Legal Guardianship and Missing People

Christina Rees Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. May I start by expressing, on behalf of the Government and, I am sure, the whole House, our condolences to the people of Belgium? It goes without saying that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them at this very difficult time.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government on this important issue. It is a technical issue when it comes to how we respond and reform the system, but one of heartfelt agony for the families who have to endure the predicament that my hon. Friend expressed so eloquently.

With that in mind, I pay tribute to those who have done so much to put and keep the subject on the agenda. They include, in the House, the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults, and the Justice Committee, which has called for reforms consistently in 2011 and 2012; and the charity Missing People, which has steadfastly campaigned on behalf of missing people and their families. I personally acknowledge the deep heartache of the many families involved, which lies beneath the technical details of the proposals that I will outline. It would be remiss of me to pass up the opportunity to pay particular tribute to Peter Lawrence and his family, who are constituents of my hon. Friend. I know that Mr Lawrence is here today, and I extend that recognition and tribute to him and his family.

Claudia Lawrence has now been missing for seven years, and I am pained every time I see or read about the case. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for her family and, of course, for others in the same position. I know that my hon. Friend and Mr Lawrence will be disappointed that we have not legislated sooner. I acknowledge that. All I can say is that we will do everything we can to progress the proposals into legislation. I am inspired by the example that Mr Lawrence and my hon. Friend have set in that regard. It is important, and I give an undertaking, to keep the case of Claudia and the many others like her whom I have learned about—and the human toll of those cases—at the forefront of my mind as we take forward the technical legal proposals.

At present, as has been recognised, the common law rather pragmatically assumes that a person is alive until proven dead. It can therefore be slow to enable control of a person’s property and affairs to be given up to another person following an unexplained disappearance. The truth is that that gives us all a degree of protection, but it also means that when a person disappears with no explanation, their friends and family are left to face the practical difficulties of protecting the interests of the missing person and carrying on with their lives, on top of the deep emotional and personal shock and the challenge of coping without that person at the heart of their lives.

Those left behind may have access to funds, perhaps in a joint account that was previously controlled by the missing person. However, without the good will of third parties, the chances are that they will not have access to, or the ability to control, the missing person’s assets, whether in cash or in kind. They may find themselves effectively in a legal vacuum or void. In practical terms, that may mean being unable to adjust standing orders with a bank, or something as simple as that. It may mean being unable to ensure proper care for dependants, or it may create complications for businesses that have to get on with their daily and monthly work. Joint mortgages may be rendered, in practice, effectively unmanageable. Lots of basic daily things become increasingly difficult to keep a handle on and to keep control of in such a legal vacuum.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing the debate. The Opposition wholeheartedly support the campaign by Mr Lawrence and Missing People. I have been through this myself. My uncle disappeared many years ago. He just walked out of our lives, and to this day we do not know what happened to him, which has made it very, very difficult to handle matters. This debate is close to my heart. I urge the Minister to proceed with the proposals as soon as possible and end the heartache.

I cannot imagine what you have been through, Mr Lawrence. My heartache pales into insignificance compared with yours.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for sharing her personal insight and for her expression of cross-party support for the proposals, which certainly helps. The Government acknowledge the very real predicament of families such as the Lawrence family.

International Women’s Day 2016

Christina Rees Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak in today’s debate and to follow the hon. Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani).

My constituency is not short of formidable, tenacious, and inspiring women. It is a great privilege for me to be the first woman to represent Neath in the House, and to have the responsibility of carrying on the legacy of all the women who have made contributions to public life in Neath. I am, in more ways than one, standing on the shoulders of giantesses.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Gwenda Thomas, the first and only woman Welsh Assembly Member for Neath, who is retiring at the end of the month after 17 years of service to both her constituency and Wales’s devolved Administration. Winifred Coombe Tennant, a British suffragette and philanthropist, made her home at Cadoxton Lodge, in my constituency. She was a leading figure in the campaign for women’s suffrage in south Wales. Katherine Jenkins, the globally recognised soprano, was born and grew up in Neath, and her mother remains a committed activist. The recently ennobled Dame Siân Phillips, a world renowned actress and singer, is from Gwaun Cae Gurwen. Another of Neath’s famous singing women, Bonnie Tyler, needs no introduction, nor does her song, “Lost in France”.

During the miners’ strike of 1984, women led from the front of the picket lines, organised valley support groups, and kept spirits alive in homes and heartlands across south Wales. The story of the 1984 miners’ strike was most recently told in the triumphant film “Pride”, which tells how the lesbian and gay community supported miners in the Dulais valley, and the story of the tireless and fearless Hefina Headon, a woman who was as much a leader during those times as any lodge chairman.

Out of that story of pride, adversity, camaraderie and success grew an innovative community organisation called the Dove Workshop, set up by women for women. Its founders include Hefina Headon and Mair Francis. The organisation has been held up across Europe as a model for community adult education. Established to offer women opportunities to retrain during the years that followed the miners strike, it was the birthplace of the Community University of the Valleys and has subsequently supported thousands of women to gain qualifications, including undergraduate degrees.

The Dulais valley is also home to Bethan Howell, Welsh rugby international, founding member of Seven Sisters RFC ladies’ rugby team and champion of equality. I must also pay tribute to two exceptional women who have had a profound impact on sport in Wales, Professor Laura McAlister and Sarah Powell, both of whom have had outstanding sporting careers and are now leading the way as the first female chair and CEO of Sport Wales respectively. Of course, one of Great Britain’s greatest Olympians of all time is Baroness “Tanni” Grey-Thompson of Eaglescliffe. In my sport of squash we have Welsh international Tesni Evans, who has recently reached a career-high world ranking of 24. Of course there is also Margaret Coleman, wife of Donald Coleman, one of my predecessors, one of the most tenacious women I have ever met, and one of the busiest octogenarians I know.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is offering an impressive list of powerful Welsh women, and obviously she is one of them. Will she join me in paying tribute to Baroness Gale of Blaenrhondda in the other place, who has done so much in the Welsh Labour party to stand up for the rights of women, and who continues to do so to this day?

[Christina Rees]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it would be remiss of me not to mention Baroness Gale.

I am proud to be taking through a private Member’s Bill—it is scheduled to have its Second Reading next Friday—that would bind in law the need to include mothers’ names on marriage certificates, something that does not currently happen, and an inequality that is yet to be set right.

It was a Labour Government who passed the Equal Pay Act 1970, a monumental occasion in women’s history, but one that, unfortunately, did not mark the end of inequality. Forty-six years on, women still earn only, on average, 81p for every £1 earned by a man. There is much more to be done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christina Rees Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

So many of the women who end up in our prisons represent a failure of society to intervene and address the causes of their offending behaviour or other issues in their lives. The whole-system approach that we are piloting in England and Wales will enable us to intervene earlier to put in place the right interventions and support that will enable us to do just that.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

The case of Sarah Reed highlights the Government’s failings on the mistreatment of prisoners with mental health issues. With women accounting for around a quarter of self-harm incidents, but only 5% of the prison population, will the Minister outline what action she is taking to lower the number of women who self-harm in prison?

[Caroline Dinenage]

We know that the women in our prisons are more likely to self-harm than their male counterparts. They are also more likely to suffer from mental health problems, to have drug and alcohol addictions and to have experienced such things as domestic violence and sexual abuse earlier on in their lives. That is why we are trying to divert as many people as possible from prison by putting in place interventions to address their offending behaviour as early as possible and to support them in any way that we can, and why we also have interventions within the prison estate to support such women.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Christina Rees Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Usually, when somebody says to me, “So-and-so is being a bit waspy,” it is a signal to tread with some care, so when I was told that a load of women who were concerned about this issue were coming to see me at my surgery on Friday, I trod with sufficient care. I was able to tell them that I spoke on Second Reading of the 2011 Act to point out that the women who left Foxhills comprehensive in my constituency in 1970 were the very women who would be affected, that it was not fair and that, frankly, there needed to be a better deal than two months’ transitional mudge.

I am aware that we are short of time, so I will just give a voice to those women. Marie Spikings said to me:

“My personal story began when I was 15 years old, leaving school at Easter with no qualifications. From the start of my working life at 15 years I paid a full National Insurance stamp believing that I was entering into a contract.”

That is a common belief. She continued:

“I understand the need for equality, however the 2011 Act has given me no time to prepare for working until I am 66! Not only have I lost thousands of pounds but also the benefits that come with the state pension e.g. heating allowance and bus pass etc.”

That is a key point about the other allowances, from which those women are now debarred. She told me:

“I am a single parent through no fault of my own. Day to day life is a struggle as I have a dependent child, and a disabled dependent adult child. I am tired and the thought of having to work for another 5 years is daunting to say the least.”

Christine said to me: “I feel trapped.” Her choices have been taken away from her.

Annette said to me:

“I was born in May 1954 and my state pension date has been moved twice, the first time I was informed in writing that it was changing from my 60th birthday to my 64th year. Since then I had heard nothing until someone told me to check the website by entering my DOB. The date for my state pension then came up as January 2021 another 18 months on. I am sure you will agree this is completely unfair”.

That is an example of the poor communication that we have heard about. Another woman pointed out to me that her older sister, who was born in April 1952, has already received her state pension. The woman who wrote to me is 22 months younger than her sister and has to wait an extra five years and five months—not fair and not reasonable. I could go on to give many similar examples.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

There are 3,540 women affected by the changes in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that the 1995 changes were reasonably well communicated, but the 2011 changes were badly communicated? Some women who are affected by the 1995 changes were also affected by the 2011 changes, which compounded the issue.

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend has it spot on. Communication, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) said, is one of the issues at the heart of the matter. What happened in 2011 compounded what had happened previously, and the situation is totally unfair.

The debate has been quite good since we got to the Back-Bench speeches, although my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) did a good job of kicking things off. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who drew attention to my hon. Friend’s six suggestions and said that they were a good starting point. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said that there was a deal to be done, and I think he is right. The hon. Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) encouraged Ministers to find a way to put right the injustices.

The women we are talking about are not asking for the world. They are not even asking for the things that some people have suggested that they are asking for. They are simply asking for a reasonable settlement and a reasonable deal, which is what they deserve.

Criminal Cases Review Commission (Information) Bill

Christina Rees Excerpts

Friday 5th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

First, may I echo the sentiments that have been expressed about the sad passing of our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough? We came into the House together in the 2015 intake, and he was always so supportive and so positive. He was a man with great dignity. We will miss him dearly, and our thoughts are with his wife and family.

I will keep my comments on the Bill brief, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) set out the case for it clearly and in great detail. The Opposition will not oppose the Bill, for the following reasons.

The CCRC performs a vital function in our criminal justice system. That system is crucial to prosecuting criminals, but also to supporting victims efficiently and effectively. However, sometimes, those processes do not work when someone is in fact innocent. The CCRC’s function is to ensure that those innocents can investigate their case and to consider whether there is a real possibility of their conviction not being upheld and of the case being referred to an appeal court.

The Bill will extend section 17 powers to require all persons, corporate and unincorporated, and all natural and legal companies, including partnerships, to provide the CCRC with documents or other material necessary to its investigations. That will put the CCRC in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the same position as the Scottish CCRC, which has had those powers for 18 years —nearly two decades.

The absence of powers to obtain material from the private sector has often disadvantaged applicants to the CCRC. The powers cover expert witnesses at trials and their personal notes; original contemporaneous notes of interviews recorded by clinicians in NHS files; information received by forensic medical examiners from victims of crime during their examinations; journalists and legal departments of newspapers; banking organisations; companies that have no direct involvement or interest in a case; companies that provide details of employees; private counselling records; third sector organisations such as the Samaritans, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and ChildLine; and campaign groups. They will now all be caught by the section 18A powers.

The overwhelming number of private individuals approached by the CCRC agree to disclose material, but the Bill is for those who do not. They will not be able to hide behind data security legislation or the fact that information has a security classification. The CCRC re-examines and re-tests material from crime scenes, but the Forensic Science Service was abolished by the coalition Government and replaced with a private organisation from 2012. Material was not, therefore, available under section 17, but it will now be available under section 18A powers.

In the past, the CCRC has had good co-operation with its requests for case files from solicitors representing applicants at trial and/or on appeal. In part, that co-operation has been due to the relevant professional codes of conduct. In recent times, as has been said, pressure on legally aided firms has led to the CCRC having difficulties obtaining legal material. Often, such requests are the last priority on solicitors’ work lists, and that has led to protracted negotiations, leading to delays and discussions about who bears the cost of transferring the materials in question. Section 18A will cut those lengthy delays and expedite justice.

The Opposition welcome the safeguards that the Bill will put in place. The CCRC should always attempt to obtain information voluntarily, but if such information were not forthcoming, there would be a court order accompanied by judicial oversight, as specified in clause 1(1). A person will be obliged to provide the CCRC with the relevant information, subject to the order of a Crown court judge.

The Bill will impose no financial costs or charges directly on the CCRC or private bodies. The Scottish CCRC has had only one contested proceedings case in nearly two decades. Will the Minister clarify, however, whether the non-disclosure penalties on private bodies will be the same as they are now for criminal and civil proceedings? In addition, with the CCRC’s funding by grant in aid from the Ministry of Justice in 2014-15 amounting to £5.67 million—a reduction of 30% over the past decade—does he anticipate that the creation of the new powers under proposed section 18A will lead to an increased number of cases, increased workload and therefore the need for increased funding?

As I said, the new power is necessary because not being able to request private information has hindered the CCRC’s working practices. Labour Members will support the Bill, because a person convicted of a crime that they did not commit becomes a victim. In prison, with all the pressure that brings, some victims of miscarriages of justice have taken their own lives. That cannot be allowed to happen again.

draft Civil Proceedings, Family Proceedings and Upper Tribunal Fees (amendment) order 2016

Christina Rees Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 General Committees

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. We on this side agree that the Courts and Tribunals Service should be run as smoothly, and with as little expense to the taxpayer, as is reasonably possible. However, we do not believe that the justice system should be used as a cash cow to make up for the shortfall in Government funding. Any attempts to plug the gap in funding should not be on the backs of people applying for a divorce.

The draft order increases fees across a number of civil litigation areas. However, our main bone of contention is with the substantial increase in the fees for divorce applications. The Government seek to increase those enhanced fees on the backs of people who are already going through a traumatic period of life. We heard this week from the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, who has rightly criticised the Government’s increase of court fees, and from Sir James Munby, who referred to the increase as a “poll tax on wheels”, with those who want a divorce having to do so “through gritted teeth”.

In the Government’s own words, the Lord Chancellor has consulted

“the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, the President of the Family Division, the Chancellor of the High Court, the Deputy Head of Civil Justice and the Civil Justice Council…They have expressed their opposition to the increased divorce fee as they think that it will be a disincentive for divorce and in particular, women that are victims of domestic violence.”

An overwhelming majority—87%—of the people who engaged with the consultation on this proposal disagreed with it. The House of Lords scrutiny Committee, when looking at the SI, expressed disappointment that the Government had given no justification for the policy other than to generate income.

The average cost of divorce is about £270, but the Minister wishes to charge the public double that, to plug a funding gap. It beggars belief that the Government would go ahead with raising these fees without the support of the judiciary and the public, putting access to justice for vulnerable people, and especially those in abusive relationships, further out of reach. Divorce is not taken lightly, but once the decision is made there is no choice but to go through the courts, and people will be rightly aggrieved that the Government are making money out of their misery.

Opposition Members will not vote against the fee increases, but we would appreciate it if the Minister answered some questions and made some commitments.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am sure the hon. Lady will want to be careful to make clear that for those in abusive relationships, the act of going through a divorce is not a necessary component of separating themselves from their abuser. Ultimately, the protection of vulnerable people should not be affected, whatever the fees for the divorce.

[Christina Rees]

Does the Minister agree that increasing these enhanced fees will discourage women in abusive marriages from pursuing litigation, as they may see the fee increase as a bridge too far?

[Graham Stuart]

For someone severing a relationship with a person who may have abused them, obviously this is a higher fee, but going through the act of divorce is not a necessary part of the personal safety of those who are abused. It is important that people realise that they need to separate themselves from their abuser and not worry about eventual, actual legal separation in order to get the physical separation that is important to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christina Rees]

What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of divorce rates—

[Graham Stuart]

Can the hon. Lady respond without reading?

[Christina Rees]

I took the hon. Gentleman’s point on board the first and second time he made it.

What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the fee increase on divorce rates? Does he agree that the fee increase will have a disproportionate effect on women, given that of 118,000 divorce applications, 65% are made by women? Will he commit to a proper review of the fees and review any negative impacts they may have, especially on access to justice and vulnerable women?

[Mr Vara]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments and her agreement with the general thrust of the order—the need for an efficient Courts and Tribunals Service. I am happy to give consideration to the points she has made, and I hope to give her some assurance.

I recognise, as do the Government, that divorce is a very difficult time for the people concerned, particularly where families are involved. It is, however, important to remember two basic points. First, we have listened to the public. In response to their concerns, we did not go ahead with the initial proposal to raise the fees to £750, but will instead raise them to £550. Secondly, where people are unable to afford the fees, we have a remission scheme in place that will give them full or part remission, depending on their means.

[Christina Rees]

The point I was making is that the Government are making a profit on the £270 cost of divorce. That was my first point. Also, how difficult is it to get through that remission system? I understand that it is quite difficult.

[Mr Vara]

As far as the profit element is concerned, the hon. Lady will appreciate that we passed legislation to make it possible for fees to be raised to a higher level than simply cost value. She will appreciate, I hope, that the Government have a mandate to fix the economy, and that mandate was given at the general election. We put our cards on the table—our manifesto was there—and said that we would continue to have to take some tough decisions.

The increase is not an easy decision, and I do not for one moment say that it is. It is a difficult decision, but I hope she will accept that it is necessary as part of our overall scheme to ensure that we can raise sufficient funds. Through that, we can ensure that the responsibilities of the economy are taken on board by this generation and not passed on to the next or to our grandchildren.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christina Rees Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

We learnt this week that a district judge is suing the Ministry of Justice, blowing the whistle on the rising number of death threats and the increasingly violent claimants that our judges are having to deal with day in, day out. Given that that comes so soon after the Lord Chief Justice’s warning that judges face a rising number of challenging and emotionally charged cases, what action is the Minister taking to address these claims, or is this just another admission that his party’s failed austerity policies have made our courts more dangerous, both for judges and for victims?

[Mr Vara]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new post on the Opposition Front Bench. She will appreciate that, given that there is ongoing litigation, I cannot possibly comment on that from the Dispatch Box.

Safety in Youth Custody

Christina Rees Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing a timely and much-needed debate on this subject, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

It is agreed that the safety of children in custody is paramount. The investigation by the BBC broadcast on 11 January, which uncovered serious and shocking incidents at Medway secure training centre, must be my starting point. Those incidents have once again highlighted the need for urgent action specifically at that centre, but they are also indicative of failures across secure training centres and the prison estate as a whole.

For those hon. Members who have not viewed the programme, I should say that it makes for extremely disturbing viewing. There are allegations of guards unnecessarily using restraint techniques, hitting a teenager, pressing heavily on young people’s necks, using intimidating language and taking concerted action to conceal their behaviour by avoiding CCTV cameras and misreporting incidents. That is simply unacceptable. Since the broadcast, four G4S staff members have been dismissed and four other staff members have been suspended, including one person employed by the healthcare provider.

As hon. Members may be aware, the Labour party called on the Secretary of State to take immediate action to put all G4S-run prisons, secure training centres and detention centres into special measures and to prevent G4S from being considered for bidding for other Government contracts. He responded that the allegations must be treated with the “utmost seriousness”, and police and child protection teams are investigating. However, we should not believe that that is the end of the matter. Running a centre such as Medway requires staff who are well trained and properly motivated and who have a full appreciation of their role in the youth justice system, as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) mentioned.

Just last September, G4S was stripped of its contract for managing a separate STC—Rainsbrook, in Northamptonshire—following an inspection revealing that there had been a doubling in the number of assaults since the last inspection; that 15 young people had required medical attention following assaults, with one requiring hospital treatment; and that the number of assaults on staff was higher than at the previous inspection, averaging nine per month. Let us not forget that G4S is still the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

Such incidents raise serious questions as to whether G4S is a fit and proper organisation to run youth facilities. However, the debate is about not only what happened at Medway, but youth custody generally. Unfortunately, the problems underlying recent incidents are echoed across the prison estate. Ministry of Justice figures show that deaths, incidents of self-harm and assaults in prison are at their highest level in a decade, with assaults up 13% in a year, serious assaults on prison staff up 42% in a year, self-harm up 21% from last year and seven prison murders in the last 12 months—the highest number recorded since 1978.

In 2012, the Prison Reform Trust and INQUEST jointly published a report entitled “Fatally flawed: Has the state learned lessons from the deaths of children and young people in prison?” The report considered the deaths of 143 children and young adults between 2003 and 2010. It concluded that many young people whose deaths were self-inflicted shared common traits and that successive Governments had not learned the lessons from those deaths.

A further INQUEST report in March 2015 studied the deaths of 65 young people and children between 2011 and 2014. It concluded that institutions had not learned the lessons from previous deaths, stating:

“The vulnerabilities of young prisoners have been well documented, yet they continue to be sent to unsafe environments, with scarce resources and staff untrained to deal with, and respond humanely to, their particular and complex needs.”

The report concluded that

“too many deaths occur because the same mistakes are made time and again.”

Last July, the Harris review published its report “Changing Prisons, Saving Lives: Report of the Independent Review into Self-inflicted Deaths in Custody of 18-24 year olds”. Soon after the report was published, another report, from the Children's Commissioner for England, revealed that a third of young offenders experience isolation and segregation for up to 22 hours a day, particularly in larger institutions. The report found that the children who are isolated are nearly 50% more at risk of suicide. It called for an end to solitary confinement and urged that large secure units for children be replaced by smaller units.

Overcrowding and a widespread lack of staff resources across the Prison Service is leading, not surprisingly, to widespread problems. Temporary staff are used to fill quotas, but they often do not have the requisite experience to carry out such a challenging yet important role. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said, prison officers simply lack the time to do anything more than carry out the most straightforward security functions, with no time to talk to inmates or to assist in their rehabilitation. There is no time to spot mental ill health, or drug issues. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) has already mentioned how concerned he is that prison staff do not have time to follow through in flagging up issues that may affect a young individual. There is insufficient time to escort inmates to and from the classes and programmes on offer.

Instead, long periods of lock-up and inactivity lead to increasing frustration, making violence more likely. The Government proclaim that they recognise the importance of rehabilitation. If what I have been saying sounds familiar, it is because Labour has long said that prisons should be measured by their success on rehabilitation, and our manifesto at the general election stressed the importance of increasing the amount of time prisoners spend learning and working. Nowhere is that more important than in youth justice, where young lives can be turned around, with the right intervention.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Does the hon. Lady agree that some of the young people who arrive at these institutions are there only for short periods, depending on the challenges that they have had before arriving at the centre, and that we should perhaps consider what happened to them before they arrived at the centre or the unit? In some cases, the young people are there for just a short period, and finding the opportunity to complete a really good rehabilitation is sometimes a challenge.

[Christina Rees]

I agree. I think a partnership approach is needed. The hon. Lady spoke about the local authority in her constituency and its important role in youth rehabilitation and the care of children. The whole approach must be one of across-the-board partnership. I agree that sometimes a short time in prison does not allow for any beneficial turnaround.

[Jo Stevens]

On that point, taking preventive measures was one of the recommendations in the Harris report about how to stop young people going into custody in the first place. Perhaps my hon. Friend will ask the Minister how many of the Harris recommendations have been implemented.

[Christina Rees]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.

The Government must understand that a fundamentally different approach to youth justice and custody is needed. Young people and children need to be supported and helped. The idea that young offenders should be punished, locked away and forgotten about or, worse, mistreated, is morally reprehensible and entirely counter-productive. However, just months ago, the Chancellor announced cuts of £9 million to the Youth Justice Board, despite warnings from the Local Government Association, the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services that that would lead to an increase in the number of young people in custody. Coincidentally, the £9 million that is being taken away almost exactly matches the amount that the Government have wasted on a failed procurement process to outsource fine collection—a clear case of misplaced priorities and ideology taking precedence over sound, evidence-based policy making.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 states that the principle aim of the youth justice system is the prevention of reoffending. However, currently two thirds of offenders under the age of 18 reoffend within a year of release. Behind every one of those figures is a victim, or victims, of crime. How can young people be rehabilitated when there are so many failings within the youth justice system —when it is not even a safe environment for them?

The media reports of what happened at Medway clearly demonstrate a deeper crisis in our youth custody system. Government cuts and a refusal to address the issues properly are creating a perfect storm of overcrowding, understaffing and poor resources. First and foremost, we urge immediate action to put all G4S-run prisons, secure training centres and detention centres into special measures so that the safety and competence of each facility can be urgently assessed.

The Government have the power, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to intervene in contracted-out STCs. Therefore, as we outlined in our recent letter to the Secretary of State, we urge the Minister to put in management teams alongside existing staff at those facilities—teams with experience of working with vulnerable children. The reforms to youth justice made by a Labour Government, requiring agencies to collaborate in preventing youth offending, reduced both youth crime and the numbers of young people in prison. We would further extend that model by piloting a new approach for 18 to 20-year-old offenders. That would incentivise local authorities, the police and the probation services to work together, to identify those at risk of engaging in criminal activity and to divert them on to a more constructive path.

I want to pose the following questions to the Minister: how many children are currently in Medway STC; and have any been sent there since 30 December? What action did the Ministry of Justice take between 30 December and 8 January? Since 2010, how many times have contract breaches occurred at secure training centres run by G4S under contract with his Department? What was the budget of the Youth Justice Board in 2009-10 and 2014-15; and what is the estimated budget for that body in 2015-16? Has the Minister considered writing to the local safeguarding children board to see whether it will order a serious case review of the allegations regarding abuse at Medway secure training centre? I also remind him of the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) in her intervention.

Court Charges (Access to Justice)

Christina Rees Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq]

I absolutely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, who has a lot of experience in this field. That is something I raised with the Justice Secretary when I asked him in the Chamber a few weeks ago why this absurd policy had been signed off in the first place, and he said that it was under review. We should not wait three years, while the reform has dramatic effects on the most vulnerable in our society. We should move the review forward; if the scheme is under review, that should be done immediately, and we should not procrastinate.

Let me highlight what I find most concerning about this charge and what has struck me. This charge will put pressure on people to plead guilty because they are worried about financial costs. If someone pleads guilty early on, they are less likely to incur costs than if they say and then maintain that they are innocent, and are found guilty later down the line. That will inevitably put pressure on people to plead guilty. I want to read out some of the figures, to hammer this home. The charge rises from £150 for a guilty plea for a summary offence in a magistrates court to £520 for a conviction after a not-guilty plea. The charge at Crown court is £900 for a guilty plea and £1,200 for a conviction after a not-guilty plea. Think about the constituents who live on the estates of Hampstead and Kilburn, the constituency I am so proud to represent in this House. They would not be able to afford those fines.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one aspect of this issue is the fact that courts are given no discretion to take account of an individual’s ability to pay?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I will touch on that later, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, as I have said. The Howard League and other organisations have highlighted that people on benefits or people who rely on social security are being expected to pay fines that we know they will not be able to pay. It is unrealistic to expect those people to pay these charges, and administratively, it probably costs taxpayers more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The charge is not part of the sentencing process, and that has been made abundantly clear to magistrates and the judiciary. It is a contribution to court costs and is not intended to be taken into account for sentencing purposes. There has been confusion, and I want to put on the record the fact that it is not intended to be a means of sentencing.

Given the financial imperative to bring down public spending, the Government must ensure that the courts are adequately funded in the long term in a way that allows the budgetary challenges ahead to be met. There is a high level of consensus across the justice system that the current system is unsustainable.

[Christina Rees]

Can the Minister say whether the revenue collected from the court charges goes towards the legal aid fund?

[Mr Vara]

The legal aid fund is one of the most generous in the world, after the reductions, at some £1.6 billion. It was previously over £2 billion. We have made reductions and we still rank among the top countries in legal aid provision. It is important to remember that point, which also addresses some of the comments of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn about access to justice. Let me remind her that, notwithstanding the reductions made by the Government in the past five years, we remain one of the most generous countries in the world for legal aid payments.

There is a high level of consensus across the justice system that the current system is unsustainable. This means that the court system must undergo fundamental reform. Our justice system must work better to deliver swifter, fairer and more efficient access to justice for everyone.

Corporate Economic Crime

Christina Rees Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) on securing this important debate. As we heard from him, economic crime is on the increase and fraud very much remains a hidden crime. I, too, turned to the 2014 PricewaterhouseCoopers global economic crime survey, which found that 44% of UK organisations reported some type of fraud—the global average is 37%. The majority of respondents felt that the number of instances and the financial impact of economic crime had increased since 2013. The proportion of employees committing economic crime increased from 34% to 41%, and most crimes are committed by junior staff.

The Treasury’s money laundering and terrorist financing national risk assessment found:

“The size and complexity of the UK financial sector mean it is more exposed to criminality than financial sectors in many other countries”.

The risk assessment also stated that the banking sector is at highest risk of money laundering because London is home to 250 foreign banks and is the largest centre of cross-border bank funding. We clearly need laws to combat economic crime.

Existing UK corporate liability law is based on the identification principle, which requires prosecutors to show a person who is the “directing” or “controlling” mind of the company—that is, that someone sufficiently senior intended to commit the criminal act—to prove the company guilty. In the case of large multinational corporations, however, it is difficult to identify individuals who are the directing or controlling mind. In other words, they are getting away with it.

Indeed, in 2013 the director of the Serious Fraud Office, David Green, said that

“a corporation is only liable if the top personnel can be shown to be complicit, but this is very hard to prove—rarely does the email chain go above a certain level”.

Furthermore, the identification principle creates perverse incentives for board-level officers to distance themselves from knowledge of wrongdoing, so any decision to engage in wrongdoing is split between individuals with different knowledge, making it difficult to prove that one person had the intent.

What are the alternatives? The Labour Government introduced the Bribery Act 2010, but there have not been many prosecutions, and the first convictions did not take place until December 2014, when three men were jailed for a £23 million biofuel investment scam. Those men, who worked for Sustainable Agroenergy plc, preyed on people, conning them into investing their savings and pension funds.

The Bribery Act overhauled laws that dated back 122 years and gave prosecutors new powers to fight modern internet bribery. As we have heard, section 7 of the Act made it an offence for a commercial organisation to fail to prevent bribery by its employer; the defence is adequate procedures. No prosecutions have been pursued under that section, so it has not been tested in the courts, but Alan Sheeley, the head of civil fraud and asset recovery at Pinsent Masons, said that the Act’s

“impact on the attitudes and policies of businesses of all sizes has been staggering.”

The Labour party sees section 7 as a model that could be used to prosecute all economic crimes. A company would be liable for failing to prevent certain offences of economic crime unless it showed that it had put adequate procedures in place to prevent it. As we have heard, however, although the Attorney General made that proposal in September 2014 and included it in the 2014 anti-corruption plan—and even though it was in the Conservative party’s manifesto and it received widespread cross-party support—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) responded to a written question from the hon. Member for Gower (Byron Davies) to say that the proposal had been dropped.

The Government have received much criticism for reneging on that promise. Indeed, Elly Proudlock, a member of WilmerHale’s white-collar crime team, said:

“It is surprising that the Government has decided not to pursue law reform in this area, given the small number of corporate prosecutions to date and the repeated insistence by David Green…that the threshold for establishing corporate criminal liability must be lowered.”

The new offence of failure to prevent bribery has had a profound effect on the attitudes and policies of businesses of all sizes. The threat of prosecution has reduced offending, so we need to change the culture in companies on committing economic crime. It is concerning that the attitudes of those in senior positions in companies contributes to the prevalence of economic crime committed by their employees. To broaden section 7 to include all economic crime may well have a positive effect on those senior people and, in turn, that may change the culture of their employees. The threat of prosecution may well be persuasive in itself.

The alternatives include introducing a new vicarious liability regime similar to the US model, whereby companies are liable for the illegal acts of employers and agents when such acts are in the scope of their employment and benefit the company. However, vicarious liability is notoriously difficult to prove.

What about deferred prosecution agreements, another import from the US, where they are used extensively? DPAs were introduced to the UK in 2014 by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. They are a method by which an organisation can avoid prosecution by entering into a contract with certain conditions, which may include paying a financial penalty, paying compensation or co-operating with future prosecutions of individuals. They can be used for fraud, bribery and other economic crimes. The SFO says that a DPA would be appropriate when the public interest is not best served by mounting a prosecution. No DPAs have been signed yet, but there is speculation that two small private companies, Barclays and Tesco are involved in discussions. The SFO’s director, David Green, suggested that two will be signed by the end of 2015.

On one hand, many see DPAs as a proven method of compensating for economic crime. In the US they brought in more than $4.2 billion last year and more than $9 billion in 2012. That may be evidence of their effect in reducing economic crime. On the other hand, they are a way for companies to get out of jail, because no one goes to jail.

Of greatest concern is whether DPAs will work in the UK. Without the threat of criminal liability prosecutions and the likelihood of an organisation being prosecuted, what is the incentive to sign a DPA? Why pay a significant fine, pay compensation or co-operate in prosecutions if there is no chance of getting caught in the first place?

One of my concerns is the practical question of the lack of resources needed to pursue large, complicated cases against well-resourced multinational corporations. If the resources are not there, adding new offences to the statute book will not be effective. We need new methods to combat economic crime, but we also need resources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We should not shy away from learning lessons from any jurisdiction that manages to control risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon highlighted, and to hold companies to account where wrongdoing has occurred. Where there are lessons to be learned from the US, we should learn them and do what we can to implement them within our own system. We could then hold ourselves up as a beacon for other countries and hold our heads high as a well-regulated, world-leading financial centre. That has to be our aim in all of this.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Neath pointed out, without the fear of corporate economic crime being prosecuted, there is little incentive for companies to enter deferred prosecution agreements and no incentive for companies to co-operate with the SFO to change their practices as mandated under a DPA. Unlike in the US, which has far stronger vicarious liability laws, there are still far too few corporate prosecutions in the UK under the current identification principle. No matter how much we may wish to learn from the United States—if that is what we see as the right way forward—without a strengthened corporate liability regime, we will be hampered in our efforts to implement such changes.

Finally, I turn to another area that shows concerning signs of backtracking by the Government and in which we would otherwise have seen individuals in companies held accountable for their own and others’ actions. In its 2013 report on the banking sector and how to prevent the failings that led to the 2008 crash, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards similarly recognised the difficulty in identifying individuals and holding them to account. One of its key recommendations was to introduce a senior managers regime to hold named executives personally responsible for key risks in the bank. That issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, who made a powerful speech about encouraging better and more responsible management within companies to change bad practice where it is found. The commission recommended that the regime place a burden of proof on those named executives, who would have to show the regulator that they had done all they reasonably could to prevent failings or misconduct if they were to avoid sanction.

[Christina Rees]

Does my hon. Friend agree that even though we have the legislation in place in section 7, there is no will to use it? That is the problem. There has not been a single prosecution.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises a concern relating to the Bribery Act, but there are two ways of looking at the Act’s implementation and the fact that no prosecutions have yet happened under it. There is evidence that it has already brought about significant changes in corporate culture and that the managers tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that they have taken all the steps they could reasonably be expected to have taken to prevent bribery in their organisations have taken those steps. Some positives can therefore certainly be derived from the situation, but I agree that a very close eye needs to be kept on prosecutions. I note that there are already murmurings from the Government about backtracking on the Bribery Act and trying to weaken that legislation, and we must stay vigilant about that.

On the senior managers regime, the commission recommended that the regime place a burden of proof on those named executives. The recommendation was accepted by the Government and enshrined in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. However, the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill, which is currently in the other place, is set to reverse that burden of proof, meaning that instead, the regulator—the Financial Conduct Authority—will be required to prove that senior managers have failed in their duty to prevent misconduct or prudential failings. The onus will be back on the regulator, and not on the named senior executives. Is that just more backtracking from the Government, who seem to be going soft on economic crime? I would be grateful if the Minister provided reassurance that that is not the case.

Ministers urgently need to look again at their approach to tackling economic crime, because without change, the prospect of ensuring that justice is served to those who have mis-sold financial products, evaded tax, laundered money and defrauded seems as remote as ever, and the risk of the scandals of recent years being repeated has far from disappeared.