.

It is worth pausing at this point, since the Government now accept that there was a significant change in 1999, to understand what that change meant. An example is given in paragraph 26.6.2 of the White Book:

“a claim for £4,000 for loss of earnings and other losses, plus a claim for £800 for damages for pain and suffering, is a claim which would be allocated to the small claims track”.

In layman’s terms, a claim may be made for under £1,000 for pain and suffering, but when losses and expenses are added in it could be considerably greater. The example in the White Book suggests that, if an £800 pain and suffering award has a losses and expenses claim of £4,000, although the total value of the claim is £4,800, it still falls into the small claims track. We are talking about claims far in excess of the small claims limit.

Lord Justice Jackson, in his review of civil litigation costs, all the recommendations of which the Government accepted and implemented in the 2012 Act, said in paragraph 1.3 of chapter 19 of his 2009 review:

“Personal injuries litigation is the paradigm instance of litigation in which the parties are in an asymmetric relationship.”

In words that we all understand, this is David versus Goliath. Sir Rupert Jackson went on to say that

“the only reason to increase the Personal Injury small claims limit would be to reflect inflation since 1999”

and that

“I propose that the present limit stays at £1,000 until inflation warrants an increase to £1,500”.

He could not have been clearer, yet the Government appear to have plucked the proposed £2,000 limit out of thin air.

The new clause states that the CPI, which is used for the uprating of pensions and benefits paid to injured workers, should be used to calculate the small claims limit. Even the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agrees that CPI is the way to go. She said earlier this year to a House of Lords Committee:

“CPI is a much better measure of inflation…we are seeking to move away from RPI”.

The Governor of the Bank of England agrees, too. He has said:

“We have RPI, which most would acknowledge has known errors. We have CPI, which is what virtually everyone recognises and is in our remit.”

It is perfectly clear what we need to do: enshrine CPI as the key measure in the Bill.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting the Government to admit that the increases are arbitrary and not linked to inflation in any way. Is it not the case, therefore, that the only reason for the increases is to prevent injured people from getting representation and thereby preclude people with meritorious cases from getting the damages that they deserve?

[Gloria De Piero]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even if we use RPI, the Government still do not get to their proposed £2,000 new small claims limit. Instead, using the flawed RPI from 1999 would take the £1,000 to roughly £1,700. That is what we on the Labour Benches suspect is going on here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Of course the £10,000 small claims track limit applies to a far wider range of issues than simply whether a fridge functions or not. The hon. Lady mentions as an example the question of culpability for a road traffic accident. Given that we are talking about much less serious types of injury if the limit is, say, £5,000, determining responsibility for that road traffic accident does not need to be an enormously complicated procedure. For those of us who have been involved in such road traffic accidents, the minor ones we are talking about here, determining responsibility is not a highly complicated matter. I accept that, in much more difficult cases where very serious injuries have been suffered, one must of course take a lot more legal care and attention. For very minor injuries, however, where by definition the accident is a minor one, I suggest that determining responsibility and culpability does not need to be an extremely complicated matter.

[Andy Slaughter]

With the greatest respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman knows what he is talking about. Given of the relatively low levels of compensation for injury, the effects of a £5,000 injury can be quite severe and debilitating over a period of time. The complexity of personal injury cases, which involve expert evidence and issues of causation, means that they are in a different category. Even the Government accept that, so he is batting on a rather poor wicket.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I give way to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter).

[Andy Slaughter]

The proportion of fraudulent claims is about 1%. If I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument correctly, he is saying that all meritorious claimants should be debarred from proper representation so we can identify that 1%, because it is too difficult for the Government to legislate. Is not the truth of the matter that the Government, as always, are joined at the hip to the Association of British Insurers, and are simply legislating in its interests?

[Chris Philp]

I disagree with all three things that the hon. Gentleman has said. First, as I said earlier to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), the Government have no intention at all of preventing legitimate claims from being made. The Government are keen to facilitate those claims, and the online claims portal will help with that. There is categorically no intention of disbarring, preventing or in any other way inhibiting legitimate claims from being made.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to the 1% fraudulent claims figure. The reason the reported figure, which in my submission is dramatically under-reported, is so low is that insurance companies are, quite wrongly, choosing to settle those claims—even suspicious claims, even claims without merit—without defending them, because the cost of defending them, which is about £10,000 or £15,000, far exceeds the value of the pay-out. So the 1% figure cited by the hon. Gentleman goes nowhere close to reflecting the true scale of fraudulent claims in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I did not intend to speak, therefore I will be brief. The House is being treated to ad hoc speeches, which are always a delight. They sometimes benefit from a little knowledge of the subject, I gently say to the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). I also urge him not to be quite so credulous of what insurance companies tell us because experience shows that they always say that premiums will go down, and sometimes they go down and then up again, and sometimes they do not go down at all.

I also wonder about the hon. Gentleman’s question of whether we can expect everything to be done in a single Bill. I would argue that the two main things that the Bill will do are to prevent people with meritorious claims and those with often serious injuries from getting into court, and, if they get there, to reduce the legitimate level of damages that they can expect to receive. Would not it be better to have a Bill that deals with a matter that probably everybody in the Chamber thinks is right to tackle: strengthening defences against fraud? There has already been some change in legislation to make it easier to defend fraud cases, yet one may ask why insurers still do not instruct lawyers—whom they are able to employ, unlike claimants, perhaps, after the Bill is passed—to defend those cases. Why do they not insist on medical evidence? Why do they in fact encourage fraud? Why does a proportion of insurance companies’ profits come either from selling information on, which perpetuates claims management companies, or from owning claims management companies themselves?

The problem with the Bill is that it has the wrong targets. I made that point earlier when I intervened on the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). All Labour Members can be brief because he substantially made the case for why this is a bad Bill, as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) said.

However, the hon. Member for Croydon South said that the limit should be £10,000, as if personal injury claims were the same as simple money claims, which no one has ever argued. We are arguing about a difference in what the limit should be. In employers’ liability cases, the difference is relatively small, but the difference in road traffic accident cases is substantial: between what inflation would provide—around £1,500 as a small claims limit—and £5,000, which the Bill proposes.

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers said about the Bill:

“Claims under £5,000 are not minor, and an increase in the small claims limit will cover far more than soft tissue injuries. These claims could include a brain or head injury, injuries to the eyes, a collapsed lung, or fractured cheekbones. This is a disproportionate response to the stated aim of dealing with whiplash claims.”

That must be right. We are talking about people who are in a vulnerable condition, having suffered personal injury. As has been said, the inequality of arms is apparent not just in the courtroom but in the background to the case, particularly in the case of employees who take on their employers. That is often done with the assistance of a trade union, lawyers and other advisers. We should not replace that tried and trusted system with McKenzie Friends—whether unpaid or unpaid— who often do more damage than good to the clients they intend to represent. I urge the Minister, even at this stage, to listen not only to Opposition Members but to some Government Members and particularly to the Justice Committee.

I went through the painful experience of the stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and I have therefore heard many of the arguments trotted out before. We went from a situation whereby legal aid was available for personal injury to no win, no fee cases, and now to qualified one way costs shifting—QOWCS. It is increasingly difficult even for those with the most meritorious cases to get representation. There is not the same availability of representation as there was.

The review of the law post-LASPO is due to report shortly. It will cover not only part 1 but part 2 of LASPO, and if we had waited, we could have seen the effect of the reform to civil litigation, but no, the Government wish to take a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The overwhelming majority—estimates are around 90% of road traffic claims—of cases will be taken out of a costs regime. That means that all those people have to sink or swim on their own. No one, not just the lawyers here, truly believes that it is easy for many people who have suffered accident and injury to navigate through the court system, particularly when they are opposed by an insurance company, with all the resources that it has.

The Bill will not benefit the motorist or the interests of justice. Above all, it will not benefit people who, through no fault of their own, have suffered often serious injuries. It is disgraceful that the Government are legislating once again in the sectional interests of the insurance industry and against those who have suffered injury.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill and speak against new clauses 1 and 2 because, whether through ending rip-off energy bills, freezing fuel duty or increasing the personal allowance for income tax, the Government’s constant focus has been to make sure that the consumer is at the heart of their work and to reduce the cost of living for millions of people.

I am therefore pleased that Ministers have identified another area in which the cost of living is artificially and unfairly inflated. At a time when our cars and roads are safer than ever, one would expect the price of motor insurance to come down. Instead, the opposite has happened. Since 2010, there has been an almost 50% increase in the cost of comprehensive insurance premiums, and a near 80% increase in the cost of third-party fire and theft insurance premiums.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend speaks with the authority of not just a Select Committee Chair but someone who thinks deeply about these issues. There are safeguards built into the Bill, precisely to ensure that we achieve the robust, balanced and responsive framework that good legislation should aim for. I noted earlier that the Lord Chancellor will have a duty to keep all the relevant legislation under review on a triennial basis, so there will be checks to ensure that compensation thresholds do not become wildly out of kilter. Indeed, part of the reason why the Bill is necessary is that the thresholds have been allowed to drift for a very long time without being amended. That has led to a more dramatic uplift than is customary or than I would ever hope to see in future. We want to ensure that we always have a rolling programme rather than dramatic changes, which unfortunately affect more people than a more staged mechanism would. However, that does not mean that there is not a case for acting, so unfortunately I cannot support amendment 2.

[Andy Slaughter]

I will speak only briefly, because a number of the points to be made in this debate are the same ones that we made in the previous debate. There is no logic or sense to the Government’s rationale; they simply want to minimise the damages paid to litigants who have legitimate and in some cases serious injuries.

The noble Lord Woolf has been quoted several times. The Woolf report led to progressive and now legendary reform of the civil justice system, so he very much knows what he is talking about on this issue as on so many others. He said that the tariff

“results in injustice and it is known to result in injustice. Indeed, no one can deny that it results in injustice. There has never been a case where legislation deliberately introduces injustice into our law. It may be that it is only in regard to small claims, but surely it is important that we pause before we do that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1620.]

I agree that the Government should pause, and I would say that there is an objection in principle to the tariff in this case. No good reason has been given why this should not be a judicial process rather than an administrative or politically affected process.

There is also an issue of quantum to consider. The proposed sums in the tariff are derisory for what are often quite serious injuries lasting for periods up to 24 months. An injury that lasts for two years is likely to be serious and is certainly a persistent one that will cause a lot of pain and suffering. It has been pointed out that at the lower end of the spectrum—nought to three months, which still includes cases of pain and discomfort lasting a significant time—the proposed sum is £235. The Law Society’s briefing compares that with the amount of compensation that somebody might get for a flight that has been delayed for three hours, which could be considerably in excess of that amount. As well as the matter of principle, there is the point that the actual financial compensation is being minimised for no good reason.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about injustice. Is it not an injustice that many motorists are paying inflated insurance premiums because some people are getting an unreasonable level of compensation for their injuries? Is that not what the Bill is intended to prevent?

[Andy Slaughter]

It is not, because I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by an unreasonable level of compensation—

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

Please give me a moment to answer the first point, then I will willingly give way.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that it is unreasonable because these injuries are exaggerated or fraudulent, or that people should not be compensated according to accepted judicial tariffs. Nobody has ever said—that I know of—that the levels of compensation that are awarded under the Judicial Studies Board guidelines are over-generous in this country. What we are doing is simply taking those realistic—some would say, rather parsimonious—levels and reducing them by a substantial degree, so I think the point is nonsense, frankly. However, I give way to the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who will make a much more sensible point, I am sure.

[Rebecca Pow]

On that point, from the general public’s point of view, there is a consensus that people are taken for a ride over all these claims. Many of them are encouraged to go into this system of claiming when perhaps they do not necessarily have a great case. A great deal of money is made through the legal system, and people want to see fairness. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is absolutely right: most people’s motor insurance is going up and up to compensate. Does the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) agree that that is not fair? What we are trying to do with the Bill is to introduce fairness to a system that frankly—many people would say—has got out of control.

[Andy Slaughter]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on getting a helter skelter of nonsense into one intervention, with every prejudice and false statement that has been made in the tabloid press about these matters for about the last 10 years—well done on that. I could make a long speech dealing with the specific issues of—[Hon. Members: “Go on!] We have got time, haven’t we? No, I will not. I could go into detail about some of the myths about whiplash and soft tissue injuries and what is actually happening in relation to accidents, the insurance industry and premiums, because I have been an observer of that for a long time. However, let me limit myself to a fairly narrow point.

I have listened to the arguments from Government Members, and they are just non-sequiturs, frankly. We have heard that insurance premiums are the issue. Let us imagine that we give the benefit of the doubt there, which I certainly do not, and say that premiums are likely to fall significantly and that that is a factor relating to claims rather than to insurance companies’ profits, the other activities that they indulge in and the way that their businesses are run. I do not accept that, but let us assume that we do for a moment.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) is no longer in his place, but he made a surprisingly illogical—for him—intervention. He said, “Look, people will still get special damages.” Of course they will get special damages, but special damages are what the name suggests—they are to compensate for specific items of loss. Why should the fact that someone still gets compensation for their loss of earnings or their medical bills, or something of that nature, mean that it is right to diminish their compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenity? These are all non-sequiturs. The worst calumny of all is to say, “We are reducing the level of damages from slightly mean levels to absolutely parsimonious levels because of fraud”, which is exactly what we heard in relation to the small claims limit. So many members of the senior judiciary and indeed, of Select Committees, including not just the Justice Committee, but the Transport Committee, have said that it is plain wrong to say that because there may be instances of fraud, of which very few are identified, all litigants should suffer by having their damages reduced.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about quantum, but I would be interested to know, theoretically, whether he objects to the idea of tariffs being appropriate for this sort of compensation. I remind him that Lord Brown said

“I am in broad agreement with the whole idea of tariffs for injuries, certainly for lesser injuries, and indeed even of reducing awards in respect of a number of these lesser injuries.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 2018; Vol. 791, c. 306.]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that tariffs can be appropriate with, for example, criminal injuries compensation?

[Andy Slaughter]

There is an element of semantics going on here. We have guidelines at the moment. Judges do not pluck figures out of thin air. They look at the guidelines and hear submissions, or they would have heard submissions when representation was available—it seems it no longer will be—and they make a decision, but they have discretion around the individual circumstances of the case. That is a basic and fundamental principle of law, but one that we are deviating from. I cannot say strongly enough that that is wrong.

To add insult to injury—if I may put it that way—rather than taking the average in the guidelines and having a rough rule of thumb that someone will get a bit more or a bit less than their individual case deserves, or going for an average and calling that a tariff, we are saying that a tariff should be a tiny percentage of the current award. This is nothing but an attempt to say, “We do not wish to pay out money in this way. We wish to diminish both the ability to make a claim and the compensation paid.” Whatever one’s view on fraud, the massive majority of cases will be meritorious and honest cases in which people have genuinely suffered injury.

I will conclude with the words of the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Judge, on Report in the other place:

“What I cannot accept is a solution which means that a dishonest claim is handled in exactly the same way as an honest one. We cannot have dishonesty informing the way in which those who have suffered genuine injuries are dealt with. That is simply not justice. There should not be any idea that an honest claim for a whiplash injury made by the victim of a car accident should be less well compensated than an identical injury suffered by someone at work.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1600.]

That is what the Government are doing in the Bill and what is so inherently unfair, and they are doing it at the behest of special interests. They may genuinely believe that there is a problem to be resolved with whiplash. I could dispute that—we could go on for a lot longer than we are today—but even if they are right, there are other, better and fairer ways to tackle that issue.

[Bambos Charalambous]

Is my hon. Friend aware that under the criminal injuries compensation scheme someone gets £1,000 for a whiplash injury lasting six to 13 weeks but that under this tariff scheme the proposal is for £470 for three to six months?

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend, who knows far more about these matters than I do—and more, I suspect, than many on the Government Front Bench—is quite right. He draws attention to the fact that there is no logic in the system.

I feel a bit sorry for the Minister as he has to push these proposals forward; he is normally a very logical and fair man. It is difficult to speak at the Dispatch Box having been given a brief of this quality. When parliamentarians of his stature and of the stature of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, with his spurious points about special damages, are reduced to this level, and when Government Back-Bench Members are hauled in here, as we saw in the previous debate, to make speeches only to be told to stop making them because they are talking such arrant nonsense, one does despair. I hope even at the 11th hour that the Government might take pity on us, listen to the wise voices in the other place and support us on these amendments.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

A number of the things that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) suggested as being completely outrageous many of his constituents and certainly a lot of mine would completely agree with.

The Transport Committee, of which I was a member for three years, looked at this issue, and it was apparent even then that whiplash was a peculiarly British phenomenon. On the continent, particularly Germany, they do not have nearly as many whiplash injuries. I suggested at a previous stage of the Bill that this had nothing to do with the physiognomy of Germans as against that of British people. I made the point very clearly that I did not believe that their necks were more robust than good old-fashioned British necks. It was a flippant way of making a salient point: this is a national issue. In Britain, we seem to suffer from these injuries a lot more than people in other countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood).

Whether we sit on the Government Benches or the Opposition Benches, the first thing that hon. Members have to recognise is that we do have a problem in this country; of that there can be no doubt. Other hon. Members have mentioned the statistics, but they bear repeating. In 2005-2006, there were 460,000 or so road traffic accident-related personal injury claims. Just a decade later, that number had soared by 40-odd per cent. to 650,000. There must be concern that the circumstances exist in our country to create an unnecessarily fertile ground for spurious and unfounded claims. What are those circumstances? They include the fact that instead of challenging whether a whiplash claim is dishonest or otherwise unfounded, insurers will take a commercial decision to pay out, because that will be in their interest. As other Members have indicated, the effect of that is that ordinary people living on modest incomes are finding themselves having to pay more for their car insurance than would otherwise be the case.

It is a great mistake to say, as some do, that a car is a luxury—to say, “You don’t need your car; alternative transport methods should be satisfactory.” For plenty of my constituents, that simply is not the case. We currently have a big issue in Cheltenham with the closure of Boots Corner, a key arterial route through the town. One argument made by those who favour closing off the road is that people can get around on bikes. That might be okay for some people, but for plenty of my constituents—including nurses, people ferrying around their children, and people with disabilities—it is not. We have a duty in this House, wherever we stand, to drive down the costs of living for hard-working people and their families.

We have to be clear on what the legislation is not about. A lot of the points made by Opposition Members are motivated by the best of intentions. I have served on the Justice Committee with several Opposition Members, and they have shown great distinction—if I may be so bold—and argued vigorously and passionately for the principle of access to justice and on employment tribunal fees, to which the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) referred. But that is not what this legislation is about. It is important not to set up straw men to knock down. Were this debate about LASPO, access to justice and ensuring that people could get early legal advice and assistance, I would have an awful lot more sympathy, but in fact is far more restricted, calibrated and proportionate.

First, this debate and the provisions in the Bill are not about people who sustain whiplash injuries and whose pain, suffering and loss of amenity last beyond two years. If they do last for longer than two years, the case of course falls outwith the tariff system. Secondly, this debate is not about special damages. Let us consider a run-of-the-mill case in which somebody is involved in an accident, makes a whiplash claim because they have a sore neck, spends time off work and incurs taxi fees going to and from the doctor and various other fees. Such special damages would not be subject to any kind of tariff and could be claimed in the normal way. In other words, if someone was off work for, say, nine months, the mere fact that their general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity had been capped would not in any way preclude them from seeking the full extent of their special damages. That is why it is important to draw a distinction.

[Andy Slaughter]

I should say that I have secured a three-hour Westminster Hall debate on the LASPO review, access to justice and all such matters on 1 November. I look forward to having the hon. Gentleman join us and to his being fully supportive of my speech.

On this issue, the hon. Gentleman may want to address specifically the issue of the level of the tariff. I hear what he is saying, but what about the level of damages, which cannot in any way compensate for what are in many cases real injuries?

[Alex Chalk]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point about LASPO, because if I may say so he is on stronger ground on that territory and I look forward to attending his debate and making some observations. That debate truly is about a cardinal principle that we in this Chamber should all share: whatever a person’s circumstances, they should be entitled to access to justice. It would be quite wrong, though, to conflate that debate with the one we are having.

On the tariffs, I do not suggest that this is the case for the hon. Gentleman, but there cannot be synthetic outrage. If someone has suffered pain, suffering and loss of amenity to the extent that their symptoms endure beyond two years, they are entitled to get whatever the judge thinks appropriate. We are dealing with claims that, although not insignificant, are towards the lower end of the spectrum. That needs to be borne in mind.

Legal Aid: Post-Implementation Review

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and to take part in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing it, on her excellent speech setting out the main issues and on her continuing work as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid.

There is no doubt that part 1 of the landmark piece of legislation that is LASPO rolled back 70 years of development in social welfare law. I have nothing complimentary to say about the Government—not even about the review, because it was one of the concessions that was wrung out of them during the passage of the LASPO Bill. Even then, they left it until the last possible moment—five years on from the implementation of the Act—before introducing it. I wonder what we will see from the review. I appreciate that work is being done and that substantial work is being carried out by practitioners and others to influence the Government. I am interested in hearing from the Minister how much money there will be and how seriously the Government are taking the review.

The legislation was very controversial at the time, with double-figure defeats in the other place. The fact that we ended up with only nugatory changes had nothing to do, I am sure, with my lack of eloquence as shadow Justice Minister, and more to do with the coalition Government’s substantial majority. The Liberal Democrats deserve a mention. I dwell on the number of times they waxed lyrical about the importance of legal aid but voted time and again to destroy it as part of the tawdry deal—perhaps that is why we see none of them here today.

Since 2013, we have moved on, and favourable decisions in our higher courts have restored legal aid in some respects—on prisoner law, on exceptional case funding, and on non-asylum immigration by unaccompanied and refugee children. There have been accompanying decisions in analogous fields—a Supreme Court decision showed that the disgraceful fees for employment tribunals were unlawful. Such decisions are important and benefit large numbers of people, but they only scratch the surface.

Opposition has crystallised around certain areas regarding eligibility for early funding, particularly in housing and law on family reunion. I hope there will be specific concessions when the review takes place in those areas and perhaps in others. The Legal Aid Agency’s lack of independence was raised in Committee, and we have seen a series of High Court judgments about unlawful patterns of behaviour on behalf of the Legal Aid Agency. The way the system is run is quite shocking.

Rather than dwell on the details, which my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North has dealt with expertly, I will talk about the profundity of the changes that the legislation has brought in. It has, of course, affected millions of vulnerable people and people with protected characteristics, which we see in the number of successful appeals in welfare benefits cases. If people have the ability—cynically, the Government hopes that many people do not, or can no longer get advice—to get before a tribunal, they often succeed. Two thirds of appeals are succeeding in many cases.

We can look at what happened with what was supposed to be the safety net—the telephone gateway that provided ready access for exceptional case funding, which has not been used at all. There was only 2% of the anticipated demand for exceptional case funding in its first year. I know that has grown since, but it is still at very low.

We have advice deserts all over the country—areas where there are single practitioners, or sometimes no practitioners, which applies to entire counties for certain areas of law. How can the Government defend their record? It is about the day-to-day effects on individuals seeking justice or redress legitimately and not being able to get it. The Minister, who is a senior practitioner, should be ashamed of that, as should her colleagues.

The effects go far beyond that. Legal aid was often at the forefront of important test cases in establishing and developing the law. That has gone in many cases. I cannot emphasise enough that having an effective system of justice, and particularly challenging the decisions of the state and other powerful institutions, promotes good behaviour. It stops bad landlords and bad employers doing what they want to do, because they know that they are subject to legal challenge. Again, that has gone. I am sure that that is deliberate on the Government’s part, but they should dwell on it.

It affects the operation of the whole justice system. The courts are now overwhelmed with litigants in person. With all due respect to litigants in person, in complex areas of law, particularly when there is an inequality of arms and the other side is represented and they are not, or even when there are two litigants in person, it is very difficult for justice to be done. What a difficult and insidious position that puts the tribunal in, where the established adversarial process of law, which has grown up over several hundred years in this country, is suddenly turned into an inquisitorial one, where the judge has to suddenly act in the role, effectively, of both counsel and an interventionist, rather than simply as somebody who is keeping order and arbitrating in proceedings. The Minister may think that I am exaggerating, but the rights of defendants in the courts have been established over many hundreds of years, and an important part of that has been established through legal aid in civil justice, as it was previously in criminal justice, over that time.

I wish I could be in two places at once, because I would like to be taking part in the debate on the Second Reading of the Civil Liability Bill. That is another strong attack on the justice system in this country, where another swathe of claimants will be prevented from getting justice by arbitrary decisions by the Government. That says to me that the Government have not learnt their lessons from LASPO, and therefore it is very unlikely that the review will get us where we want to go.

I would love to be proved wrong, but in fact we are seeing the effect not only of the lack of representation and advice, but of the huge, swingeing cuts in the Courts and Tribunals Service, which have led to court closures, the inability of courts to function properly and the inability of the prison system to function properly, which was referred to in the main Chamber today.

The Minister took over at a rather difficult time, when the fruits of austerity were becoming apparent across the Ministry of Justice which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North said, has suffered the largest cuts of any Department over the last seven or eight years.

I made my opening speech in a political debate and it lasted for a mere three hours—you would not consider that to be a long speech, Sir Christopher. However, the point I wanted to emphasise was that legal aid was an important part of the welfare state settlement. It was about looking after vulnerable people; it was about providing a safety net; and it was about providing justice and equality for people. That is how important it is to our society and that is what LASPO has destroyed.

When the Minister replies, she may not be able to deal with all the points that my hon. Friend has made. However, I hope that when the Government give their response to the review, they will dwell on that point, as well as on the individual points and the individual cases that are crying out for justice.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The proposals constitute an attack on working people who, through no fault of their own, are injured in the workplace.

If the Government are intent on fraud reduction, why are those who are genuinely injured faced with receiving a fraction of what they would currently receive? Most injured people would happily give the money back if it meant that they were no longer injured.

Under the proposed tariffs, people will be given more compensation if their flight was delayed for three hours than they would receive after an injury lasting for three months. The idea of a £235 maximum payment for a three-month injury is not only laughable, but a clear assault on any reasonable definition of access to justice. The move to a tariff system helps no one but insurance companies, while customer premiums continue to rise. There are no measures in the Bill that would make it incumbent on insurance companies to pass on savings that are currently calculated to be £1.3 billion. I know that the Minister has suggested that the Government will table an amendment—as promised in correspondence with the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—but it is disappointing that that afterthought has not been included in the Bill thus far.

The Government say that they are listening to those who have concerns about their policy agenda. It is true that, following the Justice Committee’s report on the small claims limit, they have postponed their changes until 2020, but the purpose of that delay is by no means a rethink of policy or agenda. These changes are still coming, and their effect will still be felt whether the package of measures is presented this year, next year, or the year after that. The Bill, which is being rushed through on the quick, will leave us with a textbook example of a change in the law with ramifications that we will not truly understand until much further down the line. By that point it will be too late: the damage will have been done, and access to justice will have been eviscerated for many.

We must not forget that Conservative Governments do not have the best track record on justice matters. The Conservatives were repeatedly warned before proceeding with their legal aid reforms in 2012, but the effects of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 have gone further and deeper than was ever intended, with the number of civil legal aid matters initiated falling by 84% between 2010 and 2017. The changes in employment tribunal fees that were introduced under another Tory Lord Chancellor—which have since been found to be unlawful—caused a 68% fall in the number of single cases received per quarter by employment tribunals between October 2013 and June 2017. That was yet another ideologically driven Tory attack on access to justice.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

We have just been debating in Westminster Hall the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and the legal aid cuts. A sustained attack on access to justice has been going on since 2010: the Government have not learnt since then. Is the Bill not just another sustained attack on victims, restricting people from getting a fair trial in the courts—as my hon. Friend says—in the interests of no one except the insurance companies, which are major donors to the Conservative party?

[Ellie Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Had it not been for this debate, I would have attended that important Westminster Hall debate on LASPO and cuts in legal aid.

It is predicted that the Bill, and secondary legislation changes in, for instance, the small claims limit, will deter about 350,000 people from pursuing claims for injuries that were not their fault. Such a vast reduction in the number of cases is not something in which to take pride, but these measures will fail the genuinely injured. A recent survey by Unison showed that 63% of its members would not proceed, or be confident to proceed, with a claim without legal representation, but as a result of the Government’s package of measures, that is precisely what injured people will be faced with.

We cannot find ourselves, a year or two down the line, in a rabbit warren of even more legal advice vacuums, with stories aplenty of access to justice denied as a result of the enactment of the Bill and the forthcoming changes in the small claims limit. We must not be left with an ill-thought-out package of measures and regulations that will leave genuinely injured people with a severely limited ability to access justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I will be brief because a number of my colleagues have made important points that I do not need to repeat and because I have not been here for the whole of the debate. The reason for that is that I wanted to take part in the debate in Westminster Hall on the review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act. There is a certain symmetry to the two debates going on at the same time. The onslaught by this and the previous Government on victims and access to justice really began with the LASPO Act. It continues with this Bill.

The measures on road traffic accidents and the change to the small claims limit are basically unfair. A tariff will be introduced in respect of certain types of injury but not others. The tariff will be at a level that is far below—for a year-long injury, about £2,000 below—what would be set by a judicial authority. There seems to be no basis, fairness or logic for doing that. Why should there be two tiers for different types of injury? If the reason is what we have heard about fraud, I think even the ABI would admit that a small minority of cases are fraudulent, so why should the legitimate cases be punished because of the small minority that are fraudulent?

I used to be a personal injury practitioner and most of my work was done for insurance companies. I was always very happy to run a fraud defence and to cross-examine on that basis. Insurance companies usually were not. They preferred to settle; their eye was always on the bottom line. The Minister made a point earlier about there being a conflict between what insurance companies are up to here, but I do not think there is a conflict. Insurance companies want to depress both access to justice, in terms of people getting meritorious claims into court, and the value of that claim, which the Bill does very efficiently for them—I am sure they will be very grateful for it—but if they can make money wearing another hat through claims management companies or the passing on of information, they will be happy to do that as well. Yes, they are commercial organisations in that way, but the eye of the Justice Minister—I would have thought rather better of the Minister—should be on ensuring fairness.

Another basic unfairness is the increase to the small claims limit. It is not on the face of the Bill, but it is integral to this range of measures. I refer to the increase to £2,000 in relation to employer liability, where no fraud is ever alleged or at least only in very rare cases, and the increase to £5,000 in relation to road traffic accident claims. There is no basis for that. These are complex claims. That has been accepted in a bipartisan way. I am sorry that the House is dividing on party lines, with the honourable exception of the Chair of the Justice Committee. I hope that, in Committee, the Minister will listen more carefully to some of the reasons that have been given.

We are deprofessionalising the justice system. People will no longer be able to get representation for even quite complex legal matters and serious injuries. The judicial arm is being removed by the introduction of the tariff and the medical role is also being downgraded, because there is no proper medical definition of whiplash and a number of quite serious soft tissue injuries are likely to be included.

We have heard time and again that there are abuses that need to be corrected. Pre-medical offers are a recipe for fraud, as is cold calling—I am not sure why certain people are saying that that should not be outlawed. It should. Why are those easy targets, rather than the rights of victims, not being tackled? In employer liability cases, trade unions can effectively represent their members by taking cases to court with representation. Unison says that two thirds of people whom it has helped said that they would not have felt confident enough to pursue their claims without such support.

Finally, I turn to the personal injury discount rate. I hope that the Government will be more open to agreement and consensus on that. Tiny changes can significantly affect the damages awarded to or life experiences of very severely disabled people. I urge the Government to look again at the level of risk, which can affect awards over a lifetime, and to look carefully at the issue of the expert panel, allowing it a greater role.

Criminal Legal Aid

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon]

It is not the Criminal Bar Association’s scheme. The CBA has serious concerns about the controversial aspects of the scheme. If the scheme were fine, 90% of criminal barristers would not have voted to take this action. It is clear that something has gone wrong and that the Government have backed these barristers into a corner rather than forging the consensus we need.

The Government’s scheme fundamentally changes the way in which criminal defence advocates are paid for carrying out publicly funded work in the Crown court. The new fee system means that the vast majority of cases will now receive a flat fee for a case, so that a case with 250 pages pays the same as a case with 5,000 pages. A rape case with a single complainant and defendant will have the same fee as a rape case involving multiple victims and multiple defendants. That disincentivises lawyers from undertaking complex cases, which often require weeks of preparation.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. The main losers in this are senior-level junior practitioners, who prepare and research complex cases. There is no fee for looking at prosecution disclosure, which means there is a greater chance of miscarriages of justice. Is this not completely misconceived in the way it has been put together? As he says, it will simply lead to cases either not being taken or not being prepared to the standard that they should be.

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We cannot tolerate a situation where either the guilty walk free or the innocent go to prison.

The scheme fails to recognise the growing work required to deal with the increasing amount of evidential and unused material. Advocates are expected to consider that material without specific payments, however much additional material is served. That is especially worrying, given the fact that a series of trials, including rape trials, have recently collapsed because of failings in the disclosure of evidence.

Despite Government promises of cost neutrality, the CBA says that the scheme amounts to a £2 million cut, and no future-proofing is built into it, resulting in a year-on-year inflationary cut. The new scheme does not address the damage caused to the system by substantial real-terms cuts to legal aid rates over recent years of 40%. As a result of these reductions, there are pressing concerns about the ability to retain younger barristers and recruit the next generation into criminal defence work. After two decades without any sort of basic cost-of-living pay rise, criminal law is no longer an attractive career option for young solicitors or young barristers entering the system saddled with debt, and others are leaving because of the increasingly unreasonable demands made on them to do more and more for less and less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the barristers why they are taking action, because the new scheme is more favourable.

The consultation was broadly welcomed by the organisations I mentioned earlier. I would like to provide just one quote among many. When the consultation was put forward in 2017, the then chair of the Bar Council said:

“The suggested scheme is a fairer way of rewarding advocates for their work”,

and that it is a

“a positive example of the Ministry of Justice participating in constructive dialogue with the profession”.

As with any consultation, suggestions were made to improve the scheme. It was said, for example, that it was not right that the initial scheme proposed was to be cost-neutral as against 2014-15. Concerns were also raised that it may have an adverse impact on junior advocates. The Ministry of Justice listened to those concerns and increased the amount in the scheme in line with the costs at the time, which increased the funding by £9 million. This allowed it to improve the scheme for junior advocates. The MOJ also assesses that the scheme will cost significantly more—approximately £9 million more—than anticipated.

The new scheme in this statutory instrument is better than the one it replaces. With this motion, which calls for the new scheme to be revoked, the hon. Member for Leeds East is disadvantaging those he professes to support. He says that it is a threat to our justice system, but the motion is playing politics. It puts party politics above supporting the right outcome. With the motion, the Labour party and those who intend to join them today are using the Bar and justice as a political tool for their own ends.

[Andy Slaughter]

Minister, that is a silly thing to say, because the motion reflects the disquiet that has been expressed by the Bar. The hon. and learned Lady does not have the curiosity to ask barristers why they are unhappy; perhaps one reason is that the scheme was an alternative to a further 8.5% cut, which would have caused mayhem in the criminal courts. It is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Why does she not go back and ask the Bar who the losers are now, what the problems are and how they could be reformed, and why does she not take this away and look at it again?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am sorry if I misrepresented the position earlier. I have spoken regularly to a number of organisations that represent the leadership of the Bar. Over the last week, my Department has gone to chambers up and down this country. We have talked to them to understand their concerns about the scheme and to try to understand what position they prefer. We are extremely engaged in talking. The point I am making is that the new scheme is a better one. It was supported by the circuit leaders, the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and the Young Barristers’ Committee, and about 15 press releases all support that position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes an important point; it was in fact the last point I was going to make. If we are to win this debate on fairer funding, we need to get back to a more honest awareness of the realities of remuneration. The press have something to answer for in that regard. It is all too easy to talk about fat-cat barristers and the occasional £1 million-plus fee, which usually relates to a case that lasted about 18 months and was of a highly complex nature. Those sorts of cases are not around any more, for a raft of reasons, and those reports wholly misrepresent the position of the vast majority of barristers, who are working on really modest take-home incomes. Above all, we forget the level of deductions that have to be taken out. My hon. Friend’s point is an entirely fair one. I want to see more money in the system, but that will only come from having a strong and well-managed economy. I want to see more money in the system, but I do not think that this is the right way to go about it.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Chairman of the Select Committee is making a very good case, but he does not seem to be persuaded by his own advocacy. If this scheme corrects some of the anomalies of the previous scheme, it does so only by reducing the brief fees overall to below a level that was already extremely low. The purpose of annulling the statutory instrument is to make the Government go back and renegotiate on that basis. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept the logic of that?

[Robert Neill]

I do not accept that logic, persuasive though it might be, because annulling the SI would simply put us back on to the old scheme. I would prefer to bank what we have—imperfect though it is—and move on, pressing the Government to move more swiftly than Ministers currently intend to do on the review of the scheme, and starting to talk urgently, at the earliest possible date, with the Bar Council and the Law Society about what could be changed. I want improvements as much as Opposition Members do, but I happen to think that taking an unduly partisan approach does not serve the overall purpose of the matter.

An independent Bar, and an independent and robust solicitors profession, are a critical part of the rule of law. That is what it comes down to, and I do not accept that this is necessarily a welfare state issue, although I understand the point that the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made. Ultimately, this is about ensuring the rule of law. That is the most important thing, and the system does have to be properly funded. I say with some regret to Opposition Members that, although I have sympathy with many of the points made by the Bar and the solicitors in their evidence to us, annulling this SI is not the right route to go down. I would prefer a more consensual, evidence-based approach, and a calmer one. I hope that once this debate has passed, we will all be able to get down to that.

Joint Enterprise

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I fully agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), but I will try to make some progress.

There was a political context when the joint enterprise law began to be overused and extended in its use during the 1990s and the noughties, but there is a different political context today. As my right hon. Friend has just said, we now more clearly understand the consequences of disproportionate and unfair applications of the law against certain groups. I am pleased the Government recognised that when they launched the Lammy review and in the Prime Minister’s recent comments on “burning injustices”—I hope she can live up to that rhetoric.

Practice and the law have been far too slow to catch up with the changing mood in the country. I will briefly discuss what the Supreme Court ruling does and does not say, and what still needs to be addressed. First, the ruling is clear that the law governing secondary liability has taken a “wrong turn” and has resulted in the “erroneous” application of the law. However, it also sets out that, in order for appeals to be heard “out of time,” a substantial injustice test, not the usual unsafe conviction test, will be applied. Yet the substantial injustice test was not clearly set out in the ruling and has never been set out by Parliament. The substantial injustice test has subsequently been tested through case law and is now an almost impossibly high bar for people to clear. That is why, nearly two years on, there has yet to be a single successful appeal awarded by the Court of Appeal.

Finally, in our opinion the Supreme Court failed to address another question put before it: does joint enterprise over-criminalise secondary parties?

What needs to change in the law—first, what needs to change going forward, and secondly, how can we put right some of the injustices of the past? It is clear that joint enterprise continues to be overused and is disproportionately used against groups of young men, particularly those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. I saw that at first hand in a recent case in which 11 young black men from Moss Side faced charges of murder. Seven of them were convicted of murder and four were convicted of manslaughter. The youngest was only 14 and many of them were not previously known to the police. As research by Manchester Metropolitan University has shown in its study “Dangerous Liaisons”, more than half of all those serving life sentences are children or young adults, and more than half are from a black and ethnic minority background.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I have had the privilege of working with JENGbA, and particularly with Gloria Morrison, for seven or eight years, and I am pleased that the organisation is now located in my constituency. However, I am sorry that we have not made more progress—by “we”, I mean the House and the Government. As we have heard, JENGbA has a phenomenal record of representing 800 families in these difficult cases. I have a number of constituents serving long sentences who were convicted before the Jogee judgment and are therefore potentially subject to review; I am sure many other Members do too, given the numbers.

Before coming to those points, let me say that these matters are not easy. I am sure that we all also have constituents who have been the victims of violent crime. As my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said, we are concerned that people should be punished suitably for crimes that they have committed. There are famous cases, including those of Garry Newlove and Stephen Lawrence, in which joint enterprise played a part in the convictions. When very serious offences are committed, particularly murder, and there are victims and grieving families, it is perhaps only human nature to want to bring people to justice. The difficulty has arisen because, particularly where there are large gangs or groups, it is more difficult to identify who the actual perpetrators are. The danger of a miscarriage of justice is therefore all the greater.

Several Members have referred to the history of what has variously been called common purpose, secondary liability or joint enterprise. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said that the offence was originally developed by the common law to deal with the social evil of duelling, almost as a matter of public policy rather than law. The leading case of Swindall and Osborne in 1846 was about two cart drivers encouraging each other in a race, one of whom killed a pedestrian. It is easy to see in such cases how one can attach guilt to the person who is not the primary perpetrator. My hon. Friend also mentioned the celebrated Craig and Bentley case, in which many factors were involved. On Sunday, it will be 65 years since the execution of Derek Bentley. It is 25 years since he was pardoned, and 20 years since his sentence was quashed. Bentley, who was 19, was hanged, but the actual perpetrator, Chris Craig, was not, because he was under 18.

However such cases were resolved, it is fairly easy to see the principle of joint enterprise at work, but, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and others, we are now dealing with a number of new factors. There is the huge preponderance of people from black and minority ethnic communities who are convicted, there is the number of young people convicted, and there is, simply, the number of people who are engaged. It is, I think, wrong to say that not much attention has been paid to the issue; it is a question of what the outcomes have been. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and his predecessors have produced a number of telling reports.

The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines have been reviewed, although they may still be imperfect, and, of course, there has been the Jogee judgment. That judgment is perhaps unsurprising. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), before Jogee the level of the mental test for secondary participants was lower than the one applying to primary offenders. That had to change, and it has changed. There is, therefore, a possibility of review, but—I think the courts are cognisant of this—there is also the issue of floodgates. Will there suddenly be a huge number of cases to review because of a correction of the law—not a change in the law, but a declaration of what the law should have been all along? Many Members have said, “So be it”, but it is up to the Government to decide how the position is to be dealt with, and I am afraid that the Government have been wanting in that regard.

After Jogee, in November 2016, the then Secretary of State wrote to the Justice Committee:

“We have concluded that no further review of the law is necessary at this time.”

As far as I know, that is still the Government’s position, although we may hear otherwise from the Minister today. Let me say to the Minister that that is wrong. We need such a review. That will not be easy, because this is a complex and difficult offence and because there are arguments on both sides, but the law gets itself into a mess in exactly these areas. When I was a shadow justice Minister between 2010 and 2015, I urged my party, if it were subsequently to come to power, to look at some of these difficult issues. I am thinking of not just joint enterprise, but inchoate offences and, indeed, homicide. A number of common law offences that have developed over a period may not be fit for purpose in the modern world. I hope that we shall hear some positive answers from the Minister today. Reviewing the law in this respect cannot be left to the courts or the prosecuting authorities. Sooner or later, either this or a future Government will have to do it.

My final point—another JENGbA point—concerns evidence and statistics. I cannot believe that we are not collecting proper statistics. It is clear from the statistics that are available that a high proportion of people are convicted of homicide on the basis of joint enterprise. According to some estimates, the proportion who are sentenced is approaching 50%. Two years ago, I asked a parliamentary question on the subject. My question was:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people have been convicted under joint enterprise in each year since 2010.”

The answer was as follows:

“Such information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.”

That, too, is quite wrong. If we are to deal sensibly with this difficult and sensitive matter, we must have the facts.

It would be wonderful to hear from the Minister today that there will be a review, and that the Government will refer the matter to the Law Commission, as was indicated by the Chair of the Justice Committee. It would certainly be welcome to hear that there will be a proper collection of statistics, so that we have a sound basis on which to introduce reform.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

While the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) was ploughing through her question, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) was doing his customary knee exercises, from which I hope he greatly profits. I call Mr Andrew Slaughter.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Has the Secretary of State seen the investigation published at the weekend by The Sun into new allegations of misconduct by the west London coroner, including bullying, sexism and homophobic conduct towards staff? Despite previous findings of serious misconduct, three-year delays in issuing death certificates, secret inquests being held at night and important case papers being lost, he has been cleared by the Secretary of State to return to work. Will the Secretary of State meet west London MPs and council leaders to discuss this crisis?

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who is responsible for coroners, will be happy to meet him.

Prison Reform and Safety

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Given the short time available, I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I restrict my comments to the conditions of my local prison, HMP Wormwood Scrubs, especially as this debate coincides with the publication of the independent monitoring board’s report last week. I start by paying tribute to Rob Foreman, the chairman of the board, and his predecessor, Chris Hammond. They have done an excellent job, as do the overwhelming majority of staff at the prison, who show dedication and professionalism.

I was initially heartened when I read the covering press release, which said that promising changes had been made in some areas, such as the introduction of more CCTV and a new system for prisoners to access their property—it is true that in July the Scrubs went from grade 1, the worst grade which only a handful of prisons are in at any one time, to grade 2—but that is probably where the good news stops. We have to be frank about this: there is nothing new about problems at the Scrubs. Many years ago, it had problems with violence against prisoners and poor management. An HMI report in only April last year talked about rat-infested and overcrowded conditions, with some prisoners too frightened to leave their cells.

The difficulty is that the current problems are specifically connected to underfunding, poor services and low staff numbers, despite what we are told are efforts by the Government to increase staffing, having cut it back so dramatically under the coalition Government. There were still 57 members of staff out last year, and only 21 in.

The report says that

“complaints made by prisoners are sometimes handled inappropriately, or passed to the staff member who is the subject of the complaint.”

It says that the

“lack of maintenance…means that prisoners are frequently subjected to conditions that are indecent and not suitable for them to live in.”

Prisoners experience unacceptable delays in accessing medical treatment, and the report says that

“Care UK is not always able to provide enough staff to deliver…triage and screening processes.”

On the key issue of safety, the report says that 40 to 50 violent incidents occur in a typical month, 25% of which are gang-related. The prison has

“the second highest number of prisoners moved by ‘Tornado teams’”

and had four deaths in custody.

A terrible contractor called Carillion is responsible for maintenance, but the report says that beds were in poor condition, that toilets were broken, that cells were unheated, that staff worked in overcoats, and that there were no working urinals in parts of the prison. People are living in medieval conditions.

As for the education services, attendance at classes in June was 24%, and the library was closed for several weeks because Carillion could not fix the alarm. The Koestler Trust, which does fantastic work in prisoner art, is based in the old governor’s house outside the prison, but there is no art teaching inside. These are truly terrible conditions.

The prison has the worst record in London for accessing legal help. What that means in practice, when solicitors try to see their clients, is, to quote the report, that

“prisoners are effectively being denied access to legal advice.”

I ask the Minister to look at that, because it is not acceptable in any of our prisons, especially one that is 45% remand.

The private community rehabilitation company is MTCNovo, which I remember telling the shadow Justice Minister was not a good appointment. The report says that it does not sufficiently engage with prisoners before their release, with far too many released without any accommodation to go to. Is it any wonder that reoffending rates are so high when that is the background? It is not an accident that we are talking about companies such as Care UK, Carillion and MTCNovo. The privatisation of prison services lies behind what has happened to a substantial extent.

When the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) became Justice Secretary, we were promised a prisons revolution, but of course he did not stay around long enough to achieve that. It is odd to think that the right hon. Gentleman would be seen as the champion of the underdog in that way, but he was following the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and a tip for anyone wants to have a good reputation is to follow him into a job. What will the Minister do to address the appalling conditions that are experienced every day in our prisons?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but we need to know what we are looking for, and we need to identify the prisoners who are most likely to have links with organised crime. We now know that about 6,000 prisoners have links with organised crime on the outside and are conduits for drugs into our prisons, and that allows us to be far more effective in what we are doing to combat those operations. It is still very early days, but the point I am making is that we are beginning to see success. As we go forward, we intend to build on these successes, through our new drugs plan, which he mentioned, and our work on corruption, where it exists—even if it be only among a very few officers. He will be hearing more from me about that shortly.

Of course, this is not just about seizing or intercepting drugs. We should never forget that we have a duty of care to our prisoners—we want to help offenders with drug problems—and more of our prisons now have specialist wings to support them in overcoming their dependencies. We are also working closely with health partners to provide information, guidance and support to prisoners, visitors and staff on the impact and damaging consequences of drugs.

Hon. Members have mentioned the safety of our prisons. Ensuring safety is partly about having the right staffing levels to deliver safe and consistent regimes, and we are making swift progress in recruiting the additional 2,500 staff in the adult estate we promised in 2016: 1,255 extra prison officers have been recruited in the last year, and officer numbers are now at their highest levels since August 2013. In the youth estate, we have likewise expanded frontline staff capacity in public sector youth offender institutions by about 20%.

Preventing suicide and self-harm is also a focus of mine. We are taking decisive action to reduce the levels of self-harm by strengthening the frontline. Each individual incident of suicide or self-harm is one too many and a source of deep tragedy. We have introduced new suicide and self-harm prevention training to give everyone working in prisons, whether officers or staff from other organisations, the confidence and skills they need to support those in their care. So far, more than 10,000 prison staff have started the training, and all new prison officer and prison custody officer recruits now complete the programme as part of their initial training. I am glad to say that the number of self-inflicted deaths in custody is significantly down from last year, although I will be the first to admit that there is still a lot of work to be done.

The Chair of the Select Committee referred to the architecture of the prison system and how we can hold ourselves to account. We are strengthening the ability of the inspectorate to hold the Government and the Prison Service to account and have introduced a new urgent notification process, which had formed part of the original Prisons and Courts Bill, to enable the Secretary of State to be alerted directly where the chief inspector has a significant and urgent concern about the performance of an institution. We launched that process last month. The Secretary of State will be directly alerted by the chief inspector if an urgent issue needs addressing to ensure that recommendations are acted upon immediately. A new team of specialists accountable to Ministers will ensure that immediate action is taken and will respond within 28 days with a more in-depth plan to ensure sustained, long-term improvement for the prison.

[Andy Slaughter]

I hear what the Minister is saying, but a lot of it sounds like firefighting. I quoted from a report on the Scrubs earlier, but tomorrow we have Her Majesty’s inspectorate’s report on the Scrubs—I do not know if he has seen it yet. I have not quoted from it because it is under embargo still, but it shows endemic, long-term problems that need powerful solutions, and I just do not hear that vision coming from the Government.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman is being unfair. Recruiting more staff, investing in intelligence and technology, rolling out a drugs strategy, introducing an urgent notification process, giving more power to the inspectorate—all these things will solve the issues in our prison. I hear him on the Scrubs—I admit that there are deep-seated challenges there—but prisons are, always have been and always will be difficult places to manage. That said, we are making significant investment in tackling the problems in our prisons. As I have always said, it will not happen overnight, but the actions I am outlining show our determination and will to overcome the problems and make sure that our prisons are places of safety and reform.

Hon. Members have touched on employment and education. We have recently announced the new futures network, which will be a broker between prisons and the employment sector so as to help prisoners to find work on release and get better purposeful activity in prisons. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) mentioned that sometimes drug habits develop because prisoners are bored. Having more and better purposeful activity is important to ensuring that prisoners are purposefully occupied in prison and can gain new skills and improve their chances of finding a job on release.

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) rightly mentioned the estate. Yes, the plan is to create 10,000 additional places. Of course, there have been issues with maintenance, but those are issues for facilities managers, and I am in direct contact with them to ensure that, whatever the future plans for a prison further down the line, we maintain standards of decency in that prison.

In conclusion, reducing reoffending, protecting the public, reforming offenders and ensuring the safety and security of our staff and those in our custody remain my Department’s top priorities.

Legal Aid

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Bill Grant]

The hon. Gentleman may well be right. The fact is that we spend more per head than Germany, but I accept that that there are other considerations to take into account.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an error by reading out the Minister’s speech from the LASPO Bill’s Committee stage five years ago. What he says is no truer now than it was then. He should be looking at the effects of legal aid cuts, not the incorrect predictions made at the time the legislation went through Parliament.

[Bill Grant]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments on the decisions on cuts. They adjusted the system. It is a suitable system, which still remains, and I am sure many people will continue to benefit from legal aid.

As has been said, legal aid is devolved in Scotland and decisions on its provision are quite rightly the Scottish Government’s to make. Funding for legal aid was £138 million in a previous year; it is now down slightly by some millions, but it is fair to say that, per head, Scotland’s legal aid spending is broadly in line with the UK Government’s spending in England and Wales. When the Scottish National party came to power in Holyrood, Scotland’s legal aid system was 20 years old, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) said. Ten years on, that system is 30 years old, and it now needs to be looked at, as I am sure he would agree. After a decade of SNP rule, and despite the enactment of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, Scotland’s legal system would benefit from further reform.

It is true that we have seen some change, such as the court decision that prompted the Scottish Government to reconsider its Ministers’ decision not to exercise discretion to provide legal aid to an alleged victim of domestic abuse who sought to oppose attempts to obtain her medical records. The Scottish Conservatives had repeatedly asked for that change, to bring Scotland into line with England and Wales, but the Scottish Government repeatedly refused until the courts forced their hand. They were then slow to act: only in February did they finally see fit to launch a review of the Scottish legal aid system, which I commend. I hope the Scottish Government act soon and follow the UK Government’s lead in making legal aid sustainable, modern and fit for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid. They have set out some of the facts and figures that show the astonishing decline in the availability of legal aid since the enactment of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and I will not repeat those.

I had the pleasure—if that is the right word—of leading for the Opposition, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and the noble Lord Bach, during the year-long Committee stage of the LASPO Bill. It was pretty obvious then what the consequences were going to be, but we do not have to predict now; we have seen those consequences. That is why I was quite surprised to hear the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) repeating the shibboleths that we heard at that time: that this was just bringing us into line with what happens elsewhere, and that these were perfectly reasonable and affordable cuts. The figures we have seen show that the contrary is true.

In the other place, I think there were 11 defeats and three tied votes, all of which unfortunately were substantially reversed in this House. That was a significant indication of the level of concern, even while the Bill was going through Parliament. Were it not for the extraordinary discipline of the Liberal Democrats—this is possibly the only issue that all Members here will agree on—there would have been many more defeats, and we might have stopped some of these cuts going through. The Liberal Democrats turned out night after night to vote for legal aid cuts in the most stringent terms and ensure that those changes went through, with better discipline than the Tory peers, and we will continue to remind them about that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said, that was a sea change. It was reversing the legal aid policies put forward by the Labour Government of 1945 to ’50. The Bill at that time made legal aid permissive. In other words, legal aid was available, except where the legislation said that it was not available. LASPO completely reverses that and says that one has to define exactly the very specific means by which legal aid is made available. The net result is not only that in many areas, particularly of social welfare law, legal aid has been withdrawn specifically, but that in reality it has been withdrawn entirely, because neither the voluntary sector nor private practice can continue it with what meagre fare there is to allow it to operate. Many areas of the country have become advice deserts.

[Ian C. Lucas]

To pick up on the advice deserts point, during my 16-year parliamentary career, the Ministry of Justice and the local justice departments have very much moved away from their local communities and are now incredibly distant from the communities that they served. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to localise provision in a much better and more responsive way?

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend knows that very well from his professional background. I entirely agree with him and will say in a moment what I think should be done to reverse what he describes, but while we are diagnosing the problem, I must point out that there has been an extraordinary effect on the advice sector and on the courts. Indeed, we can see it in our surgeries. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I now provide 20-minute appointments, and often that is not long enough to see constituents. I refrain, not having a practice specifically any more, from giving legal advice, but that is in effect what people are coming to ask for, whether in areas of family law, immigration, employment or housing. Those are not the sorts of complaint or issue that I remember dealing with 10 years ago. These people have come, possibly as a first port of call, to Members of Parliament—research has shown that this is the case—simply because there is nowhere else to go.

Let me use the example of my constituency. Many of our advice agencies—such as Threshold, which provides specialist housing advice, and the Shepherd’s Bush advice centre—and many of the specialist agencies dealing with specific communities have simply closed down. I am very lucky, in that I have an extremely supportive council. Labour took power again in 2014, and it is now rehousing and properly funding the Hammersmith law centre, which I have had the pleasure of being on the board of for some 30 years. Therefore, along with the citizens advice bureaux, some good provision remains in the area, but I suspect that it is the exception rather than the rule.

I pay tribute not only to Members of the House who have taken an interest in the subject, but to the practitioners out there in the country. My law centre is watched over by Sue James, who was legal aid lawyer of the year after 25 years of practice and setting up other law centres in London. It is the dedication of people such as her, Carol Storer of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group and Nicola Mackintosh that has in effect, despite the Government’s best efforts, kept the legal aid system going in this country over this period. However, it is absolutely at breaking point.

I therefore have something to ask of the Minister, who is an intelligent and fair man and knowledgeable in these areas, when he does the review, but let me just say this about the review. It is being done at the last possible moment, and possibly beyond the last possible moment, because if I remember correctly, the undertaking given during the passage of LASPO was that the review would begin within three to five years. I think that the end of the five years will be next April and that the review is not starting till the summer, so we really are squeezing it into the last minute. I hope that it will be a proper review and that it will look in particular at the Bach commission report, because that is an extremely thorough report by the people in this country who probably best understand the issue and the problems that arise. I hope that it looks across the board at what needs to be done—not just, as we have heard, at early advice and the restoration of legal aid, particularly in areas of social welfare law, but at the means test, at the system for contributions and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) said, at the localisation of services, because nothing is really working at the moment.

We need a root-and-branch review, and fresh legislation may well be required. Unless the Government are prepared to look at the matter with fresh eyes, instead of taking the blinkered approach that was taken with LASPO, it will be not only bad for my constituents and those of other hon. Members present, but bad for the system of justice in this country, because the courts are not functioning properly. Litigants in person are flooding the courts, and there are delays throughout the system. The compound effect of cuts in the legal aid system and the Courts Service over the past five years is that we can no longer say that we have a system of justice of which we can be proud, and I greatly regret that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

I have not seen that article, but we are constantly looking to ensure that the court system is as amenable as it can be to litigants in person. Contrary to what the shadow Minister suggested, a range of support is available for that; we have ensured that persons without legal representation can get help and support. Since 2015, the Government have invested £5 million of funding to support litigants in person through the litigant in person support strategy, which works with a range of partners across the advice, voluntary and pro bono sectors to provide practical support, whether that is online self-help resources, access to free or affordable legal advice or representation where possible. Personal support units provide trained volunteers who give free and independent assistance to people facing proceedings without legal representation in civil and family courts and tribunals. More personal support units have opened in courts to provide direct support and information to litigants in person, and there are now 20 such centres in 16 cities.

[Andy Slaughter]

I hesitate to say this, but the Minister is being a bit complacent. All the organisations that he names are wholly laudable, but a PSU, for example, does not give legal advice. Pro bono services are excellent but they cannot compensate for the reduction in legal aid. Mediation is important, but there will be some cases in family law that need to go to a contested hearing. We would like to hear from the Minister that the review will look at the actual effects on the ground, and that where there is a deficit, there will be a genuine attempt to address that. Further, we are asking that he looks at the Bach commission report as part of that process.

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman has made his intervention in his usual powerful way. I gave the assurance he wanted that the review would be comprehensive and I have looked at the Bach commission report. I would love to know where Opposition Members would make allocations of public funding to pay for the estimated £400 million needed to fund those reforms. On our side, we want to ensure that we can allocate legal aid as best we can, but we have to take the cost into account.

The point I was in the middle of making in relation to litigants in person was one that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) made in his intervention. We have also delivered training to better equip the judiciary to support litigants in person through the court process.

To respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), my Department is taking steps to improve the situation of bereaved families at inquests. The inquest process is distinct; it can be incredibly traumatic for the bereaved. It is important to help them to understand how their loved ones died, which can be particularly hard so soon after the event. My heart goes out to anyone who goes through that—not just the grief but the fact-finding process, with all the legal and bureaucratic procedures of the inquest system, which must be rather daunting and challenging for a layperson. I agree that early legal advice can be helpful in allowing families to understand the process, which is why we have protected it for inquests within the scope of legal aid. Inquests are supposed to be inquisitorial, and most inquest hearings are conducted without the need for publicly funded representation. However, we recognise that legal representation may be necessary in some circumstances, for which funding is available through the exceptional case funding scheme.

Dame Elish Angiolini’s important report on deaths in custody highlighted that there are issues relating to public participation. I reviewed that report and I take it very seriously, which is why we committed to update the Lord Chancellor’s guidance so it is clear that the starting presumption is that legal aid should be awarded for representation of the families at an inquest following the non-natural death or suicide of a person detained in custody. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring hon. Members. We could debate that important work for much longer, but I will wind up shortly.

As well as looking back over the record of LASPO and some of the previous decisions, it is also crucial to look forward and ensure that access to justice, to which legal aid makes a hugely valuable contribution, is maintained and meets the needs of a modern society. We are investing over £1 billion to transform our courts and tribunals to build on our world-renowned justice system so that it is more sensitive to victims, more modern so that it works more efficiently, swifter and more accessible in the ways that I have described. As part of that, we will digitise our services to make them easier for the public to use, whether or not they are supported by a lawyer. It is essential that we continue our work to ensure that legal aid is made available to the most vulnerable, as part of that wider approach to making access to justice and the justice system fit for the 21st century.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East again on securing this debate. I welcome the thoughtful contributions on all sides and the opportunity to set out the Government’s position and our plans to take the justice system forward, not back.

Youth Justice System: Gypsies and Travellers

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered outcomes for Gypsies and Travellers in the youth justice system.

I am very pleased to have secured this debate in order to raise the experiences and disproportionate representation of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children in our youth justice system. This is a significant issue for the youth justice system. The most recent annual “Children in Custody” report, an independent report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons commissioned by the Youth Justice Board, was published in November last year and revealed yet again the over-representation of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children in youth custody, as have numerous reports before it.

Despite a welcome decrease in the number of children in custody in recent years, analysis of the “Children in Custody” report by the Traveller Movement shows that the number of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children and young people in custody remains disproportionately high: 12% of children in secure training centres identify as Gypsy, Traveller or Roma, as do 7% of boys in young offenders institutions, and 51% of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children in young offenders institutions report that this is not their first time in custody.

The figures, which are troubling in themselves, almost certainly understate the true position. The “Children in Custody” report is based on survey data, not on comprehensive and systematic monitoring of young offenders and children. The surveys completed by young offenders are based on information from only five young offenders institutions, and young offenders institutions sited in the adult prison estate are not included. Yet the Irish Chaplaincy, for example, estimates that YOI Isis, which is situated in Belmarsh prison, currently houses around 20 Gypsies and Travellers aged 18 to 21. There is little data available on sentence length, although we know that a third of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma boys in young offenders institutions had been sentenced to less than 12 months in custody. It is therefore reasonable to assume that over a full year, the overall number of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma boys in custody in the youth justice system will be higher.

However, perhaps reflecting the relative paucity of data, such over-representation in the youth custody system does not always receive sufficient official recognition and attention. All too often, Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children are overlooked by both service providers and policy makers. For example, Charlie Taylor’s recent review of the youth justice system did not mention Gypsy, Traveller and Roma young people at all, despite the representations made to him by those groups.

Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children share similar characteristics with other children in custody, particularly in relation to having been in care and their poor educational experience. It is clear, despite the deficiencies of the data that we have and the lack of attention to their circumstances, that the disproportionate representation of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma young people in the youth custody system reflects the widespread failure of support systems and services prior to those young people entering custody.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend secured a debate on this subject. She is right that we have sufficient information, because of the work of the Irish Chaplaincy and others, to know that discrimination is a serious problem, but it is shameful that the Government do not collect the statistics. Would she welcome the Minister telling us today that the Government will use up-to-date census data and will have a comprehensive investigation of this issue?

[Kate Green]

As my hon. Friend will hear, that will be the precise thrust of my speech this morning.

Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children are disproportionately likely to be the subject of care proceedings. That feeds through to the significant numbers of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children in custody who have been in local authority care: 47% and 33% in secure training centres and young offenders institutions respectively, according to the Traveller Movement.

Meanwhile, at every key stage of their schooling, Gypsies and Travellers have lower rates of attainment. Again, their poor educational experience prior to entering custody shows up in the youth justice system: 84% of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma boys in young offenders institutions had been excluded from school, and 55% said they were 14 or younger the last time they attended school.

Although their routes into custody offer a depressing reflection of the disadvantage that Gypsy, Traveller and Roma young people experience in wider society, what is even more depressing is that these failures continue while Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children are in custody. Generally speaking, those children have a worse experience in custody compared with other children, whether in education, safety, health, understanding procedures, or being prepared for life after release. At every stage when the state ought to be looking after these young people, helping them to develop and preparing them for positive lives on release, it fails them. That need not be the case.

Despite Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children being significantly more likely to have left education early, had lower rates of attainment and had higher rates of absences and exclusions, they have very positive perceptions towards education while in custody. Some 61% of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children in secure training centres believed education would benefit them when they left. In young offenders institutions, 70% said education would benefit them, compared with 58% of non-Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children. Gypsy, Traveller and Roma boys were also more likely to be involved in vocational and skills training or to have a job while in custody.

Despite indications of a positive appetite for education, opportunities are being missed. In secure training centres, only 55% of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children, compared with 70% of other children, said that they had learnt skills for jobs that they would like to do in future. Youth custody institutions and facilities need to develop targeted strategies to improve educational outcomes for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in custody, and need to promote courses that will allow those young people to lawfully participate in businesses that fit with their family lives and culture on release.

A similar picture pertains in relation to health. The Irish Chaplaincy’s “Voices Unheard” report first identified that a significant proportion of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma prisoners suffer mental health issues. The Traveller Movement’s research into the “Children in Custody” responses found that those children in secure training centres were twice as likely to report having unmet health needs, while a quarter of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma boys in young offenders institutions said they were disabled and 23% reported emotional or mental health problems.

Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children in secure training centres were significantly more likely to report feeling unsafe and experiencing bullying or intimidation by staff or other young people. According to the Howard League, half had been restrained compared with 29% of other children. We see a similar experience in young offenders institutions with Gypsy, Traveller and Roma boys reporting higher rates of victimisation from other young people. Gypsy, Traveller and Roma detainees were also three and five times more likely to have their canteen and property taken off them by other young people in young offenders institutions and secure training centres respectively.

Finally, in secure training centres, Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children struggled to maintain contact with their families, and were less likely to know who to look to for help when opening a bank account, finding accommodation or continuing health services when released. Gypsy, Traveller and Roma boys in young offenders institutions were also less likely to know who they should contact if they encountered problems on release.

It is clear that many steps need to be taken to address the poor outcomes for Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children in custody. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) suggested, a significant barrier is the lack of adequate data. In schools, every headteacher knows the exact ethnic breakdown of his or her pupils and is therefore able to adapt strategies and policies to correct any disadvantages they experience. Shockingly, such data are not available in the youth custody system. Reports such as “Children in Custody” present only a partial snapshot. As the then prisons Minister conceded on 9 March 2015 in answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, Ministers

“are unable to determine the actual number”

of young Gypsies and Travellers in youth custody establishments.

The limitations of relying only on survey data are compounded by the fact that the youth justice system still uses ethnic monitoring systems based on the 2001 census classifications. Since 2011, the census has used the so-called 18+1 ethnic categorisation, which enables the identification of Gypsies and Travellers. Reflecting that, the police are expected to update their ethnic monitoring system soon to include Gypsies and Travellers, while the adult prison estate has monitored Gypsies and Travellers since 2011.The youth justice system will therefore be the only key criminal justice agency without proper modern ethnic monitoring of Gypsies and Travellers.

Given the troubling picture presented by the Traveller Movement, the Irish Chaplaincy, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons and others, it is not surprising that pressure for the youth justice system to address the issue is mounting. In November last year, amendments tabled by Baroness Brinton to the Policing and Crime Bill would have required the introduction of ethnic monitoring in the youth criminal justice system for Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children and young people. In the debate on her amendments on 16 November, Baroness Brinton pointed to the need to move to the 18+1 system to consistently capture the representation and experience of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma young people in the youth custody system. The national police chiefs lead for Gypsy, Traveller and Roma issues, Deputy Chief Constable Janette McCormick, wrote to the Lord Chancellor, urging her to support the amendments.

I recognise that obstacles exist to introducing that system of ethnic monitoring in the youth justice system. In the Lords’ debate on the Policing and Crime Bill, Baroness Whitaker acknowledged that

“Many young people from the Gypsy and Traveller communities are fearful of admitting their ethnicity because of the bullying and exclusion”

that they had previously experienced—but, as she pointed out,

“trust can be developed if the information is shown to be helpful.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 November 2016; Vol. 776, c. 1499.]

I also recognise concerns about the cost and complexity of changes to case management systems. Similar arguments were raised about the extension of ethnic monitoring to encompass Gypsies and Travellers in the police systems, but discussions with the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs Council revealed that there would be no cost to upgrading their systems. It is highly doubtful that the youth justice system can have a significantly more difficult or complex case management system than the police, which have eight or nine additional data sets and 45 territorial police forces to contend with.

From my conversations, I do not believe that what is needed in the youth justice system is a complete corporate systems overhaul, but instead a small amendment to existing data systems. In any event, the cost of updating the system is outweighed by the benefits of helping to turn around the lives of these children and ensuring they lead purposeful, positive lives on release. I know that point is recognised by Lord McNally, chair of the Youth Justice Board. I was very grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the matter with him recently and I very much welcome his constructive engagement.

I am also pleased that in a letter to Lord Rosser following the House of Lords debate last November in response to points he raised about the cost of changing systems, Baroness Chisholm said that the Youth Justice Board is committed to moving to the 18+1 classification, but I note that no specific timescales or costs were suggested in that letter.

Children from a Traveller background clearly experience greater levels of need and have worse experiences in custody than other children. A year ago, the then chief inspector of prisons Nick Hardwick said that

“with any other group such huge disproportionality would have led to more formal inquiry and investigation into what part of their backgrounds or interaction with the criminal justice system had led to this situation.”

I applaud the Prime Minister’s commitment to monitoring racial disparities in public service outcomes and nowhere is that more acutely needed than in relation to Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children. I was therefore very pleased that in responding to me at Cabinet Office questions on 2 November last year, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General said that he would ensure that every Government Department and agency would use the 2011 census classifications. Nowhere is it more surely time to move from warm words to taking action properly to capture and monitor the data needed to address the needs of this deeply disadvantaged group of children than in the youth justice system. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us the tangible steps the Government are taking to do that and that they are taking them quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lee]

No, but I will write to the hon. Lady with a guide to how long it will take. There are some issues around the implementation, as she will understand, not least because the national census criteria may change again. It is work in progress, but I am happy to write to her.

Not only would the YJB have to make changes to its central systems, but it is likely that the youth offending teams would have to amend their individual case management systems too.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am very glad about what the Minister has said, but to clarify that point, is he saying that that will happen and he is just going to give us a date, or that it might happen depending on the cost?

[Dr Lee]

No, I am not committing to it happening. I am committing to coming back to Members with the approach we are taking. There are potential issues not only with the costs, but with how the work is going to be implemented across a diverse set of institutions, which are run by different organisations. I am committed to coming back with a schedule setting out the timing and how we are approaching this issue.

Work has begun on looking into the implications of the changes. In October 2016, the Youth Justice Board informed the four case management system suppliers, which cover 158 youth offending teams in England and Wales, of its intention to move towards the revised classification system. It is formalising its business requirements prior to initiating a preliminary impact assessment, which will set out the dependencies with existing IT systems and identify the feasibility and indicative costs of moving to the revised classification system.

On an issue raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, the Government agree in principle with the use of the 18+1 system. We opposed the amendments that Baroness Brinton tabled to the Policing and Crime Bill for two main reasons: first, because further work was required to consider the cost and feasibility; and, secondly, because enshrining its use in legislation would create issues in the event that the Office for National Statistics decided to change the 18+1 system and introduce a new system of ethnicity classification in the future.

Although there is much work to do, the Government are committed to accurate monitoring of ethnicity across the youth justice system.

Question put and agreed to.

Prison Safety and Reform

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that engaging with employers is vital. We have seen some fantastic examples, such as Timpson and Virgin, which are already working closely with us. My hon. Friend the prisons Minister will be doing further work on this subject and making further announcements on it shortly.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I think I heard the Secretary of State admit that cutting 25% of prison officers had been a mistake, but restoring just over a third of that number might not be enough. Will she keep this under review, and can she tell me whether particularly troubled prisons such as Wormwood Scrubs, which have had a temporary uplift in staff numbers, will be able to keep those staff? Will the numbers there go up rather than down?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The number of staff we are putting in is based on the evidence of our new offender management model. The idea is that each prison officer will be responsible for supervising and mentoring six prisoners and challenging them to reform. There is an important evidential base for that programme, but we will of course continue to look at it as we develop it. We have measures in place in London prisons to help staff recruitment and retention.