Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for securing the debate. I apologise for being a few minutes late; I was responding to an urgent question in the Chamber on rape prosecutions. I meant no disrespect to the importance of this debate.

The unduly lenient sentence scheme has helped many pursue justice. It is open to anyone to access and challenge a sentence that they consider unduly lenient. It is an extremely important and welcome mechanism. The scope of the scheme was last expanded in 2019, to include 14 more offences, including child sexual offences, harassment offences, stalking and the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. Those were good and necessary reforms, but it is clear that there is still more to do to ensure that just sentences are reached.

A number of important contributions have been made to today’s debate highlighting the limitations of the scheme. The hon. Member for Dartford mentioned the tragic case of his constituent Gemma Robinson, who was beaten mercilessly and took her own life before the case reached trial. Her partner was sentenced to just three and half years, after being charged under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which is not covered by the scheme, thus clearly highlighting some of the limitations.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), whose constituent was brutally murdered on her doorstep, expressed his concern that her murderer could be released by the time he is 50. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned his constituent who was left severely disabled after being hit by a drunk driver, who then received a lenient sentence. Following on from that, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) raised the case of her constituent, Jackie, who was killed by a dangerous driver. Because the unduly lenient sentence scheme did not apply to that sort of case, there was no redress for her family. My hon. Friend has campaigned tirelessly to increase sentences for death by dangerous driving offences, and that law will now change.

The case of Ruth Williams also highlights the limitations of the scheme. Ruth’s husband Anthony Williams strangled her to death during the first lockdown. In February at Swansea Crown court, Mr Williams was found not guilty of murder but admitted to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, and was sentenced to five years in prison. Had the victim been another member of the public, it is highly likely that Mr Williams’s sentence would have been more severe. The fact that this domestic homicide has received such a comparatively lenient sentence seems to indicate that if the victim is a wife, as opposed to a random member of the public, then the perpetrator is deserving of a discounted sentence. I wrote to the Attorney General calling for that case to be referred under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and indeed it was. In April, however, the court of appeal ruled that the sentence was not unduly lenient, highlighting that the ULS scheme does not always work if the sentencing guidelines do not allow for it.

We need much more robust sentencing for some crimes to resolve that, especially in cases of violence against women and girls. For example, the number of female homicide victims in England and Wales is at its highest since 2006, almost half of those being domestic homicides. Cases such as the horrific murders of Ellie Gould and Poppy Devey highlight the inadequate sentence lengths for some of the worst crimes. After stabbing Ellie Gould multiple times, her killer was sentenced to just 12 and a half years in prison. Labour has put forward an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, calling for a review into the effectiveness of current legislation in sentencing policy. If the Government do not accept the amendment, then Labour in government will commission a review to look at increasing sentences for domestic homicide, and reducing the gap in sentence length between domestic homicide and other homicides. The review will also examine the effectiveness of sentencing more broadly for domestic abuse.

Further to that, there is currently no statutory minimum sentence for rape—only a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In 2020 alone, nine cases of rape were referred to the Attorney General’s office through the ULS scheme that had initial sentences of imprisonment ranging from two years to four years and 10 months. Two of those cases were for the rape of a child under 13, and one was for the rape of a child under 16. Despite that, not one of the nine cases was referred by the Attorney General to the Court of Appeal. Labour would end lenient sentences for rape by introducing a new statutory minimum sentence of seven years, better reflecting the seriousness of the crime. Does the Minister agree with those proposals?

Our laws must send a strong signal that violence against women and girls will not be tolerated, but under this Government we have yet to see tough action on that. We believe it is time for judges to be able to hand out enhanced sentences and increased punishments to those who commit crimes on the basis of their prejudice against women. Our recently published green paper, “Ending Violence Against Women and Girls”, outlines those measures.

I shall now discuss some of the procedural issues around the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East said, there is currently a strict and absolute 28-day time limit from the point of sentencing within which an application under the scheme may be made. Offenders, meanwhile, may appeal their sentence outside the 28-day timeframe in certain circumstances, so there is not parity between the two. The previous Attorney General made it clear that the 28-day timeframe was absolute, yet we desperately need flexibility around it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East highlighted the case of Josh Hanson, who was just 21, murdered in a bar while on a night out. The killer walked up to him, pulled out a knife and sliced his neck and chest. He went on the run for three years before finally being caught and given a minimum sentence of 26 years. No agency ever made contact with his mother, Tracey Hanson, and she was not told that she could appeal the sentence under the scheme. It was only when she approached London’s Victims’ Commissioner on the 28th day after sentencing that she was made aware of the scheme. She urgently submitted her application to the Attorney General’s office on that 28th day as soon as she had notice of the scheme, but her application was rejected for being outside court hours. At the time there was not even a mention of office hours or court hours in the victims code or on the Government’s website.

Tracey has campaigned to reform the scheme ever since, and has been asking for flexibility around the 28-day time limit in certain circumstances, and for the scheme to be specifically referenced in judges’ sentencing remarks. Those are wholly sensible requests. Will the Government agree to them? Although the revised victims code will include a requirement for the witness care unit to inform victims of the scheme, it just does not go far enough. They only engage with victims who are witnesses in court, and the requirement does not apply to all victims, including those who are bereaved family members. In Josh Hanson’s case, for example, the duty to notify his mother Tracey would not have applied, because she was not a witness in the case. Nevertheless, clearly she had an interest as the mother of her son, who had been killed. I therefore ask the Government to put a statutory duty on the CPS to ensure that victims and their families are informed of the existence of the scheme, irrespective of whether they are witnesses to the case. I also call on the Minister to look at extending the time period beyond 28 days in certain circumstances—for example, where there has been a failure of the responsible agency to inform the victim of their right to apply, or where there are extenuating circumstances that mean the application simply could not be made in time.

If we are to have true confidence in sentencing decisions and the scope of the ULS, we need tougher sentences for some crimes. We need flexibility around the 28-day time limit, and we need to give the Crown Prosecution Service statutory responsibility for informing the victim and their family members about their rights of appeal. None of that is outside the scope of what an effective Government could bring about, and I hope that, following this important debate, we will see action in this area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

A huge amount of work has happened over the past six months to risk-assess different courts, working with Public Health England and Public Health Wales, and talking to union representatives as well. That is how we have got almost every court in the country now up and running in a socially distanced way. For example, we have installed perspex screens to make sure that jurors are separated from one another, and we are making sure that there are jury retiring rooms where jurors can space out. There is extremely frequent cleaning happening throughout every courtroom. What is important is that justice is done, justice is delivered, and it is done safely, and that is precisely what is now happening.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

What progress he has made on the implementation of the female offender strategy.

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

The female offenders strategy launched two years ago recognises a different approach to female offenders, and we are making good progress. We initially invested £5.1 million in funding to 30 women’s services across England and Wales, and we are currently in the process of allocating a further £2.5 million for this year to improve women’s centres’ financial viability.

[Ellie Reeves [V]]

There are over 2,200 more women in prison compared with 25 years ago, and 82% have been sentenced for non-violent offences. A second lockdown will hit them hard, so can the Minister confirm what steps are being taken to give women in prison virtual access to their children? How many pregnant women are currently in custody? How many women have been released as part of the early release scheme?

[Lucy Frazer]

We are very conscious of the impact of lockdown on our female estate, and we will be looking very carefully, as we look at the new framework for the new provisions on Thursday, at how we can in particular protect women in the female estate, recognising the significant mental health issues they face. We are very conscious of the need to ensure family contact, and all our female estate have access to virtual calls. The hon. Member is aware, I hope, of our recent mother and baby unit review in relation to operations to look after pregnant women and women with young children on the estate. That is currently in a consultation phase. We have set out a number of measures, including personalised access and plans to help those across our female estate who are pregnant or who have dependants.

Ministry of Justice Spending

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)for securing it. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer).

Ministry of Justice spending accounts for just 1% of total Government spending, yet the Department has received some of the most vicious cuts over the last nine years, with overall budget cuts of 40% by 2020. That dramatic decrease in funding has been felt across the justice system, and has had an impact on victims, families, local communities and vulnerable individuals, and their ability to gain access to justice. The modest increase in funding for the Ministry in the September spending review provides a 4.9% budget increase in real terms, but it is nowhere near enough to deal with the pressure that is being felt throughout the justice sector.

Owing to time constraints, I shall limit my comments to cuts in civil legal aid. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—LASPO—reduced civil legal aid expenditure from £1.02 billion in 2012 to £678 million in 2018. The cost of that has been significantly reduced access to justice, areas of the justice system being overwhelmed by litigants in person, and the sustainability of the publicly funded legal profession being deeply threatened. All that means that the Ministry’s demands on the Treasury are likely to increase over the long term, countering the savings made by the LASPO reforms.

LASPO removed from the scope of legal aid vast areas of law, including most private family law, and law relating to employment, welfare benefits, housing, debt, clinical negligence and non-asylum immigration. It also instigated tighter financial eligibility criteria for civil legal aid by changing the financial means test for areas of law that remained in the scope of legal aid. That included the ending of automatic eligibility for those in receipt of means-tested benefits, and reducing the limit on the maximum income and capital that an individual can have to qualify for legal aid. As a result of these reforms, many people who have previously been eligible for legal aid have been unable to gain legal assistance to pursue their cases. Instead, they must now pay for legal advice or representation themselves—often an impossible task—try to find free support or navigate the problem on their own. This greatly reduces the likelihood of an individual case receiving justice. The Amnesty International 2016 report states that the LASPO reforms have resulted in a two-tier legal system, open to those who can afford it but closed to those who cannot.

The reforms have impacted on access to justice in wide-reaching ways. For example, early legal advice is no longer in scope for legal aid, so cases that could otherwise be resolved early are now escalating into more complex cases, pushing further costs on to local and national Government. For example, Shelter has documented how this approach to housing advice has led to increased costs of temporary accommodation being borne by local authorities. LASPO has also led to the emergence of advice deserts in some parts of the country, especially in rural areas. Many solicitors have given up legal aid work because there is no longer funding for it, and this has particularly impacted on immigration and housing law.

The human cost of all this is often all too real for my constituents. For example, one constituent who was the victim of female genital mutilation, who had hepatitis B and who had fled a forced marriage needed urgent help to make a Home Office application or otherwise face removal. She was not entitled to legal aid and had nowhere to turn other than to a charity rather than getting proper legal advice and assistance. Another case I dealt with involved a 63-year-old women with breast cancer who had her benefits stopped and was told by the jobcentre to look for work. Her benefits issue was out of scope for legal aid so, while also battling cancer, she had to try to find free legal representation from overstretched charities to challenge her benefits refusal at tribunal. It is likely that she will end up having to represent herself.

The crux of this is that a lot of vulnerable people in desperate situations are being refused legal aid. Often the issue is not in scope, and when it is, the means test makes legal aid really difficult to access. The Government say that they are saving money, but in reality this is costing a great deal, both to society and to the Treasury. The recent Equality and Human Rights Commission report on the impact of LASPO found that unresolved welfare benefits issues were resulting in financial deprivation, including the risk of homelessness and an inability to pay for necessities such as food, heating and electricity, and that the difficulty of resolving legal issues in general was causing physical, emotional and mental health problems. Ultimately, the cost of this is likely to be far greater than providing legal aid in the first place.

The Government have a duty to provide a justice system that ensures that members of the public are able to obtain the advice and representation that they reasonably need, but the system that we now have under LASPO is clearly failing in terms of its ability to give people access to justice. Not only does it undermine the rule of law but it has serious consequences for the lives of many. If we are to avoid long-term and potentially irreversible damage to our justice system, the Government must properly fund legal aid to ensure that members of the public are able to secure appropriate advice and representation. This would require the reintroduction of legal aid for the areas of law removed from scope, and the introduction of more generous financial eligibility criteria. These reforms are necessary if we are to have any confidence in the justness of our legal system, and if we are to see the reversal of the development of a grossly unfair two-tier justice system.

Female Offender Strategy: One Year On

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies]

Well, they have already had their kids taken off them, so why on earth is that a factor in whether they are sent to prison? They are deemed to be unfit mothers. We cannot have a get-out-of-jail card for people to say, “Oh, I’m a mother; I can commit any crime I like, but because I am a mother I shouldn’t be sent to prison.”

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

No. I was in Bradford Crown Court recently, where a woman was convicted of a serious offence. Between being charged and her appearance in court, she had deliberately got pregnant in the hope that that would stop her from getting a custodial sentence. [Interruption.] The judge, who pointed out to her that she had deliberately got pregnant in order to avoid a custodial sentence, was not taken in, thankfully. [Interruption.] I want the Minister to make sure that we have equality in sentencing.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Ms Ryan. In the short time that I have, I want to place on the record my support for the female offender strategy. It builds strongly on the work of the Corston report, which I had the honour of receiving as Minister in the then Labour Government in 2007-08.

We accepted 40 of the 43 recommendations. We appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) as the champion to see the issue through, but then we ran into the blockage of democracy: the Government were removed from office in 2010. I fully support the efforts of the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) to bring together a strategy to reduce the number of women in custody where possible. I take on board the comments of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—that some crimes demand custody—but, where possible, we should reduce the number of women in custody, look at early interventions to support women in avoiding custody in the first place, and tackle some of the causes of offending with drug and alcohol services.

Only last week, I mentioned that the number of drug and alcohol treatment orders in the community has been halved in the past four years by the Government.

[Ellie Reeves]

Some 62% of women in prison are serving short sentences. My right hon. Friend talks about drug and alcohol programmes and early interventions. Does he agree with me that it would be better to invest in early intervention and community sentencing, and introduce a presumption against short sentences to make sure that women get the support that they need, rather than custodial sentences?

[David Hanson]

It is very important that we try to support women who have committed offences. Sometimes they have committed them because forces have driven them to it. We need to find an appropriate way to remove them from prison because prison has an impact on family life as well as on them. I welcome the efforts of the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke) on short prison sentences, and I hope the policy will continue with any new Minister in due course.

If I may focus on my own area of north Wales, there were 37 women on any given day last year in Styal Prison—40 miles from the border, and perhaps 100 miles from the north-west of Wales. I was asked last year by the Welsh Assembly Government to do an inquiry into the treatment of prisoners with regard to education and other services. It is important to note that in the female offender strategy, only four of the 179 paragraphs deal with Wales. It establishes a need for a blueprint. A female offender blueprint is being published by the Welsh Government, and it has very good aspirations. I would welcome an update on progress from the Minister, either in writing or when he responds at the end of the debate.

For example, in the work that I did last year in Wales, I found that there was limited access to Welsh language education for women whose first language was Welsh. There was limited understanding in the Welsh Government of how many female offenders would return to Wales, how many were linked into the labour market of Wales, and how many dependents people had. There was limited understanding of how much would be needed in the way of ongoing support requirements, to reintegrate women back from custody into the community in due course.

My hon. Friends have demanded a women’s centre, and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) will reiterate that. Wales is one country, but north and south Wales are two regions, where there are different demands on people. We need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said, to look at what provision there is for a women’s centre in Wales. Those 37 women need to return to the community in due course.

I welcome the document overall, but I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity about a one-year update to the female offending blueprint, and a six-month update to the implementation plan being worked on by the Welsh Assembly Government in conjunction with his Department.

Feltham A Young Offenders Institution

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

My right hon. Friend makes his point in his own unique way. Access to a full regime is important. Young people in custody need access to sporting, educational and other facilities. There is more we can do to address that need in Feltham, although I am encouraged by a lot of the work being done there, on sport in particular. I visited four weeks ago and saw “boats not bars”, which is about using rowing machines in the gym, and the work that Saracens rugby club is doing. A whole range of sporting and other activities are undertaken at the prison, but my right hon. Friend is right to highlight that there is always more that can be done.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I visited Feltham with the Justice Committee earlier this year, and I am saddened, although not wholly surprised, by the inspection report. According to the report, self-harm has risen by 218% in the past two years, assaults on staff are up 150% and 40% of children said they felt unsafe during their time in Feltham. There is clearly a rising epidemic of violence at Feltham, and no child should be left in these conditions. I have heard what the Minister said, but what specific and urgent steps will he now take to rectify this situation?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady is right, and I spoke to the Chairman of the Justice Committee this morning to discuss his visits, the Committee’s work and the urgent notification. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the violence and self-harm. I would sound a slight note of caution—it is only a slight one—on the incidences of self-harm; it is also important that we look at the number of individuals involved, because some individuals might be prolific self-harmers who account for a very large number of incidents, so there will be a small number of individuals. That is in no way to detract from its significance, but it is important that we are clear about that.

The hon. Lady asks about specific steps that are being taken. First, as I have made clear, we have placed a temporary block on the further placement of young people in Feltham; its capacity is 180, but about 110 young people are there at present, so there is room within Feltham for the staff to stabilise the situation and work on improving matters. The second step has been an urgent review of cell buttons—call buttons. That was highlighted in the report; it may appear to be a small issue, but it is extremely important that when someone buzzes for help or they need help that call is answered, so we have undertaken a review to check that the buttons are working effectively.

As I have also said, additional senior level resource is already going in, to bring additional experienced resource in, but also to support the governor in delivering on the action plan and driving forward rapid improvements. Andrew Dickinson, the governor of Wetherby, will be playing a key role in that; we have seen the positive inspection report he got at Wetherby and it is important that we draw on those lessons to work with the very able governor we have in Feltham.

In terms of the buildings, a programme is already under way for works to improve showers and other facilities, and I have asked the director of the youth custody service to undertake a review of the overall state of the estate there, to identify if any capital or other works are urgently needed.

Finally, we need to ensure that, as swiftly as we can, we address the challenges the chief inspector highlighted on how particular policies were applied, especially the keep-apart policy; while that has an important role to play in tackling gang-related or other violence, it must not lead to a curtailment of the regime and the active regime, which can play a key part in keeping young people active and keeping a lid on tensions and violence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

In the past five years, more than 300,000 prison sentences of less than a year have been handed out, but the reoffending rate among that cohort is a staggering 64.4%. The Justice Committee has repeatedly called for the abolition of short custodial sentences. I appreciate that the Secretary of State is sympathetic to that call—I note his answer to an earlier question—but may we please have swift and urgent action?

[Mr Gauke]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s point about the statistics—we should be led by the evidence—and I hope to make further progress on this matter in the time that is left ahead.

Child Imprisonment

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered abolishing child imprisonment.

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

For decades, what has been happening to the forgotten children imprisoned across England and Wales is state-supported and state-sanctioned child abuse. Worse still, those in this place who have the power to stop it have not done so.

At present, 727 children are in prison: 81% in youth offenders institutions and 19% in secure training centres. The lives of many of those children before prison were marked by significant harm and suffering. Up to 92% of children in custody have suffered prior physical or sexual abuse, or neglect, and nearly half have been in the care system. Children in custody are three times more likely than their peers to have suffered the death of a parent or sibling, and three times more likely to have unmet mental health needs. A quarter of them identify themselves as disabled, with one in five having special educational needs. Children who identify as black, Asian or minority ethnic are disproportionately overrepresented. When there is a reduction in the size of the overall youth custody system but a rise in the number of BAME people represented in it, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) put it well when he said that there is discriminatory practice and institutional racism in the prison system and that something is just not working.

Children in such institutions have significant needs, which would be better met in a nurturing, specialised and therapeutic system modelled on the secure children’s homes ethos in which child welfare is the overriding concern, as recommended by the End Child Imprisonment coalition. At present, 65% of children go on to reoffend within a year of release. A child-focused environment, with an end to the slash and burn of austerity stripping away support and mental health services, is likely not only to reduce reoffending but to stop reoffending in the first place.

In 2016, the Government committed to closing youth offenders institutions and secure training centres for good. They know that the findings of the Youth Custody Improvement Board, the Youth Justice Board and Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons—that those institutions are not fit for purpose and not safe for children or young people—were right.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Successive reports and inquiries have found that children’s prisons are unsafe and unable to meet even basic needs. The Howard League for Penal Reform reported that a child in Feltham spent 23.5 hours a day in a cell for 55 days in a row. Does she agree that we need to invest urgently in children’s centres so that children are not kept in such awful conditions?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She cites one of the examples that I will consider.

Three years after that 2016 announcement, those institutions remain. Only this year, the chair of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse stated that she was

“deeply disturbed by the continuing problem of child sexual abuse in these institutions over the last decade.”

Report after report shows that life for children in prison consists of systematic denial of basic physical needs such as nutritious food, fresh air, exercise, and warm and comfortable shelter. Children live in environments permeated with violence, uncertainty and fear, where meaningful adult contact and education are limited or non-existent.

Adults living in such an environment would struggle. For any child, living with those heightened levels of anxiety and fear, with no trusted adult to confide in or to seek help from, will surely result in trauma and mental health difficulties. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that incidents of self-harm increased by 159% between 2014 and 2017, or that the Royal College of Psychiatrists reported that up to three quarters of doctors specialising in mental health in prisons do not think that it is possible for them to provide adequate care because of the conditions in which they are working.

When children react negatively to such an environment, they are punished with segregation—solitary confinement, which the United Nations defines as being locked indoors for 22 hours per day—or pain-inducing restraint. Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) led a debate on youth solitary confinement in which the Minister, as he may recall, said that

“children are never, and should never be, subject to solitary confinement in the UK.”—[Official Report, 2 April 2019; Vol. 657, c. 339WH.]

Instead, he said, they are “segregated” or “removed from association”.

Such statements are repeated in ongoing and lengthy correspondence that I have had with various Ministers from the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education. As they tie themselves into semantic knots, the repetition of statements to the effect that solitary confinement is not used is simply at odds with the facts. In 2017, the Howard League advocated on behalf of that young boy who had spent 23.5 hours per day in his cell for 55 days in a row. Last year, an investigation by the “Victoria Derbyshire” show found that in the previous year, at least 40 children had been held in their cells for at least 22 hours per day.

Just this week, the children’s rights charity Article 39 informed me about two boys, one aged 15 and one 17. They both have serious mental health issues. They are waiting for medical care and are stuck in solitary confinement for between 22 and 23 hours per day. As they are confined to their cells, prison officers observe them in shifts through a perspex door. When the boys are allowed out of their cells, they are not permitted meaningful contact with their peers. Planned health appointments are missed due to staff shortages and doctors who do visit them can talk to and observe them only through a hatch. Reportedly, that level of confinement would be enough to induce a mental breakdown and possibly psychotic mental states. Article 39 told me about another young boy who was subject to solitary confinement. He was acutely psychotic and in need of urgent in-patient care and treatment, but he sat in his cell for more than four weeks until a suitable hospital placement was secured and he was transferred out of prison.

This year, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report stating that

“pain inducing techniques and solitary confinement…are…not compliant with human rights standards”.

The Committee called for such techniques to be banned. The report also states:

“Data…shows that children are restrained too often, with…thousands of unjustified restraints each year, and that separation is also used too often”,

adding that staff are too quick to use restraint or separation.

The permitted use of pain-inducing restraint is beyond comprehension. Prisons are the only institutions in which staff are trained and permitted to inflict pain deliberately on children. Adult staff are given a green light to cause significant harm to a child in their care. If a parent, foster carer or anyone else behaved in that manner, they would be deemed to be breaking the law and would be dealt with appropriately. In the stark and unforgiving world of children’s prisons, however, apparently it is okay for adults to cause significant harm to vulnerable and frightened children. In the past, I have worked with incredibly distressed and—some would say—violent children who have lashed out. I know that is difficult, but staff in those institutions are put in impossible situations. Their training and the option that they are given is always about restraint. Better training and support are needed for those staff as a matter of urgency.

The techniques referred to as minimising and managing physical restraint are put into four categories: low, medium, high level and pain inducing. The exact details of those techniques are kept hidden from the public, as the Government state that they reflect those used in adult prisons. We do know that sometimes children are kept in holds on the floor for more than 15 minutes, on their front or back. There are reports of children losing consciousness, with blue lips, fingernails and earlobes, having difficulty breathing and vomiting. One boy’s wrist was described as “snapping like a pencil.” Despite the screams, the restraint continued.

Data for the last year from the Ministry shows that medical attention was required in 668 use-of-force incidents. Of those, 30 were so serious that the young people had to be admitted to hospital. In the past, some incidents have even resulted in death, either directly or afterwards when children, unable to take any more, have taken their own lives. I know the Minister will be familiar with the cases of Gareth Myatt and Adam Rickwood. Their deaths led to MMPR, which we know is comparable to restraint used in adult prisons but, as I said, we cannot see. We do not really know the true extent of the pain being inflicted on those children.

The children who have been significantly harmed and are no longer with us deserve to have their stories told. Their lives mattered. For children who are in prison now and future generations, a whole new approach is needed. I respectfully say to the Minister that secure schools are not the answer. After all, 20 years ago that was what secure training centres were supposed to be but, as today’s debate shows, they have evolved into something far uglier than their remit of excellence in care and education. Furthermore, having Medway as the experimental site for this new model is not only grossly misguided, but smacks of a lack of understanding of how culture, custom and practice infect an institution and never leave. Rebranding while the centre is still classed as requiring improvement for child safety will not lead to the improvements for which the Minister hopes.

The campaign to end child imprisonment, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, is formed by a coalition of groups with a deep understanding of children’s prisons, child development and children’s rights. Those groups are campaigning not just for the closure of those prisons and a more child-welfare-based model, but for a move from responsibility for children’s detention towards children’s services. They want a change in the law so that deprivation of liberty is always an absolute last resort, and to remove punishment and deterrence as reasons for imprisoning children. I would like the Minister to respond to the campaign’s asks, and to outline the Ministry’s timetable for phasing out those institutions. I would appreciate it if he could tell us when we can expect the findings and recommendations of the review of pain-inducing techniques that began more than a year ago.

We are debating the harrowing and frightening lives that some children have to endure day in, day out. Those are children for whom the state has sole responsibility. I urge the Minister to take serious action: abolish child prisons before more harm is done. It is not only his professional duty but his moral duty to do so.

Court Closures: Access to Justice

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) on securing it. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee. The £1 billion pound modernisation programme undertaken by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service was designed to move cases online and to increase the use of digital methods to improve the speed and efficiency of our court system. However, as the Public Accounts Committee’s report into transforming courts and tribunals made clear, the pressure to deliver quickly and make savings is limiting HMCTS’s ability to consult meaningfully with stakeholders and risks it driving forward changes before it fully understands their impact on users and on the justice system more widely, particularly in regard to access to justice.

As a member of the Justice Committee, I am pleased that we are currently undertaking an inquiry into the courts and tribunal reforms. It is clear that the implications are going to be significant. As we have seen in countless other examples from welfare to healthcare, the digitisation and modernisation of Government systems invariably leads to delays and operational issues. Sufficient time is never committed for proper testing and evaluation to ensure that the technology and methods implemented are actually fit for purpose.

On current predictions, HMCTS expects 2.4 million cases a year to be dealt with outside physical courtrooms by 2023, leading it to employ 5,000 fewer staff. While many organisations, including the Law Society and the Magistrates Association have welcomed the increased use of technology, they continue to express concern that the Government’s desire to increase efficiency is coming at the cost of accessibility. I have concerns that by switching to a “digital by default” approach, we are in danger of excluding many people from being able to fully interact with the justice system, given that vulnerable people such as those with learning difficulties, mental health conditions, addictions, disabilities and English as a second language are often disproportionately represented among court users. By assuming that everyone is able to adjust to digital-only platforms, we risk denying people the ability to seek and access justice. The Government’s desire to save money by moving to digital solutions while failing to recognise the impact of their introduction may cost more in the long run, not just financially but by reducing access to justice for many.

While the Government have accelerated the roll-out of digital portals, they have also presided over the dismantling of our court system. Between 2010 and 2019, we have seen 295 court facilities close their doors for good, including more than 50% of the magistrates courts in England and Wales. The combination of this and increased digital-only processes is another example of trying to do too much too quickly, and the results will always have negative consequences on access to justice.

Resolution, the family law group, recently ran a survey of its members following the roll-out of some of the reforms. On access to justice, 87% strongly disagree or disagree that a more accessible service is being delivered, and 94% disagree or strongly disagree that faster processing times are being delivered. Not only is access to justice being denied but the reform agenda is making an already difficult process harder still. Many cases that end up going through the court system will involve vulnerable people in difficult circumstances, such as cases involving children going into care. By limiting the processes by which people interact with the court system, along with the continued closure of the estate, we are setting up barriers that will in turn prevent full access to justice, and particularly the ability of many to access their nearest court.

Following the Lord Chancellor’s recent response to the “Fit for the future: transforming the court and tribunal estate” consultation, I share the concerns of groups such as the Law Society that have drawn specific attention to the accessibility of our future court system. I am disappointed that the response categorised a reasonable journey as one that allowed court attendees to leave home no earlier than 7.30 am to attend a hearing and return home by 7.30 pm the same day, using public transport where necessary. For those who have caring responsibilities, family or childcare arrangements and for disabled people and the elderly, a 12-hour window is far from accessible. Some may have access to a car, but those who rely on public transport could have numerous legs to their journey and, given that thousands of bus routes have faced being cut under this Government, it is inevitable that there will be a detrimental impact on the ability of many to get to court in a reasonable time. This could affect their ability to access justice.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. Does she agree that there is another issue that can arise as a result of court closures? She and I know that the four youth courts that have been amalgamated now sit at Bromley, and that many of the youngsters who appear in front of those courts are involved in gang culture. This creates real listing difficulties for the court staff, who have to try to ensure that they do not list cases involving rival gangs from different areas of that part of south London at the same time, given the potential for disorder that can genuinely occur. This is a matter of concern for the police in our shared borough.

[Ellie Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I, too, know the difficulties that this is creating for the police and the court service locally. These complex considerations have to be taken into account, but they are sometimes not thought about when introducing these sorts of reforms.

The current outline for a reasonable journey assumes that everything in court that day runs to time and to plan. Court listings are usually oversubscribed under the current set-up, so many people often make their way to court, which often takes several hours, in anticipation of a hearing that never takes place. Not only does that have negative consequences for victims, witnesses and defendants and inevitably cost more, given that solicitors’ fees must still be paid, but it is quite possible that the combination of more difficult journeys and the continued floating or warned-list system will lead to the unintended consequence of people just not turning up at all. Research has shown that those effects, combined with court closures, have led to an increase in no-shows and an increase in warrants of arrest for defendants in locations where magistrates courts have closed.

[Victoria Prentis]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the Department has done no real research on the number of no-shows?

[Ellie Reeves]

That is a good point. The reforms are being pushed through without a proper look at what they mean in practice.

A survey of Resolution members by the Family Law Group showed that nearly 50% of respondents said that the courts that they had historically used had been closed and that, as a result, many clients’ travel time to court had increased to two hours each way. There were also over 200 examples of clients suffering financially or emotionally as the result of a court closure or a failure in court administration.

I am also concerned that court closures are leading to a wider reduction in facilities and services available to those who interact with the justice system. Previously, people in court could attend a counter for assistance or advice, particularly when having to fill out the relevant paperwork for their hearings. Resolution’s evidence went on to detail the struggle that many of their clients experience due to the need to phone ahead to arrange things that were previously done in court at a counter. The evidence described clients calling a centre only to find that up to 100 people were ahead of them in the queue and finding that support staff, while not unhelpful, had only limited information, making it difficult to progress any queries. In addition, the fact that individuals now have to book an appointment before being able to attend the court counter creates another barrier to getting stuff done, both for professionals and for members of the public. As I stated earlier, given that vulnerable people are disproportionately represented among court users, reducing the availability of services and switching them to online or telephone-based solutions instead risks excluding many from full interaction with our justice system.

The overarching message from stakeholders is that, while reform can improve the workings of the court system, the pace at which courts have closed, combined with the inaccessible roll-out of the digitalisation reforms, has left behind a gulf in access to justice. Cuts to staffing will see those who have to use our courts system finding the whole process even more difficult to navigate. The courts and staff who are left have to deal with increasing caseloads. The Government’s reforms have a facade of ease of use and straightforwardness, but the cuts that have hit the courts have left us with a system in disarray.

In evidence to the Justice Committee, the Criminal Bar Association succinctly stated that

“many of the reforms already implemented and those proposed are framed too much around efficiency at the expense of ensuring a fair process for all.”

I urge the Minister to look at the speed at which the reforms are rolled out and to consider the evidence that too much is happening too quickly. He should also listen to the recommendations of the Public and Commercial Services Union and many other bodies involved in our courts and justice system and prevent any further court closures until it can be proven that they are not having a detrimental impact on access to justice.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dhesi]

With great eloquence, the hon. Gentleman has highlighted two of the key reasons why this debate is so important. I concur fully with his views.

In many cases, IPP sentences that had shorter tariffs, of less than two years, have become in effect a life sentence as people have been stuck in limbo, unable to prove that they no longer pose a risk, often for reasons beyond their control. For those IPP-sentenced prisoners, the sentences did not work as intended and instead have become an unfairly punitive aspect of our criminal justice system. I would like to focus my remarks today on those prisoners, as it is those on the shortest tariffs who have experienced the injustice.

Why were IPP sentences abolished in the first place? Although designed to protect the public from serious offenders, IPP sentences were in reality handed down for a far broader range of offences than was intended. They were handed down at the rate of more than 800 a year, moving thousands of people into prison indefinitely. That led to offenders who had committed more minor crimes facing a short tariff but an indefinite sentence.

The Prison Reform Trust published late last year a report that showed that more than half of prisoners still serving an IPP sentence had a tariff of four years or less and 15% had a tariff of less than two years. Custody and imprisonment should be used as a last resort; and indefinite custody, with no fixed end, should be used only where a very serious offence has been committed. I fully appreciate that there are cases in which individuals have committed heinous crimes against humanity and therefore the local communities are extremely concerned about the prisoner’s release. One such case was highlighted to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). He and his predecessor in that seat had both worked with the local community to highlight their very serious concerns about someone who had killed three children and impaled them on railings after murdering them in their home.

However, I am most concerned about the non-serious cases wherein someone is sentenced to a short sentence but ends up being imprisoned for years on end. Where people are safe to be released, we should not be keeping them in custody to serve many multiples of their tariff for the crimes that they have committed. That stands against the principles of natural justice, on which our justice system was founded. The more widespread use of IPP sentences than was intended has also led to a number of instances in which offenders who committed the same offence in the same context were handed sentences such that one offender could be expected to spend a lot longer in prison.

Even the author of IPP sentencing, David Blunkett, acknowledges that this was a flawed policy. Lord Blunkett has noted:

“The consequence of bringing that Act”—

the Criminal Justice Act 2003—

“in has led, in some cases, to an injustice and I regret that”.

In 2012, the Government rightly took the decision to abolish sentences of imprisonment for public protection for offenders, meaning that that option was no longer available to judges. However, although that was the right decision, the issue remains of what to do to address the situation of those who are currently serving an IPP sentence.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to recognise that these sentences have now been abolished. The Parole Board previously aimed to get the IPP prisoner population below 1,500 by 2020, but the latest figures show that the number of people still serving IPP sentences is above 2,400. Given that these sentences have actually been abolished, does my hon. Friend agree that those who are continuing to serve them should be re-sentenced under the rules that exist at the moment?

[Mr Dhesi]

With great telepathy, I, too, will be referring to the Parole Board and the statistic that my hon. Friend has very ably highlighted. I fully agree with her.

As I said, the issue remains of what to do to address the situation of those currently serving an IPP sentence. That is the issue that the current Government have to grapple with. The problem remains a real one for the prisoners, for their families, for the justice system and for wider society, which needs to have confidence in a justice system that rehabilitates people and is fair and proportionate.

Let us examine the continued use of IPP sentences. On 31 March 2019, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) has highlighted, 2,403 prisoners were still serving an IPP sentence and had yet to be released, despite the abolition of these sentences more than seven years ago. Of those prisoners, nine out of 10 have already served the minimum tariff that was handed down to them by the judge at their trial. A large proportion of those still serving an IPP sentence after surpassing their original tariff were initially sent to prison to serve a short tariff. Of the close to 400 people on an IPP sentence with a tariff of less than two years, more than half have served nine years, or more, beyond their original tariff. That is a travesty.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who cannot be here today, has informed me that a recent parliamentary question that she tabled has revealed that there are currently 46 women on IPP sentences, yet the Ministry of Justice does not know how many of those women have children. Given that that is such a low number, and given that the impact of mothers’ imprisonment on children is well documented, I believe that that is a shocking admission. The Parole Board predicts that unless changes are made to the situation faced by IPP prisoners, there will still be 1,500 people in prison serving an IPP sentence by 2020.

To illustrate the issues faced by people still serving IPP sentences, I shall draw attention to some particularly tragic examples of the effect that the indefinite nature of IPP sentences can have on those people sentenced to them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

David Dein is inspirational on this matter, and on many others, as I know from hearing from him directly on this important subject. He also has the great merit of being an Arsenal fan and a former vice-chairman of the club, as the hon. Gentleman is aware.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Last year’s review of sport in prisons shows that reoffending rates were markedly lower among those who had participated in sports-based resettlement programmes than among those who had not, but the report noted a distinct lack of engagement in physical activity among women in prison. What steps will the Minister take to implement Professor Meek’s recommendation of a specific physical activity strategy for women, and what incentives will the Government provide to sports clubs to get involved with rehabilitation schemes?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Our view is that sport can play a crucial role in rehabilitation and resettlement not just for male prisoners but for all prisoners, irrespective of gender. I went to see David Dein in HMP Downview, where we introduced the twinning project in a female prison for the first time, yielding fantastic results. We are very keen on the idea and are continuing to work with Jason Swettenham, the director in the Prison Service with responsibility for the project, to work within the custodial estate and with community organisations focused on engaging women in sport. They are absolutely integral to what we are trying to do.