Joint Enterprise (Significant Contribution) Bill

Dawn Butler Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 2nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Before I begin, I pay tribute to the incredible people who have made it possible for us to be here today, challenging the shocking miscarriage of justice that is joint enterprise. I want to say a massive thanks to Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association families and campaigners both inside and outside prison, some of whom are in the Gallery. Their perseverance and determination has allowed me to present the Bill. Since the early days of the campaign back in 2010, they have fought fearlessly and tirelessly against some of the most powerful British institutions for truth and justice to get to where we are today. They have never given up, and the Bill is a result of their work. I am so proud to have the privilege of working alongside them and bringing their campaign to Parliament.

I thank the many other people who have supported this campaign and helped to raise awareness of and support for our demands. My deepest gratitude goes to Jimmy McGovern, the indomitable screenwriter from my home city of Liverpool, Colin McKeown, the talented Northern Irish film maker, their teams and whole cast of the film “Common”, some of whom are in the Gallery. That film, brought to our screens a decade ago, accurately depicts the injustice of joint enterprise. Massive thanks to LA Productions for so generously producing a half-hour condensed version for us to show at our event in Parliament this week. I urge those who have not seen “Common” to watch it—it is more powerful than “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, and I understand that it will be available shortly.

I pay tribute to the work of Becky Clarke and Patrick Williams at Manchester Metropolitan University, who went above and beyond to produce research on the costs of joint enterprise and have reminded us of the importance of not losing sight of its devastating social cost. Their guidance and expertise throughout this process have been invaluable. I thank Felicity Gerry KC, Professor Matthew Dyson and Nisha Waller from the University of Oxford, who as part of a wider working group organised by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies drew up the simple, common-sense wording of the Bill. I also thank them for their legal support during the campaign. Their commitment to righting this wrong turn in the law has helped to bring the campaign as far as it can possibly go through the courts. Now, together, we have brought it to Parliament. I hope that today will be another step towards righting this massive wrong.

I thank the many hon. Members who have taken up this campaign and helped us to get where we are today, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I give special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for his assistance by tabling an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill just this week that mirrors the Bill we are discussing today.

When I was informed that I had been successful in the private Member’s Bill ballot, I was a bit like a frightened bunny rabbit in the headlights, but with the help and guidance of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), I feel confident that I made the right choice by picking joint enterprise as the subject of my private Member’s Bill. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) for her constructive dialogue in the run-up to this debate.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent Bill. The work by all the people she has mentioned, including Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association, on the Bill has been so important. The Supreme Court has said that joint enterprise has been wrongly interpreted by criminal trial judges for the past 30 years. Does she agree that that is terrible?

[Kim Johnson]

I do, and I will come to that point later in my speech.

I thank the cross-party sponsors of my Bill, notably the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the esteemed Chair of the Justice Committee. His support throughout this process has been invaluable and has demonstrated clearly the potential of the Bill to create cross-party consensus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the informative speech from hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler)—we share a surname, and I too was a magistrate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and support her extremely important private Member’s Bill, and my heart goes out to everybody who has lost somebody to murder.

It is important that the law works as it should in this country. The Supreme Court said that joint enterprise has been wrongly interpreted by criminal trial judges for the past 30 years—a long, long time. The Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association campaign group, which my hon. Friend has been working closely with, has been doing a lot of important work on this topic. As she said, the principle is right, but the law is open not only to interpretation, but to abuse. The judicial system is riddled with bias, and this law makes that worse in many cases. It is nearly four years to the day since I stood in this Chamber to raise the case of my constituent Reshawn Davis, whose only crime was being a1in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mr Davis served two months in prison due to the joint enterprise law, and that sentence has had a devastating effect on him and his family.

Some will say that the joint enterprise law is not all bad, and they would be right. It has led to some high-profile convictions, such as bringing some of the racist murderers of Stephen Lawrence to justice, for which we should all be grateful. But it has also seen many innocent people sent to prison for crimes they did not commit. No one who believes in how the law should work could approve of that. Imagine if everyone was found guilty by association. It may be unwise, but it is not illegal, to be friends with someone who is a liar or a cheat. If it were, Mr Speaker, plenty of MPs in this place would be arrested.

Some will be surprised to learn that joint enterprise has been applied to predominantly children and young adults, of whom 57% are from an ethnic minority background. It is not only wrong, but lazy and unjustified to use the law in this way, criminalising a whole group of children and limiting their life chances, just because they may have known somebody from school. Those of us who have spent our lives fighting for justice are acutely aware—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. Does she agree that there is a sort of perverse incentive on the police to be quite lazy about investigations of often serious incidents, because they know that, at some point in the future, they can deploy the law of joint enterprise and therefore do not necessarily have to get hard evidence against every single one of the people who may have been in the vicinity of the crime, but not participants in it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, it is lazy. It also means that we have a target-driven process rather than an informative-driven process, which needs to change. The system penalises and has a disproportionate effect on people of colour. Those with high melanin are judged more harshly because of the colour of their skin. If a person is Afro-Caribbean, they are eight times more likely to get stopped and searched, five more times likely to die in police custody, and 16 times more likely to be charged under joint enterprise than their white counterparts.

It is absolutely fundamental that our legal system is fair and can be trusted by everyone no matter the background or the colour of one’s skin. It is the cornerstone of our democracy. As a civil society, we must aim to hold criminals to account and invest in good policing, good laws and good judges. It is time to reconsider the implications and the unintended consequences of joint enterprise and remove the harm that it has done to too many innocent people whose families are with us today. I pledge my support for the Bill. Although I know the Government may have reservations about some aspects of it, I hope they will commit to my hon. Friend’s Bill and bring it back to the House, so that we can have a system that is fair and right for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) on her success in the private Members’ Bills ballot, and I am pleased to be responding to the Second Reading debate on her Bill today. It is important that this issue has been brought to the House’s attention. Children and justice is an area of concern for many when joint enterprise is considered and it has been campaigned on for several years. The Bill highlights that, but I am aware that an amendment similar to this Bill has been tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill. Before I go further into the discussion of this Bill, it is right to say that although it is critical of joint enterprise, and there are very convincing arguments for amendment to it, joint enterprise is also a necessary tool in the criminal justice system, as I will explain further.

I thank all Members who have participated in and contributed to this debate: my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum); my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell); my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Easington (Grahame Morris); the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler); the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn); and the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I have also noted the many comments made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

Having listened to the debate, the clear overall message is that joint enterprise needs to be reviewed. As we have heard, it allows an individual to be jointly convicted of the crime of another if the court finds that they were involved in the commission of the crime. There is a strong case to tighten the definition currently used to ensure that justice is fair and proportionate. As in the case of R v. Jogee in 2016, the Supreme Court has ruled that joint enterprise had been wrongly used for 30 years—that is extremely concerning. The ruling stated that it was not enough for the prosecution to prove that the defendant foresaw the possibility of violence occurring. Instead, the prosecution should now prove that the defendant intended to encourage or assist the person who committed the crime. Yet, a list of controversial joint enterprise cases continue to this day. The Manchester 10 case, which many in this Chamber will know, was tried under conspiracy legislation, but activists say this mirrors crimes prosecuted in the UK as joint enterprise. The trial’s use of drill music to convict the 10 defendants has also been criticised; this is a common feature of joint enterprise prosecutions for defendants from minority backgrounds. I am aware of the campaign by Art Not Evidence that aims to stop the criminalisation of those who engage in rap and drill music.

[Dawn Butler]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we do not judge people by the music they listen to? Judging one music to be violent, as against another genre, is a very subjective measure.

[Janet Daby]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on that; she makes a very meaningful point. There are lots of words in lots of different types of music, and we should not be judged by that.

I have also met Janet Cunliffe, a co-founder of Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association—JENGbA—whose son was imprisoned under joint enterprise. She is a tireless campaigner, who has shared in the experience of her son’s sentence. In 2020, JENGbA released a research report written by academics at Manchester Metropolitan University arguing that women are negatively impacted by joint enterprise. It stated:

“Women were often marginal to the violent event, with almost half not present at the scene and almost all never having engaged in any physical violence”.

And yet, as the report found, women were being seriously penalised.

JENGbA has highlighted the case of a teenager, Carrie. She was 15 years old when, in the early hours, she was walking with two other older people. They had all been drinking and a fight broke out with another group of local adults. One person from the other group was killed by an injury caused by a broken bottle. In the summing up of the case, the judge acknowledged that Carrie was so drunk she did not have the ability to join in with a fight. The judge warned that

“mere presence is not enough there must be some form of participation”.

During the trial, judgments were made about Carrie’s character and not her actions. That became central to her prosecution. The offence was committed by a 35-year-old man. The jury found the man guilty of murder. Carrie, 15 years old at the time of the event, was found guilty of manslaughter. The report found that there are many other women like Carrie in prison.

I have been critical of joint enterprise, but there is a place for it in our courts and the wider criminal justice system. Joint enterprise has helped to secure convictions that otherwise would not have been successful. The conviction of some of the men who killed Stephen Lawrence was secured using joint enterprise legislation. By using joint enterprise legislation, it was found that it did not matter whether Gary Dobson and David Norris carried out the killing; rather, it was important that they were part of an attack that could end in serious harm. Indeed, it did. It has also been successfully used to prosecute paedophile rings and those who commit economic crime. That should not be forgotten.

I am glad that the Bill does not seek to abolish joint enterprise in its entirety. Labour has previously said that it would look to reform joint enterprise, and that remains our ambition. Furthermore, the Lammy review in 2017 advocated for the reform of joint enterprise laws. In particular, recommendation 6 said:

“The CPS should take the opportunity, while it reworks its guidance on Joint Enterprise, to consider its approach to gang prosecutions in general.”

With regard to that recommendation, the CPS commenced a pilot to monitor joint enterprise homicide and attempted homicide cases in February 2023. The results were concerning. Black people make up only 4% of the UK population, but according to the CPS, under joint enterprise cases, black defendants make up 30% of case loads. It was also revealed that joint enterprise prosecutions disproportionately affect children, young people and men.

There has been progress on gathering more data, with the commencement of a full national scheme in all CPS areas. The CPS has said that a report of homicide and attempted homicide cases brought on a joint enterprise basis will be produced annually, and it will contain a breakdown by the protected characteristics of ethnicity, sex, age and disability. I believe that the CPS today convened a scrutiny panel with a focus on joint enterprise cases in which evidence of gang association is a feature.

Let me be clear: the Bill is perfectly reasonable and commendable. However, for the best chance of proper reform, it is important to wait until the CPS has built up more data before legislation is used to tackle the problem. We can solve the issue only when we have the full picture; that way, the law can work as intended.

Many from across the political spectrum believe that change needs to happen. There are some cases of people being convicted of serious crimes despite making no significant contribution to them; we have heard such examples given from across the Chamber. It is not in the public interest to prosecute those who have not made a significant contribution to a crime. I am interested to know whether the Minister agrees.

In reply to an amendment on joint enterprise in the Criminal Justice Bill Committee, the Government said:

“there have been examples of case law since the Jogee case that show that approach being fairly applied.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2024; c. 484.]

What is the Minister’s view on the reported disproportionate impact of joint enterprise on diverse communities?

The Government must end the criminalisation of children and young people associated with rap and drill music, and put in place protective factors to ensure that they are not disproportionately criminalised under joint enterprise.

Cammell Laird Workers Imprisoned in 1984

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Thomas]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that there is an urgency to this case. I welcome his support for the points that I am trying to make.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is explaining powerfully that justice delayed is justice denied. We have members of the Cammell Laird 37 with us today in the Public Gallery. Is it not important for anyone watching or listening today that we have justice? It is about time. All the documents should be made public as soon as possible.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her support for this debate. I absolutely agree with her concluding point, which I want to come on to in a little bit.

On balance, it is difficult not to conclude from the papers I have read that a significant group of Ministers in 1984 were so determined to drive through the complete privatisation of British shipbuilders, regardless of the wider economic and social consequences, that they decided that to achieve this, Cammell Laird had to close, and that any employee or union resistance had to be resolutely confronted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for suggesting a potential third way. Again, that would not fall within the powers of the Ministry of Justice. I suspect it is the sort of thing that may fall under the remit of the Cabinet Office—that is one of the four jobs I held in brief succession last summer, so I still remember some of that.

I hope I can give the hon. Member for Harrow West a constructive response.

[Dawn Butler]

I just want some clarification. Is the Minister saying categorically that there are no documents in any Department relating to Cammell Laird that are not in the public domain?

[Edward Argar]

I repeat to the hon. Lady what I said—I will be quick, because I want to give the hon. Member for Harrow West time to wind up—which is that I understand that my Department has previously conducted extensive searches of our records within the court and criminal system, and nothing was found. I also stated that other Departments—the Cabinet Office, the Home Office and BEIS, as was—have likewise confirmed that they do not hold any. I limit my remarks to that and to repeating what I said, not because I necessarily disagree but because I want to confine myself to what I know I can say in this Chamber with knowledge. I do not want to risk misleading the House in any way.

The hon. Member for Harrow West asked about options. This is a legally complex area, and the answer that was previously given suggested the CCRC. I understand that there is no bespoke redress scheme for civil claims arising from committals for contempt of court. Claims for compensation may be explored through the normal civil court process. There are various courses of action. I know that the 37 did not appeal to the House of Lords, but I believe that, were there permission, it would be possible for them to consider an appeal to the Supreme Court. I am reticent to suggest that those may be the solutions. In the spirit of a constructive response, I say to the hon. Gentleman that if he writes to me, I will ask my officials to look into those legal routes in greater detail to try to get a bit of clarity, especially given the written parliamentary answer that he referred to. I hope that might slightly help to move things forward.

I want to give the hon. Gentleman some time to wind up. In summary, although I am extremely sympathetic to the case and to the individuals and communities affected, industrial relations and how they have historically been dealt with are not a matter for the Ministry of Justice. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the potential merits of an inquiry in this instance. As I say, if he writes to me, I hope I might be able to be constructive in responding.

Sexual Misconduct in the Police

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. She is right that we can put in place all the structures and processes that we like but, unless there is a significant change in the culture, such practices will often go undetected. There is, however, a strong movement in British policing now to deal with the issue. For example, a large number of male officers are involved in the HeForShe campaign within the Metropolitan police, led by the deputy commissioner himself, in trying to bring about the recognition of the need for transparency and reporting, and the recognition that everybody has a job to do to help to root out that kind of conduct.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for securing this urgent question. I also thank all the good police officers who we have in our constituencies and here in Parliament. It is important to mention that, not just because it is true, but because whenever we talk about the police and bad apples, I for one am inundated with a lot of abuse on social media, especially from people with a thin blue line as their picture who claim to be former police officers. If they are former police officers and they levy that abuse towards me, I wonder what they were like when they were serving police officers and what they did on the street when they had all those powers.

Sarah Everard’s killing—her brutal murder—has shocked us all. Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman’s murder came before that of Sarah Everard and the police officers acted appallingly inhumanely by taking pictures of their dead bodies and posting them on a WhatsApp group. I understand that the officers in that WhatsApp group have still not been punished. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we have to deal with the culture in the police force. At every single stage, whether the abuse is misogynistic, racist or sexist, we have to deal with it, because the same people are committing crimes over and over again. When police officers are accused of domestic violence, the police often surround them and protect them as if it is more important to protect each other than the public.

[Kit Malthouse]

I thank the hon. Lady for recognising that there are many thousands of police officers out there doing an outstanding job. I know that they will appreciate her recognition of their work. If she is receiving abuse online from individuals purporting to be police officers, ex-police officers or otherwise, I ask her please to report every single one.

[Dawn Butler]

I do.

[Kit Malthouse]

Well, I am grateful that she does, because gathering that kind of intelligence is exactly what we need. As she will know, there is an ongoing review of MPs’ safety and the kind of hatred and abuse that she and others have to put up with online.

In terms of the wider issue about cultural change, the hon. Lady is right. I cannot comment on the individual disciplinary proceedings around that horrendous murder in north London, but she is right that part of our restoring the trust and sense of integrity in British policing is making sure, when such events happen, that the disciplinary proceedings and consequences are swift and certain; that they are conducted with rigour and alacrity; and that there is transparency about them so that the notion that the police are defensive on those issues is completely dispelled.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the training of prison officers: it is important that they get the right training to help turn lives around. We have introduced a new youth justice specialist role, with funding for every prison officer in youth custody services to take up a foundation degree in youth justice. Thirty people have completed it and 400 have started the training.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to ensure that rehabilitation and education programmes for prisoners continue during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

In prison, as in the community, there have been restrictions, which have been designed to keep prisoners and staff safe from covid-19. We have taken unprecedented action and we have saved lives. As in the community, it has required the temporary suspension of classroom education. Education providers are working with Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to deliver in-cell packs to support learning. We published our national framework for recovery last week and hope to bring back youth education in the next phase, with the adult estate following in this phase after that.

[Dawn Butler]

Education is key if we are to curb reoffending. The Government have talked about schools restarting, some last week and some on Monday. It is vital that we have education in prisons, so when will the Minister ensure that that happens? In addition, when will the Minister ensure that testing is available in prisons?

[Lucy Frazer]

Those are two important points. On education, I completely agree with the hon. Lady that education is important to the reduction of reoffending. As I mentioned, we have set out in our national framework what provision we can bring back safely, and in the first phase we will bring back education in the youth estate. On testing, we already have some testing of prisoners in prisons, and testing is available to our staff. We will roll out increased testing in prisons as matters progress.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Dawn Butler Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

First, may I put on record how much I welcome the Bill? I dedicate my words today to Denise Keane-Barnett-Simmons, 36 years old, who was murdered by her former partner in Brent just two weeks ago. She did everything that she could to live her life without fear. May she rest in peace.

Some of the most disturbing cases that I heard as a magistrate were those involving domestic violence. I was continually told that I needed to be less of a social worker while making decisions. I kept saying that for there to be real impact, we need more cross-departmental working. The Government need to do that with this Bill.

I do not have enough time to talk about many cases, but I heard one case in which the violent man argued that it was not his handprint on his ex-girlfriend’s face because it did not show his thumb. Just imagine how hard he hit her for that to be the case and his argument.

The Government have said that having this Bill in statute is a once-in-a-lifetime, generational opportunity, but I am afraid that the Bill falls short of that vision. However, if we all work together across party lines, we can make it better.

Government and Opposition Members have mentioned the domestic abuse commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, who has said that there is a “postcode lottery”, and that is still the case. She says that domestic abuse charities turn away one in three people; the Bill could change that.

She also highlighted that the Government must provide support to charities that provide life services, particularly smaller charities, such as those who provide support for BAME women, disabled women and men. We must remember that, because of the cuts, 50% of specialist refuges have closed in London. Women with insecure immigration status should have all barriers removed and not face deportation, and the Government should offer hotels free of charge to women fleeing domestic abuse who have been unable to access a refuge. The domestic abuse commissioner also says that, as has been mentioned, the banning of the rough sex offence must become part of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister, when he replies, will confirm that he supports everything that the commissioner has said and highlighted, but if he does not, he should make it clear to the House which proposals he does not support and the reasons why.

In addition, I have a few questions that I would quickly like to put on record to the Minister. Will he confirm today that the Government will ratify the Istanbul convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence? Will he confirm that at least £50 million of the Chancellor’s £750 million must be made immediately available to domestic abuse charities? The £15 million tampon tax fund must be immediately repurposed as grant funding for specialist businesses.

Independent domestic violence advisers have not yet been mentioned today in this debate. Brent Council has an innovative way of using IDVAs that has shown a 9% drop in domestic abuse injuries. Will the Government commit to rolling out a more comprehensive IDVA policy, and will the Minister adopt Labour’s policies for 10 days of domestic violence leave? As we know, the first 10 days when leaving an abusive relationship are the most dangerous.

Universal credit has been mentioned today and, while it has been reviewed during lockdown, will the Government commit to split payments, as they have in Scotland? Honour-based violence is domestic abuse and should be included in the Bill. If there is something that we can take from the lockdown, it is to ensure that all of those suffering domestic violence and abuse know that they are not alone.

I do not have time to thank all the people who have written to me, but I thank End Violence Against Women, Hestia, EDA, Age UK, the Mayor of London and everybody who has written to me about the Bill. Together, we can help those people who are suffering domestic abuse and violence to be safe, if not at home, then somewhere provided by the Government.

Courts and Tribunals Fees

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the work undertaken by the Justice Committee, of which I am a member. I am also grateful for the chairmanship of the Committee of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who has brought us to a consensus on the recommendations in the report. The Government need to reflect very seriously on those recommendations. At the heart of the proposals before us today is access to justice, and that issue is also central to our recommendations.

As the Chair of the Justice Committee has said, we remain concerned first and foremost that the Minister has not yet brought forward the results of the review. That has influenced very strongly how we have been able to present our report, as well as the points we are putting today and the way we are putting them. The Minister could have saved himself a lot of trouble had he brought forward the information requested in the timescale in which we requested it.

As hon. Members will know, during the 2010-2015 Parliament the coalition Government pursued a range of policies aimed at decreasing the net cost of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service through the pursuance and introduction of a range of various fees, including, in particular, charges for employment tribunals. As the Chair of the Justice Committee has said, we looked at whether the increase in court fees and the introduction of fees for employment tribunals had affected access to justice. It is fair to say that the conclusions of all members of the Committee were straightforward, especially in the area I will focus on, namely the recommendations on employment tribunal fees. All the evidence we have had—from the judiciary, the trade union movement and organisations dealing with vulnerable people with especially vulnerable status relating to maternity provisions or other similar issues—has shown that there is a real challenge from the impact of fees on employment tribunals as a whole.

I will make one plea to the Minister. It would be helpful if, before the summer recess, he could meet the commitment that he gave to the Committee to publish the results of his one-year review as soon as possible. Given our concerns, it is important that that information is put into the public domain. This is not something he can avoid. He said that he would deliver that information to the Committee before it reported, yet even after the publication of the report the Committee has still not seen it.

Employment tribunal fees are of particular concern to members of the Committee from across the House—certainly to me. As I have just said, the Committee found it unacceptable that the Government had not reported on their review. There was also some damning evidence about the impact of employment tribunal fees on access to justice.

Let me touch on a couple of statistics so the House can get a flavour of why we have those concerns. The number of employment tribunal cases brought by single individuals declined by 67% to around 4,500 per quarter between October 2014 and June 2015. The number of cases brought by more than one person—multiple claims—declined by 72%, from 1,500 per quarter to around 400 per quarter. That is a major decline. It is important that the Minister reflects on that. Is that decline because there are no injustices in the workplace? Is it because people do not feel aggrieved with their employment position? Has the figure declined because people have decided that applying to the employment tribunal for justice is not worth a candle? To all three questions, the answer is no. The decline is due to the prohibitive fees that the Government have put in place.

Statistics provided to the Committee by the TUC and Unison compare cases brought in the first three months of 2013 and 2015, and they show reductions across the board in areas of key industrial activity. For example, the number of cases brought to employment tribunals under the working time directive fell by 78%. My question, which I hope the House will reflect on, is this: is that because 78% fewer employers are making people work longer than their hours under—dare I say it?—European legislation?

The number of tribunals brought for unauthorised deductions from wages has fallen by 56%. Has some miraculous activity meant that employers stopped unfairly deducting from individuals’ wages during that period? If so, the information that the Minister is supposed to have considered might help us to understand that fall in wage deductions. Cases of unfair dismissal have fallen by 72%, equal pay claims are down by 58%, and those for a breach of contract by 75%. Sex discrimination cases have fallen by 68%. Therefore, one of two things has happened: either employers have dramatically improved their performance over the past two years in those areas, in which case let us see the evidence to show that; or people who have been unfairly discriminated against regarding deductions from wages, breach of contract, sex discrimination, the working time directive, or unfair dismissal, have not taken their claims to courts and employment tribunals because of the fees introduced by the Government.

Several cross-party witnesses to the Committee claimed that on maternity pay and pregnancy, for example, employment tribunal fees were having a profoundly discriminatory effect on pregnant women and new mothers who receive poor treatment at work. Rosalind Bragg of Maternity Action said that fees had led to a 40% drop in claims for pregnancy-related detriment or dismissal. The Fawcett Society—again, not a party political organisation—stated that pregnancy discrimination was widespread in the public and private sectors, but that very few women were able to take action because of the deterrent effect of the fees.

That is particularly true for low-value claims. When people are deciding whether to take a case to a tribunal, they will inevitably weigh the cost of the fee against the likely size of an award. If the likely size of an award is low but the sense of having access to justice and feeling strongly about an issue remains high, the levels of fees are still deterring people from taking claims to employment tribunals. Do not listen to me, Madam Deputy Speaker—the Council of Employment Judges told us that, and said that there had been a

“particularly marked decline in claims for unpaid wages, notice pay, holiday pay and unfair dismissal”.

Those are the types of cases brought by ordinary working people, and those are the words of the Council of Employment Judges, not mine.

That shows that there is a problem that the Minister needs to consider seriously. If his evidence indicates that the problem is not as we think it is, he should bring that evidence forward so that we can consider it. The Council of Employment Judges also stated:

“Many judges reported that they now hear no money claims at all. Prior to the introduction of fees money claims were often brought by low paid workers in sectors such as care, security, hospitality or cleaning and the sums at stake were small in litigation terms but significant to the individual involved. There are few defences to such claims and they often succeeded.”

Now, however, such cases are not being taken forward, which should be a worry to the House.

In written evidence, Unison used figures for the median awards for different types of discrimination claims in 2012-13—ranging from just under £4,500 in age discrimination cases, to £7,500 in disability discrimination cases—to support its contention that fees constituted such a high proportion of probable awards that many claims would not go forward because people found them excessively difficult to pursue. Indeed, a survey by Citizens Advice indicates that 47% of its respondents would have to put aside—wait for this, Madam Deputy Speaker—six months of their discretionary income to be able to afford the £1,200 needed to bring a type B claim. If people on a low income feel aggrieved but have to put away £1,200—six months of their discretionary income—it is self-evident that those who have a just claim will not take it forward because of the fee.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend concur with trade union reports, which have found that women and black and Asian people have been particularly affected by not being able to afford the fees?

[Mr Hanson]

That is an important point. Women are more likely to be in low-paid jobs and there is employment discrimination in many areas against black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. The key point in the case I am putting to the Government is that the Committee heard evidence showing that the fees have a discriminatory effect. The Government have investigated this matter, but have not yet produced their report to say whether they believe that to be the case. There may be other reasons—I do not doubt that there are—but the key point from today’s report is for the Government to provide evidence to the House. The Committee was unanimous in saying that there is a discriminatory effect that deters claims from the poorest, the lowest paid and those in the most insecure employment. It is therefore hitting those who have no other defence than an employment tribunal, which is now out of reach.

This is a matter of access to justice, which we on the Committee, on a cross-party basis, have put on the agenda. We have said that there is a real case to answer. It is for the Minister, both today and in the future, to respond to the report and answer that case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. The Secretary of State has said very clearly that reducing violence in our prisons is our top operational priority, and he has recently allocated an additional £10 million to this. She will know that a lot of the violence is caused by terrible new psychoactive substances such as Spice and Black Mamba coming into prisons. We have now made them illegal, thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims on the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, and that is a help. We will shortly be rolling out world-leading testing, which will also make a difference. I draw a very clear link between the drugs and the violence.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

13. What recent progress he has made on the review of the effect of the introduction of employment tribunal fees.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

15. When he expects the review of employment tribunal fees to be completed.

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

The review will report in due course, and it will assess how effective the introduction of employment tribunal fees has been in the achievement of the original objectives.

[Dawn Butler]

So we still await the official report from the Government, but it is obvious that tribunal fees have affected the number of cases being brought, especially by women. In 2013 there were 18,398; in 2015 there were just 6,423. Will the Minister elaborate on those figures? Will he also elaborate on the multiple cases brought by men? Were those men from the private sector or the public sector? Were they white-collar or blue-collar workers?

[Mr Raab]

The assessment will look at the impact on protected characteristics, including the ones the hon. Lady mentioned. It is only fair and reasonable that those using tribunals make some contribution to the cost where they are able to. It is not right that the whole bill for employment tribunals, which is about £71 million per year, should be picked up by taxpayers, so we are looking to strike the right balance. There is, of course, a system of fee remissions to protect vulnerable workers, and we have taken steps to raise awareness of that scheme. We have also taken steps to encourage voluntary conciliation, which is a good way of settling disputes away from the tense, stressful and costly environment of a courtroom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in this issue. Everything that we do on sentencing is informed by the need to protect the public and drive down reoffending. We will look at a range of proposals in due course with those twin objectives in mind, including the potential for prisoners to earn their release from custody. We are also looking at driving offences and, as with stalking, we will welcome any further ideas along the way.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

The former Justice Secretary was warned that cuts in legal aid to domestic violence victims were “grossly unfair” and “harsh”. That is why the Court of Appeal shot them down. In response, the Government decided to do a survey, which had a very limited timeframe for being filled in. Do the Government think that that was a reasonable way to show that they take the situation seriously? Would it not be better to have a full, open, public and transparent consultation?

[Mr Vara]

I say very gently to the hon. Lady that she is completely misinformed and wrong. Following that court judgment, the Government increased the time period for the production of evidence from two years to five years, and have allowed financial abuse to be taken into account. What is more, having made those immediate changes to the system, we are now engaging with the relevant stakeholders to bring in a better system that will be satisfactory to all concerned.

Court Closures

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes]

I will come on to talk about the role of new technology and other forms of provision in addressing some of the issues presented by the closure programme.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Although the court in my constituency will not close, it will take on the burden of the work of courts that are closing. On the Government’s own assessment, people will have to travel for over an hour to reach Willesden magistrates court. I think that is a barrier to justice.

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes valid points about both the additional burden on courts that will have to absorb the workload of courts that are closing, and the very important issue of travel times, particularly for many vulnerable constituents. I will come on to talk about those things.

I do not have a court or tribunal in my constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood, but my constituents will be very much affected by the planned closure of Lambeth county court. Almost half the postcode areas covered by Lambeth county court fall within my constituency. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to meet me during the consultation process, and subsequently for taking part in a Westminster Hall debate about Lambeth county court, but despite that engagement, my concerns remain. In justifying the closures, the Minister refers a great deal to the modernisation of the justice system and the use of new technology, but there is great concern that the closure plans appear to put the cart before the horse—closing courts and tribunals without a clear plan for replacing the capacity that will be lost with new technology.

The Government should have brought to the House a comprehensive strategy for modernising our courts and tribunals to make them fit for the 21st century. We need a plan that sets out clearly what new technology can deliver for our justice system, the investment that must be made to deliver it and the savings that can be made in physical infrastructure as a consequence of the introduction of technology. But there is no such plan. What the Government have announced is a very significant closure programme with a promise that, after courts and tribunals have closed, pilots will take place and investment will be made to introduce new technology. This is a very risky way to treat our justice system.

Access to justice is a vital principle in the UK’s unwritten constitution. It was argued by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, when he was the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, that access to justice is one of the eight sub-rules that make up the rule of law. He said:

“My fifth sub-rule is that means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve…What it does is to recognise the right of unimpeded access to a court as a basic right, protected by our own domestic law, and in my view comprised within the principle of the rule of law.”

He went on to explain that the common law right of access to justice is composed of three rights, one of which is the right of access to a court. Lord Justice Laws has said:

“Access to the courts is a constitutional right”.

In relation to the planned courts and tribunals closure programme, the Government argued that

“effective access to justice does not…necessarily mean providing physical access to a building or require us to have a purpose-built court or tribunal in every local area.”

My contention is that this statement can only possibly be valid if the Government demonstrate that access is provided in a fail-safe way by other means, and that they simply cannot do that without setting out a clear strategy for how it will be delivered.

The Minister has spoken about various things, some of which are indeed already happening in some locations, that may be possible—video links for witnesses to provide evidence, facilities for filing court papers online, making a plea by mobile phone—but there is no national standard and no plan for delivery. No assessment has been made of which court and tribunal services and facilities should be available to everyone in every area, which of these can reasonably be provided digitally and which should be provided in dedicated facilities. Although I do not think there is much disagreement about the kinds of things that might be done, it is impossible to make an assessment of the extent to which access to justice will be provided at an appropriate level with the help of digital technology until the Government lay out a comprehensive plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman’s powerful point illustrates my argument.

The Law Society has raised serious concerns about the effects that longer, more expensive journey times will have on the justice system for jurors. They will be more likely to find justifiable reasons to postpone their jury service, and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service will have to pay additional costs to compensate them for additional travel costs. The changes will also affect witnesses, many of whom already require a good deal of persuasion and support to attend court, and vulnerable residents who are being taken to court in circumstances where life is already stressful. Such people might find it extremely difficult to make it to court and, as a consequence, to have a fair hearing, because they are not there in person to explain their circumstances.

[Dawn Butler]

As a magistrate, I can attest to witnesses, sufferers of domestic violence or people with chaotic lifestyles who are completely put off by the extra travel needed to access justice.

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point.

Resolution, which represents 6,500 family lawyers and other professionals who are committed to a non-adversarial approach to family law and the resolution of family disputes, says that the court closures will have a huge impact on the ability of families to access the justice system, and it emphasises that those who will be most affected are vulnerable people such as victims of domestic abuse. Requiring a victim of domestic abuse to travel further on public transport in order to apply for an injunction will increase risk and act as a further disincentive for people seeking protection, on top of the issues already presented by the lack of access to legal aid.

Let me highlight three examples from my constituency caseload that illustrate the vulnerability of many people who have to access the court system. The first is a man who came to this country as an asylum seeker having been a child soldier in Nigeria. He is doing his utmost to find work, and currently has a zero-hours contract. Sometimes his employer has work for him, and sometimes it does not. That is not within his control, but as a consequence he has a fluctuating income, which means that intermittently he has to apply for jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit. Delays in processing his JSA claim sometimes mean that his housing benefit is frozen. That causes rent arrears, and at times he has been served with a notice seeking possession. None of that is his fault. He is a man with a traumatic past who is doing everything that he can to make the best of life, in a country that he had never imagined finding himself in. In my view, we should not be asking him to bear the additional expense and stress of having to travel long distances to access a court and engage in a difficult process that is not of his making.

Another constituent is recently widowed. Her husband was a social housing tenant, and for her to succeed to the tenancy, she needed to provide proof of his death. However, an administrative error with the death certificate caused a delay and meant that her landlord commenced eviction proceedings. She lives in the farthest flung part of my constituency in terms of access to a court. Is it right for her to face a four-hour round trip by bus to explain why the registrar made a mistake in recording her husband’s death?

The third case highlights some of the wider problems with a justice system that is already very stretched. This constituent is in his 80s. He suffered antisocial behaviour from his upstairs neighbour for many years, causing him and his wife great distress, and sometimes leading to him sleeping in his car to escape the noise. His council landlord did everything possible to gather evidence and commence eviction proceedings against the neighbour, but it took months for the case to come to court. When it did, the police failed to turn up to give evidence, and the case had to be adjourned. That situation would have been compounded even further by a longer journey time, or by moving proceedings to a court that did not have the capacity to absorb additional work.

Very often the circumstances that lead to someone attending court involve personal sadness, and many people who attend court are vulnerable. Fulfilling the obligation to make our justice system accessible must involve thinking about the considerable challenges that our most vulnerable residents face, and designing a system around those challenges, not around residents who have the most capacity.

The closure programme has the potential for significant hidden costs for the wider public sector, and those were not considered or scrutinised during the consultation process or in the Government’s response to it. The Law Society has highlighted the additional costs associated with prison and probation staff having to transport defendants for longer distances. Additional transportation costs may be incurred by the police, as increased numbers of people choose not to attend court and subsequently end up being transported there by the police. There will be increased costs for councils, as social workers and housing officers are forced to travel longer distances and spend more time away from their day-to-day duties to provide evidence in court.

There are already frustrations within the justice system. Many lawyers I have spoken to who work in London decry the experience of using the Central London county court since it moved to share premises with the Royal Courts of Justice. They describe a court that is so completely overwhelmed with the volume of work that it is beginning to resemble the chancery court in Dickens’s “Bleak House”, such is the lack of confidence that effective judgments will emerge from it. The Law Society and others have raised concerns about the impact of the closure programme on court staff, in a context where there are already frustrations about administrative problems and delays within the system. Such problems would be exacerbated if busy courts are closed and their workload transferred to other courts that are already operating at high capacity.

Many magistrates regard their work as a very local form of public service. There is a strong connection between the community they know and their role in ensuring justice for that community. There are serious concerns that having far fewer courts and requiring magistrates to travel long distances in order to serve will break this country’s strong tradition of a justice system that is rooted in the individual spatial communities it serves.

Concerns have also been raised with me about the sustainability of many duty solicitor schemes, which have already been stretched to the limit by cuts in legal aid and changes to the contract. Solicitors in my local area have said that many of them would be forced to give up duty solicitor work if they had to travel further to attend court, such is the marginal viability of the scheme already.

Finally, let me turn to the detail of the closure proposals and highlight just a few ways in which I believe the programme to be flawed. The proposed closure of Birmingham youth court would have a significant impact on young defendants, who would have to appear in an adult court, in breach of the Government’s statutory and international obligations. How was that proposal ever brought forward, and why were those issues not anticipated and addressed?

The proposal to close a brand-new, fit-for-purpose court in Rotherham, which contains a magistrates court, county court and family court, at a time, and in a town, in which child protection issues are at the forefront of everybody’s mind, is difficult to comprehend. In Bicester, the proposed closure of the court in a rural area with poor public transport services at a time when the local population is about to expand significantly, due to the Government’s designation of Bicester as a “garden town”, is simply short-termist.

In my local area, the closure of Lambeth county court remains deeply problematic. It is leased to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, with nine years left to run on the lease, and as such, there is no large capital sum to be derived from the sale of the site. The lawyers I have spoken to who use Lambeth county court say that it functions extremely well as a specialist housing court.

I appreciate that, as a consequence of the representations that I and others made during the consultation process, housing possession hearings will not now move six miles away to Wandsworth but to Camberwell, which is much closer. That is welcome news, but there remain concerns about the victims of domestic violence who will still have to travel to Wandsworth, and about how the move to Camberwell will actually work in practice. There is time, within the current lease, to make a proper plan for Lambeth: to work out the role new technology can play in making our justice system more accessible; to work out the physical space necessary to accommodate an efficient court; and to plan properly for the transition. There is no evidence in the closure programme that any detailed feasibility work has been undertaken to explore lower-cost ways of accommodating court services locally—for example, in other public buildings or community centres. Although such options are mentioned, they really should have been explored in detail before the closure programme was finalised.

The accessibility of our justice system and the way it treats our most vulnerable residents is a mark of our civilisation. Too many people across the country have raised concerns that the Government’s proposed closures will have an unacceptable impact on vulnerable people, present additional costs for other parts of the public sector which have not been properly accounted for, and make our justice system less accessible.

I fully accept that new technology may have a role to play in creating a justice system that is fit for purpose for the 21st century, as well as saving costs, but we have no plan from the Government as to how that will be achieved. I urge the Government to rethink their approach. I urge them to come back to the House with a plan that addresses the concerns that have been raised and that balances savings to be made from the physical court estate with investment in technology to mitigate the impact of these changes.

International Women’s Day 2016

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I thank all the participants in the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for the time that it allocated. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) touched on the battle—it was a bit of battle, I must say—that we had to ensure that the debate was held in the Chamber. I took a deep breath when it was suggested that we hold the debate in Westminster Hall, although the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) was a little more generous than me—subtlety was never one of my strong points. The number of Members from both sides of the House who have spoken today, on International Women’s Day 2016, in this passionate debate showed that we were right to hold the debate here in the Chamber.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) highlighted the women who have been killed by men since International Women’s Day 2015, reading out 121 names. Internationally, five women are killed every hour, so during this debate 15 women have been murdered. That is a sobering thought. The hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) talked about Boko Haram and the “Bring Back Our Girls” campaign, and said that there would be a renewed emphasis on that issue. We must never forget the women and girls who have been murdered, killed or kidnapped, or who are still missing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) highlighted the gender differentials. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) mentioned the Yazidi women who have been captured and raped. My right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentioned prostitution and trafficked women, and she talked about the motion. The motion took a while to write, because so many issues could have been included that it was difficult to know what to focus on. A common theme that has come out of the debate is that the abuse of women is always used as a weapon of war. Whether it be in gangs, wars or other violence, women and young girls are always used and raped. We must never, ever forget that.

I have a little bit of a confession to make. Last night, I was thinking about the Chancellor in bed—[Laughter.] It is true. I was thinking that he has a deleterious effect on women, and I am fearful about next week’s Budget.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

On that subject, surely the Chancellor could take a step in the right direction on International Women’s Day by looking at transitional arrangements for women who were born after 1951.

[Dawn Butler]

Absolutely. We have to do more on the transitional arrangements for women. The situation is not fair and it is just not right.

As I say, I worry about the Budget next week. It sometimes seems as though revenge is being taken against women, because 81% of the cuts made in this Parliament will affect women. In UK households, 744,000 individuals are on zero-hours contracts, and the majority of those people are women. In 2007, 62,700 equal pay claims were made. We all know, as has been said in the debate, that women are not being treated better at work, but only 9,621 equal pay claims were made in 2014-15, because of the changes that have been made to the law.

Twenty per cent. of small and medium-sized enterprises are led by women. Women often start their own businesses to ensure that their worth is acknowledged, and the number who do so increases every single year. Forty-nine per cent. of lone parents are on prepayment meters, which means that they pay more, and that contributes to household debt. Guess what? The majority of lone parents are women. As I have said, 744,000 people are on zero-hours contracts, and the majority of them are women. Would it not be great if we could outlaw zero-hours contracts in this Parliament?

We in this House have a duty to ensure that we make laws that are not harmful to women. We have to empower women in this place; that is our duty. As has been mentioned, PSHE is an important part of education. It sets the foundation in schools, from a very early age, for constructive relationships. In my opinion, it should be compulsory.

I thank the House for the way in which the debate has been conducted, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee again for granting it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House expresses its solidarity with International Women’s Day; notes with concern that, despite women making up 51 per cent of society as a whole, more progress needs to be made in electing women to Parliament, as well as in establishing equal pay and parity between men and women in positions of leadership; and calls for greater action against FGM and other practices that are harmful to women.

[Mrs Miller]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just had a very powerful, thought-provoking and emotional debate, thanks to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and many other Members who have contributed this afternoon. By my reckoning, 38 right hon. and hon. Members contributed to the debate, and not everybody was able to get in. What advice can you give me about talking to the relevant authorities to ensure that, in the future, we are able to secure an even longer debate? We are grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for supporting today’s debate, but I think that there is a great case to be made for having even longer to discuss an issue that is relevant to every single Member of the House.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

My hon. Friend is of course entirely right. He will know, because he was part of the previous Labour Government, that we tried to improve this set of circumstances. We conducted the survey that showed that there was a worryingly low level of understanding. Between 2004 and 2009, the then Labour Government instituted several million-pound advertising campaigns and sent out 800,000 personalised letters to the affected women, such as the one I have here, which, in stark contrast to the Tory letter I cited, says on the first page that the addressee will be affected by the change in age from 60 to 65.

The reality is testified to by many of my hon. Friends and by the brilliant women of the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—campaign, whose tenacity and truth-telling we should pay tribute to right across this House, because they speak for hundreds of thousands of women who did not know that they were in the firing line.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

A total of 4,465 women in my constituency are going to be affected by this. Does my hon. Friend agree that it has been caused by an historical inequality in the system?

[Owen Smith]

Of course it has, because historical inequalities existed then and persist now. The gender pay gap affects women. Women often do not have the full stamp because of their caring duties, and that is why it is doubly unjust that they should now be asked to pay a price in their retirement.