Sentencing: Repeat Offenders

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. I have been lenient as the hon. Member made a very powerful speech, but he has ranged wide in terms of the subject. We are discussing the sentencing of repeat offenders. I know Mr Mangnall will be very well behaved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Carter]

My hon. Friend knows that I sit as a magistrate. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) said that Members of this House do not necessarily sentence, but I actually do sentence. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) is absolutely right. One of the greatest debates that benches of magistrates have is on the appropriate sentencing for the offender they see in front of them. Rehabilitation activity requirements and courses to help people understand the issues they face—on drugs, alcohol and dealing with conflict—are incredibly valuable and can form part of a sentencing package. As my hon. Friend says, it is right that magistrates have a full range of sentences available to them to ensure that the punishment fits the crime that an offender has been convicted of.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Mr Magistrate, for the reminder that interventions should be slightly shorter than that.

LGBTQ+ Afghan Refugees

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

We have at least seven Back-Bench speeches, so no one should be thinking about speaking for more than three minutes from the Back Benches in this debate, which will last for 60 minutes, not 90 minutes.

May I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission? Please give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the Chamber.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered LGBTQ+ Afghan refugees.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I thank hon. Members for being here today. May I start by paying tribute to our armed forces and diplomatic staff for their courage and professionalism during the evacuation operation in Afghanistan?

There is a long history of LGBTQ+ people in Afghanistan being disproportionately targeted and subjected to homophobic, biphobic and transphobic sexual violence, forced marriages, honour killings, conversion practices and execution. In the former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the death penalty was imposed for consensual same-sex conduct under the Afghan penal code of 2017. Even before the Taliban took control last month, there were no known LGBTQ+ advocacy organisations or networks in Afghanistan, and the Taliban takeover has now sent many LGBTQ+ people into hiding out of fear. Under the rule of the Taliban, simply being LGBTQ+ will result in extra-judicial executions and the death penalty, which is sanctioned by the Government. Clearly, it is not safe for LGBTQ+ people to remain in Afghanistan, but it needs to be noted that the majority of LGBTQ+ Afghans will stay in the country.

The Taliban’s stance on the death penalty for same-sex relationships is clear. In an interview with the German newspaper Bild in July, a Taliban judge, Gul Rahim, stated:

“For homosexuals, there can only be two punishments: either stoning or he must stand behind a wall that will fall down on him. The wall must be 2.5 to 3 metres high.”

Even LGBTQ+ Afghans who have escaped to neighbouring countries are still at huge risk. Neighbouring countries, such as Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, are not safe for LGBTQ+ people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

We have eight speakers and 32 minutes. Two speakers have not submitted a written request to speak, but I am going to include them, although the tradition is to write to the Speaker in advance to ask to speak in these debates. I will call Angela Eagle first, and then we will move from party to party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Sir Gary, for calling me in today’s debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for calling today’s debate and the many organisations such as Stonewall and Rainbow Migration which have provided excellent briefings.

I have serious concerns for the LGBTQ+ community in Afghanistan and in third countries in the same way that I do for religious minorities. I believe the systems are insufficient to provide the necessary security and confidentiality to ensure that people can make a safe journey to a place of sanctuary and I call on Government to look at this. To make any declaration could be a death sentence. While many are waiting for the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme to be announced, the detail is important in order that people can make the right choices about their future right now and in future.

With many countries absent in advancing the concerns of the LGBTQ+ community, it is important that the UK takes the lead. I urge the Minister to do so in her role. While we all ask significant questions, how will anyone now leave Afghanistan safely if their reason for leaving is because they are LGBTQ+? If there is no safe way of stating this, they will be placed with others wanting to flee.

Last night, I heard how sting operations are being undertaken in Afghanistan to out people who are LGBTQ+. This is really disturbing. If people are able to flee, we know that neighbouring countries such as Iran and Pakistan are unsafe for them to go to. How does the Minister propose to address that in her discussions with colleagues at this time?

Perhaps most worrying of all, I understand that the UNHCR process for refugees uses local agencies. While the principle may be positive, there is serious risk that some of these agencies will be homophobic, biphobic or transphobic. Rather than advancing an application under the UNHCR, they could end up putting that person at risk. Will the Minister look at this specific issue and raise it with the UNHCR? In these countries, where people have to conceal their identity, how do the UK Government plan to prioritise these people in practice under the ACRS? We have not had the detail we need. It would be helpful if the Minister could share some more detail today, because people need to know how to plan their passage to safety.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of alternative routes to safety. In view of these extensive risks, many people may make their own passage to the UK. Why the UK? Because we have a proud history of upholding human rights; because it is one of the safest countries to be in; and because there are so many good local organisations, such as Time To Be Out in my constituency. We are the only human rights city in the country. This organisation, Time To Be Out, supports LGBT refugees and asylum seekers specifically in resettlement. Will the Minister amend the Nationality and Borders Bill to ensure that these Afghan refugees and so many besides are given a really warm welcome to the UK rather than criminalised and discriminated against, let us face it, because of their sexuality?

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Thank you for keeping to time. In fact, most of you have spoken for less than four minutes, so we have made up a few moments. I am sure that the Minister will want to take advantage of that. We now move to our Front-Bench speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a particular pleasure, Sir Gary, to serve under your chairpersonship today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing such a crucial and timely debate and I add to her tribute to all the diplomats, officials and members of the armed forces who worked on Operation Pitting.

I must set out at the outset that this debate is personal for me—and, I suspect, for many Members—not just as an openly gay man but as someone of faith, as someone who has worked on issues relating to Afghanistan, both inside and outside government, in the last decade, and as someone who has visited the country in person. I have also witnessed in person the difficulties for LGBT+ asylum seekers in our immigration system, including at detention centres, and the often dehumanising processes that they face on top of the traumas they have already suffered in fleeing from persecution and, in many cases, violence and threats of death.

I also have a strong and proud Afghan community in my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, and like many Members in Westminster Hall today I have taken up cases on behalf of many individuals; I think that I am dealing with more than 300 individual cases, including those of LGBT+ individuals trapped in the chaos of Afghanistan in recent weeks. Although I can say that there were some successes, I am sorry to say that there are many people who we have tragically failed. I think in particular of one LGBT+ individual who is highly at risk and whose case I raised multiple times with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office. I had my hopes up after I received a call from a Home Office official, but sadly I believe that that individual is still in Afghanistan and that their life is at risk. I hope that I can take up their case directly with the Minister after the debate.

I thank all colleagues for their incredibly powerful and in some cases heartbreaking speeches. I also thank all those organisations and individuals involved with this issue, particularly the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights; Stonewall; Rainbow Migration; the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association; Rainbow Railroad; and other organisations, such as Kaleidoscope Trust. These organisations have not only spoken up but—better still—acted in recent weeks to assist our LGBT+ fellow humans in Afghanistan. They also do so much week in and week out for those around the world facing persecution because of their sexuality or gender identity. Much of that work is unseen and unheard, not least because of the obvious risks for those who they are trying to assist.

I also pay fair tribute to some of the junior Ministers—they know who they are—who have met me and others in recent weeks to discuss what more the UK Government can do to assist urgently to save lives, and I hope that in the future the Minister who is here today can be part of the conversations that we agreed to continue to try to assist people practically.

The facts relating to Afghanistan are stark and grim, as we have heard from so many speakers already. Of course, the situation before the Taliban takeover was already incredibly serious, as highlighted by ILGA, but it is no surprise that with the Taliban takeover many LGBT+ people in Afghanistan are literally fleeing for their lives. We heard that terrible comment from the Taliban judge, Gul Rahim, who said:

“For homosexuals, there can only be two punishments: either stoning, or he must stand behind a wall that will fall down on him.”

There is no more horrific comment than that, but that is the reality for so many people in Afghanistan today.

I also share the fears expressed about what systems are in place for those fleeing to neighbouring countries that also have repressive regimes—countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. In fact, consensual sexual acts between same-sex adults are criminalised in 72 UN member states today and only 50 countries recognise trans people’s rights to have their gender identity legally recognised. Of course, this is not just an issue relating to Afghanistan.

I am sorry to say that many reports have highlighted how the Home Office’s asylum system is failing LGBT+ refugees and often leaving them worse off. I am also sorry to say that I concur with much of the evidence from the organisations that have contacted us that many LGBT+ refugees feel like they are treated like criminals, are particularly badly treated when they are in detention and even put at risk.

I have two quotes from the report by Stonewall and the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group:

“Trans asylum seekers face particular threats of violence in detention. One trans interviewee reports being placed in multiple male detention centres, even though she made it known that she identifies as a woman.”

The report also said:

“LGBT asylum seekers find it difficult to settle back into society after their experiences”

elsewhere in the immigration system. I can think of a case that I have dealt with only in the last week of an LGBT+ asylum seeker in my own constituency. When I contacted the Home Office, it did not even know that that person was living in my constituency, yet they had been moved away from the support networks that had grown up for them. I am glad to say that that decision has now been reversed, but if that is the sort of thing that is going on, we have a very long way to go.

We have to ensure a warm welcome for all those arriving in this country, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity, and that specific resources, training and support are put in place to ensure that people are treated with the dignity they deserve. I praise the Welsh Government, which I know has been working with the Home Office on the support that we can provide to the Afghan resettlement scheme, including in my constituency.

I have a few key questions for the Minister. How many LGBT+ individuals were evacuated under the various evacuation routes, including those for UK nationals and residents, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, and those for special cases? How many of those individuals are now being counted under the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme? Is there an allocation for places under the ACRS for LGBT+ people? How will those people be identified and supported? How will these schemes work with organisations such as the UNHCR and ILGA Asia to ensure that people are properly identified in-region? Is there work going on with other likeminded countries? I think of the US, Canada, Australia and European Union partners. Many of them will want to do the same. Is there formal co-ordination? Are there discussions going on at the UN General Assembly session in New York this week? What is being done about the risks in the region? Finally, I wholly concur with the questions raised about the Nationality and Borders Bill—questions about evidence and of delay in process. The system is already difficult enough; should we be making it even harder for LGBT+ asylum seekers? Surely not. I hope that the Minister will have some answers.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Minister, please leave one minute after your response for Kate Osborne to respond.

Vanessa George: Early Release from Prison

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for raising this issue and for the commitment and passion he showed on behalf of his constituents, which does him credit. He made a very powerful speech, and I thank him for graciously allowing me to speak for a couple of moments before, importantly, the Minister responds.

I endorse all the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Although the appalling crimes committed by Vanessa George took place in his constituency, the shockwaves caused by that atrocity impacted the whole of our city and the country as a whole. I remember it only too well; it is probably the worst, most traumatic event in my 27 years in this place. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who is currently at the Invictus trials in Sheffield supporting injured servicemen, I have supported parents caught up in this scandal for many years. Of course, it is not going to be resolved in just a few years.

I am deeply disappointed by the decision of the Parole Board to release Vanessa George on licence. I have had reasons to doubt its robustness several times during my years as a Member of Parliament. Of course, in the case of John Worboys, which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport mentioned, the Parole Board misread the public interest and the courts had to intervene. The Parole Board does not always get the balance right between the interests of the perpetrator, and the impact on victims and the public interest. In this case, it has fallen well short. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that the way some of the victims found out about this early release is appalling.

Nine years is not enough of a punishment for the trauma that this woman inflicted on many lives and families in Plymouth, the true depth of which will not be known for some years yet. In my opinion, she should serve at least another 10 years in custody before being released on licence. I join the hon. Gentleman in asking the Minister to ask the Parole Board to think again.

Grandparents' Rights: Access to Grandchildren

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Sir Oliver Heald]

That is certainly an interesting thought. Of course, I cannot say what the next Government will do. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in the funny—well, the important and democratic—period of seeking re-election. [Interruption.] Very, very important, yes. We must not take the electorate for granted, and one Parliament cannot bind another, but if the Green Paper process goes ahead, which I hope it will, all these issues can be looked at in that context. A history of having minded the child in the way that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is an important factor.

I think we would all agree that disputes over children can be very complex—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South. Parental disputes over children can also affect wider family relationships, and the relationship between the children and their significant relatives can be vulnerable to an unpleasant breakdown involving a lot of distress. No one would want to rekindle distress or make it worse for the child.

Research has provided some insights. A study funded by the Nuffield Foundation, a charity that aims to improve social well-being, gives some insights into how easy it can be for wider family members to become embroiled in conflicts over children. The study was of 197 case files from county courts in England and Wales in 2011, and its primary aims were to understand the detail of different types of childcare arrangements set up during litigation at county court level and to shed some light on how the different types of county court orders then in existence were used and understood. Some 12% of the cases examined were not disputes between parents but involved non-parents, such as grandparents or other relatives who were caring for the children, and three of the cases concerned applications from grandparents to have contact.

Although the sample size was small, the findings shed light on how some grandparents can become directly involved in conflicts that can negatively influence their grandchildren. The findings also demonstrate the considerable lengths to which the court will go to facilitate a child’s involvement with their grandparents, and the court’s difficult task of weighing up the benefits and risks of such contact. I think we would all agree that the principle of grandparents being part of a child’s life is a very important one, and the research shows that the courts take it seriously too.

I will say something about public law cases because grandparents play an important role in them. It is a principle of the 1989 Act that local authorities should support the upbringing of a child by their family wherever possible, if it is the most appropriate way to safeguard the child’s welfare. Local authorities can apply to the court for a care order when they believe that a child has suffered or is likely to suffer risk of significant harm. The care order allows the authority to take over the welfare of the child. Local authorities must seek to give preference to placing looked-after children with wider family members first, if it is not possible to return them to the birth family and, if that is not possible, with a friend or another person connected with them. The court can appoint a special guardian as a permanent alternative to long-term foster care or adoption, and that is often a family member such as a grandparent, or a friend.

In conclusion, the courts recognise the importance of children maintaining relationships with their grandparents following parental separation. Family courts are cognisant of that when considering applications relating to child arrangements. However, such cases are not straightforward, given the tensions and ongoing conflict that can often arise when parents separate, and for that reason, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, the welfare of the children must continue to be the paramount concern.

We have had a good debate and some good points have been made. If the Green Paper process goes ahead, as I hope it will, there will be an opportunity for us to consider the matter more fully and for organisations that have particular viewpoints to make a contributions.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Mr Mackintosh, you have a couple of minutes to wind up if you wish.

Employment Tribunal Fees

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I would like to make reference to the TUC’s submission to the Select Committee on Justice inquiry on tribunal fees, which stated:

“The EHRC and BIS recently funded a large-scale survey of the experiences of new mothers in the workplace...The survey findings suggest that 54,000 women a year (one in nine new mothers) are dismissed, made redundant when no other employee is, or are treated so badly while pregnant or on maternity leave that they are forced to leave their jobs.”

Indeed, I know women who have suffered exactly that. That is happening at a time when, despite all the joy of adding a new member to their family, they are under a huge amount of pressure. In 2012-13, prior to the introduction of fees, there were 1,593 claims for pregnancy-related detriment or dismissal.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be brief. The hon. Lady might wish to make a speech later, but for now, perhaps she will conclude.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I am sorry, Mr Streeter. There was half the number in the following year—790 claims. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) agree that that is an unacceptable level for our society?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is of course absolutely right. Trade unions play a vital role in ensuring that justice is served for their members, but they also play a wider role by not supporting or endorsing claims that are considered vexatious or weak. We really should mark out that contribution that is made. Of course the vast majority of people who work in this country are not trade union members. Perhaps that is one reason why the figures have not substantially changed as a result of these initiatives from the Government.

The myth that there is a vexatious culture out there has been perpetuated by parts of this Government and certain sections of the media. It is almost as if they believe that there is an army of litigious individuals out there who are routinely fleecing employers with spurious claims. That view has no basis in fact. As I said, there are already rules to stop vexatious claims proceeding. Each case is considered by a legally qualified judge. Most employers have access to professional advice on their case and far more are legally represented at tribunals than claimants—and all of that in a country that regularly appears near the bottom of the pile in any OECD studies of the strength of employment protection across the planet. It is far from the easy ride for employees that some people would portray.

In addition, it is simply not the case that there are hundreds of no win, no fee lawyers out there ready to exploit employers by bringing forth spurious claims. The clue is in the title: “no win, no fee”. If the lawyer does not think that the claim will win, they will not get paid for it, so why would they waste time pursuing a claim that they know will ultimately be unsuccessful?

The idea that employers are a soft touch in these matters is simply untrue. Most are professionally represented and should be able easily to spot someone trying it on. There is a question about how those who are not members of trade unions access affordable representation. We have dealt with that in some of the interventions today. Of course I would say that the best thing that anyone can do to protect themselves in the workplace is to join a trade union, but that is not a substitute for basic advice and support for people who find themselves in these very difficult situations. The Government have pulled the rug out from under them.

This system not only prevents access to justice, but feeds the myth that employment rights are some sort of undesirable impediment to properly functioning businesses. At its worst, it acts as encouragement to those rogue employers who think that employment protection and workplace rights are an optional extra to be ignored whenever possible.

There is plenty of evidence from those representing individuals in employment tribunals, including those who gave evidence to the Justice Committee, that some employers will deliberately decide not to engage in any kind of discussion about resolution of a claim until the very end of the process, even when they may very clearly be in the wrong. The pre-claim conciliation process run by ACAS can be and often is met by employers refusing to engage at all. They know that if they have dismissed an employee, they may not have the funds to pay for a tribunal claim. Even when one is under way, they still hold off until the hearing fee is paid before seriously considering whether they should engage in settlement negotiations. That can be as little as three weeks before the tribunal hearing. That wastes everyone’s time and the tribunal’s and the taxpayer’s resources. There is a category of employers who will not engage with anything unless they know that the employee has paid their £1,200, but even in the cases in which the lower fee applies, there is now a real dilemma facing employees, who are asking themselves, “Can I afford to take this on even though I know I am in the right?”

The starkest example—I referred to this earlier—is one from my own experience shortly before I was elected to this place. It involved an employer systematically refusing to pay their staff over a period of weeks. They refused to engage with ACAS in early conciliation and decided instead to sit back and wait for the tribunal claims that never arrived. The people affected whom I saw were all women and had all lost several weeks’ wages. There was no doubt that money was owed, but all of them questioned spending £390 to recover a similar amount and some of them were actually seeking to recover less than their initial outlay in fees, so for them the dilemma was even greater. Of course, there was no reason to suppose that they would not succeed in their claims, but it is a sad fact that employers, even if they do lose, do not actually pay the compensation due to the employee more than 50% of the time. Given the intransigence shown up to that point, I could not criticise those people at all for not wanting to take that risk.

How can anyone defend the bad employer playing the system and preventing very basic employment rights, including the right to be paid, from being enforced? It does not take a great feat of imagination to see how that attitude can inform an employer’s thinking on whether they should, for example, take steps to dismiss an employee fairly in the first place. After all, if they want rid of someone, why waste too much time on that process if they think that the person will not have the resources to challenge it afterwards? Far from the picture painted by some, this Government are actually creating a culture in which an employer can hire and fire with impunity.

Then there is the situation in which the employer becomes insolvent. The claimant has to apply to the Redundancy Payments Service for redundancy pay, but if there is no employer left to order reimbursement from and it is not recoverable from the national insurance fund, the claimant never recovers their fees. How can it be right that the state can profit from that situation? What kind of situation allows an employee to be, in effect, fined for attempting to exercise their rights in the already difficult situation in which there is an insolvency?

The GMB union has provided a very clear example of what amounts to a significant profit made off the backs of trade union membership fees. It was involved in a claim in Sheffield against a company that in February 2015 went into administration. The business was later sold to new owners, with the original company being wound up. There were redundancies, and the employment tribunal found in favour of the 48 people who brought claims in respect of a failure to consult and unfair dismissal. The claimants were supported by the GMB and three other unions, with fees totalling £13,200 being paid to issue the claims and have them heard. Although the tribunal ordered the respondent to refund the fees, there was virtually no chance of recovering them, as the legal entity had been wound up. Notably, it was only possible for those employees to bring claims because they were supported by a union to get their case before the tribunal. That is a tribute to the importance of trade union membership, but it cannot be right that trade unions or individuals have to make such payments with no avenue for recovering the cost. In that situation they were completely blameless, so why should the state penalise them?

On the question of costs, it has been suggested that one of the justifications for the fee system is that it will recoup some of the costs of the tribunal system. If that was the intention, the system has been a failure. The latest accounts from the Ministry of Justice show that in 2014-15, the net income from employment tribunal fees was £9 million and expenditure on employment tribunal services overall was £71.4 million, which means that the increase in net income from fees covers 12.5% of the cost of running the employment tribunal service. The Government seem to have been unable to quantify, in response to written questions, the extra administration and staffing costs in the tribunal service of having to administer the fees and the remission system. In reality, the gain in revenue is probably lower than 12.5%, and it has been achieved at the expense of a 69% drop in the number of claims.

There is no mention anywhere in any of the documents I have seen of the benefit to the taxpayer from the application of the recoupment regulations, which can result in an employer paying back to the taxpayer thousands of pounds—for example, in jobseeker’s allowance already paid to the claimant—which is offset against the claimant’s compensation. Such repayment is normally ordered where a tribunal has made a finding of unfair dismissal. Why is that clear benefit to the taxpayer not included in any considerations, and has anyone stopped to consider that the level of recoupment will have reduced as the level of claims has reduced—

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. I am reluctant to intervene, because the hon. Gentleman is making a fine speech, but he has been speaking for half an hour. He might want to take into account the fact that several colleagues want to catch my eye.

[Justin Madders]

I will be brief, Mr Streeter. As we have discussed, do not the participants contribute to the system through their taxes anyway? Is it not simply part of the cost of a civilised society? In the long run, we all benefit from stable and balanced employment relations. If the Government are so determined to recoup costs and if they are genuinely interested in ensuring access to justice, surely the obvious way to deal with the matter is to levy a fee or apportion a percentage of compensation at the end of the process, not at the beginning.

At the moment, if a claimant is successful, they can recover their fee from the respondent, but what is the respondent’s contribution to the costs of the tribunal? It is nothing. I suppose it could be argued that they indirectly contribute by recovering the fee and repaying it to the employee, but as we have seen, that outcome is not certain, and the burden disproportionately falls on those who seek to enforce their rights.

Employment tribunals play a vital role in ensuring the effectiveness of basic rights, such as the rights to the minimum wage, paid holiday, time off and maternity leave, and the right not to be unfairly dismissed or discriminated against. If we value those rights and think that they are important, we should also value the ease with which people are able to exercise them. Those rights are not just about individual dignity and respect in the workplace; they bring with them important social and economic benefits for the country. They ensure that most people can participate in the labour market without facing unfair discrimination. They give vulnerable workers more job security and stability of income than they would have. They encourage a committed and engaged workforce and the retention of skilled workers. They allow people to plan their lives and plan for the future, knowing that if they do a good job and their employer runs its business well, they are likely to remain in work. Employment rights are, ultimately, of benefit to everyone. The fee regime not only undermines those rights but actively encourages rogue employers to flout the law, and I say that the regime should be scrapped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. The wind-up speeches will begin at 3.30 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing this very important debate. He speaks with huge experience—far more than me. He was, I think, an employment solicitor from 1998. I ought to declare my interest: I am a lawyer. Prior to my election to this House, I was a barrister at Wilberforce Chambers in Hull. Since then, I have been admitted to the roll of solicitors, practising only occasionally on a completely pro bono basis. As we are discussing tribunals, including employment tribunals, I ought to declare the fact that my wife is a fee-paid judge in the social entitlement tribunal, and a legal aid lawyer. She does not practise employment law. If she did, she would not do so through public funding, because the Government took away the little public funding that there was for employment law in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

Since the introduction of employment tribunal fees in 2013, there has been a massive decline in the number of cases brought to tribunals. The number of single employment tribunal claims has fallen by 69%, and the number of discrimination cases has fallen by a massive 80%. It cannot be said that that is a result of weeding out unmeritorious claims. It is beyond what is reasonable to suggest that the Ministry of Justice could have calibrated fees perfectly to deter 50,000 or more vexatious cases every year while ensuring that all meritorious cases were heard before tribunals.

It is important to look at a couple of cases that have come to my surgery. One is the case of Steve, who is a full-time forklift truck driver in Hull, working for a builders merchant. He had worked five consecutive Saturdays but had not been paid. A simple wage claim amounted to £280, but the fee was £390—completely prohibitive. He would have been entitled to fee remission had he been advised, but as the Minister knows, there is no longer legal help for employment law. In any event, the procedure for claiming fee remission is so complex and long-winded that it would put anybody off. The suggestion that a layperson could tackle the complexities thrown at them in applying for the fee remission is just ludicrous, and the Minister probably knows that. He might not accept or want to concede that, but it happens to be absolutely right.

There are three problems. One is the possibility that fee remission is not brought to the public’s attention. I do not think that people know about it, and even if they did, it is too complex to tackle without some legal help. The fee remission scheme is an absolute minefield. I looked at it briefly today. [Interruption.]

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. We have a fourth problem: there is a Division in the House, so the sitting is suspended. I understand that we are expecting possibly two votes, so we will suspend for 25 minutes. If it is only one vote, please come back as quickly as possible, as we will suspend for 15 minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I have, and I apologise again to the hon. Gentleman that I was not able to attend the debate myself. I look forward to meeting him. He, of course, is concerned about a specific issue with regard to the types of instrument that can be kept in a prisoner’s cell, but he is right to refer to the music that is made in communal settings, including as part of religious services, which—and I entirely agree with him—contributes to rehabilitation.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

19. How much legal aid was granted last year to non-UK citizens.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

We do not, as I discovered when I took the job, rather to my surprise, currently have data on the nationality or residence status of legal aid recipients. I think that in the future, individuals should in principle have a strong connection to the UK in order to benefit from civil legal aid.

[Mr Streeter]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. It is quite a surprise, perhaps, that we have not kept a record of that in the past, but I am very grateful to him for the changes that he has made to the residence test, which should mean that whatever figure we spent on non-nationals last year, it will be saved for the British taxpayer looking forward. My constituents will welcome that.

[Chris Grayling]

We hear the chuckles from the Labour party, but let us face it: I had the same experience at the Department for Work and Pensions. The reality is that, Labour opened the door to immigration on a scale we had not seen before in this country. They kept absolutely no record of where state money was going. The reality is that they mismanaged things; we are picking up the pieces.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post and regret that his first question attacks the Victims’ Commissioner, who is doing an extremely good job. She is helping us with the victims code, and she has made a significant difference. She has reviewed the operation of the probation service’s victim contact scheme. She will, I think, show that the terrible experience she has had herself will contribute to her role as Victims’ Commissioner. I hope that across the Floor of this House we can get behind the Victims’ Commissioner.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

7. What progress is being made on reducing illegal drug use in prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

We are making good progress. As a result of effective prison security measures and working closely with health services to reshape drug treatment in prisons, the proportion of prisoners testing positive for drug misuse is the lowest it has been since 1996.

[Mr Streeter]

Many of my constituents remain baffled about why we cannot make prisons drug-free zones; successive Governments have not been able to do so. None the less, I welcome the recent through-the-gate reforms that my hon. Friend has introduced. Will he explain how they will help offenders to come off and stay off drugs?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On his first point, he will recognise that one of the emerging challenges is the misuse of drugs that are not in and of themselves illegal. In that regard, I commend to him the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), which I think answers that problem very effectively and I hope the House will pass it.

On the through-the-gate reforms, again my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) is right that it is important that we undertake to all those providing drug treatment in prisons that what they begin will be properly completed; otherwise, they will not begin what may be long-term drug treatment programmes. That is why through-the-gate matters, and why our rehabilitation reforms will support people not only in custody but in their transition into the community and for some considerable time thereafter.

North Liverpool Community Justice Centre

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Westminster Hall

On resuming—

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

We will gently get under way again. We were very much enjoying Mrs Louise Ellman’s speech.

[Mrs Ellman]

Thank you, Mr Streeter. The co-location of key criminal justice agencies in the centre—the police, probation, Crown Prosecution Service and youth offending teams—is an important part of its approach, but there is more. Crucial support services—dealing with, for example, drugs, debt, financial problems generally, victim and witness support and antisocial behaviour—all working together are critical, as is vital family support. It is a uniquely holistic service.

The centre has been privileged to be served by two outstanding judges with their colleagues—his honour Judge Fletcher, and from December 2012, Judge Clancy. The writing has been on the wall for some time, before the Government’s hasty consultation on closure, which took place in six rushed weeks over the summer recess. The answer to my parliamentary question about the issue on 9 September showed that the centre’s fate was sealed, and the Government have now announced that it is to close.

The reasoning on which the closure is based fails in two fundamental respects. The Government’s key argument is that the cost of the centre does not justify its continuation. First, the Government’s claim that it has failed to address crime successfully is deeply flawed. Crime rates in north Liverpool, which is the area covered by the centre, fell by 7.2% between 2005 and 2010—much more than elsewhere in Liverpool, and much more than elsewhere across the country. It must be remembered that the centre hears a high proportion of serious crimes. Some 88.1% of cases involve violence against the person, while the national average for cases of that sort is 47.8%. That makes its success even more notable. Its important work in addressing antisocial behaviour—a demand of the local community to address that—is simply ignored in the assessment. That work is vital to the community, yet it does not feature in the judgment on the centre’s future.

Secondly, and inexplicably, there has been no assessment of the centre’s key aim of conducting preventive work and supporting the community through its inter-agency approach. That failure is incomprehensible, as prevention of crime and supporting the community was a major objective of the centre from the very beginning. Its outstanding work on victim and witness support has resulted in, for example, a 90% to 100% successful conviction rate in cases of domestic violence. However, that outstanding work has been ignored, and I understand that with the centre’s closure, the person who has been doing that work—someone who has received national awards for their success—will cease doing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

rose—

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

A short intervention from Steve Rotheram.

[Steve Rotheram]

Once again, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, and she is very generous about giving way. Does she agree with me that the decision to make the announcement on the cusp of the parliamentary recess has meant that the ability to scrutinise the decision fully has not been afforded to local agencies and people who want to keep the centre open?

[Mrs Ellman]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. The consultation was carried out during the parliamentary recess. It was rushed. Many people did not have the opportunity to make a response, and many people did not realise that it was in fact taking place. It seems a very curious time in which to carry out a consultation on something as serious as this.

I am convinced that the decision is based on financial considerations, taking advantage of the break in the centre’s lease. We are told that the work will transfer to another court. Will that indeed be the case? What will fill the gap in terms of reducing crime, undertaking vital preventive work and supporting this resilient but deprived community? I hope that the Minister today can provide the answers.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Before the Minister responds, it might be helpful to know that the sitting must end by 5.27 pm.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

It is important that Labour Members understand what they are saying when they oppose these reforms. Every day of every week, a young person, very often somebody who has grown up in the most difficult circumstances and found themselves with a short sentence in jail, is walking back on to our streets with £46 in their pocket and no support, and the majority reoffend. That is a scandal, it needs to stop as quickly as possible, and that is what we are aiming to do.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

T2. May I commend my right hon. Friend for his courage in trying to tackle the legal aid budget, which certainly does need to be addressed, and thank him for the genuine consultation exercise on which he has embarked? May I gently suggest to him that, in particular, the plans for large criminal law legal aid contracts in rural areas need to be looked at? I am concerned about the decimation of specialist firms in Plymouth. I support his approach, but could he please look again at that issue?

Protecting Children Online

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

I am pleased to take part in this debate. I congratulate the Labour party on calling it and using up one of their Supply days to raise a serious and important matter to us all.

It seems that every great invention that we make as human beings brings both benefits and disbenefits. I think of the internal combustion engine, which led to the car, which gives us all great mobility but creates pollution and kills 3,500 of our citizens on the roads every year. Now we have the internet, which gives us amazing access to information and the ability to interact socially, but can allow access to all kinds of unsavoury and potentially harmful material. It is vital that we do a better job of protecting our children, and I congratulate the Government on the steps they have taken so far.

I have just two points to make in this debate. I do not pretend to be an expert and I certainly do not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) in his technological knowledge. These points have been drawn to my attention by the British Board of Film Classification, which I would describe as a trusted and familiar friend to most of us, as we see its image before films. I think back to the first film I went to see, the James Bond film “Thunderball”, in 1965—obviously I was a baby.

[Alun Cairns]

What was the certificate?

[Mr Streeter]

I do not know what the certificate was, but may I just get on with my speech?

My point is that we trust the BBFC’s classifications. When the Video Recordings Act 1984 was passed, more than 25 years ago, certain video works—I will come to online content in a second—were made exempt from classification because they were considered unlikely to be harmful. However, the content of exempt works has changed beyond recognition since 1984, which means that inappropriate and potentially harmful content can be legally supplied to children. On 24 May 2013, the Government announced that it planned to lower the exemptions threshold in order to prevent children from accessing potentially harmful material, so well done to the Government. This is a most welcome decision, for which the BBFC—along with the home entertainment industry, the recorded music industry, retailers and law enforcement bodies—had argued for some time.

Once implemented, the decision will improve the protection that children enjoy from potentially harmful media content by ensuring that video content such as drug misuse, strong violence, racist language and certain sexual content can no longer legally be freely supplied to children. Instead, the BBFC will classify such content to keep it away from vulnerable and impressionable children. The Government have said that they hope to have the new regime in place by April 2014, and I very much hope—I know that the Minister is listening carefully—that the Government will keep to that timetable, which requires secondary legislation. However, the legislation has never covered online content, and there is now particular concern about the content of online music videos.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is making a good point about the Government’s welcome announcement. There is still a problem though, because although there is some classification of adult content and 18 video ratings in gaming now, Auntie Mabel who buys a video for her grandchild at Christmas needs to be made absolutely aware of the severity of some of the content to which she might inadvertently be exposing her grandchildren. We need better information in the shops and on the part of retailers at the point of sale, so that she can ask whether she really wants her grandchildren to see that sort of content.

[Mr Streeter]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am sure that those on the Front Bench have taken it on board, and no doubt the Minister will deal with it explicitly in winding up.

The issue of online music videos, to which the Bailey report also referred, must be seriously considered. My attention was recently drawn to an online video made by a well known pop singer—I had not heard of her before, but never mind—which showed explicit shots of a young teenage girl, concerned about her body image, slitting her wrists in the bath. It is the video to a well known song—I remember hearing it in my house. Although it has a happy ending, I would argue that the graphic scenes in that video—which I am sure parents would allow their children to watch in a very relaxed way—are far too explicit and dangerous for young teenage children to watch. We all know that many of the children who follow these pop stars are very young and impressionable. At the very least, online videos should contain some kind of classification.

The Government are rightly pressing the music industry voluntarily to adopt age-appropriate ratings for online music videos. In response to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) said:

“The Government will now take action to: make sure that online music videos carry labels that show their age suitability, in order to protect children from harmful material; and make it even easier for parents to keep their children safe online, wherever they are and in whatever way they might access the internet.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1263W.]

The onus has therefore been placed on the music industry to come forward with a system that will work.

The BBFC hopes to work with the recorded music industry towards the goal of achieving well understood and trusted age ratings and content advice for online music videos, as it has done successfully with the home entertainment industry in relation to other online videos. The BBFC has now rated more than 200,000 videos for online distribution by such companies as Walt Disney, 20th Century Fox, Paramount, Universal and Sony. BBFC ratings are used by platforms such as iTunes, Netflix, blinkbox, BT Vision and TalkTalk—some of which I had heard of.

[Tim Loughton]

Have you used any of them?

[Mr Streeter]

No, I have not used any of them.

One obvious solution that the music industry could consider in response to the Government’s demands for age-appropriate ratings for online music videos would be to adopt BBFC classifications voluntarily online. Does the Minister agree that that would be a constructive way forward?

My final point relates to user-generated content—UGC. Independent research from June 2011 shows that while the public believe that the internet brings greater choice, freedom and flexibility, the majority of viewers still consider it important to be able to check the suitability of the audio-visual content that they download, with 85% of the public considering it important to have consistent BBFC classifications available for video-on-demand content. The figure rises to 90% for parents of children under 16.

However, it is amateur user-generated content such as that seen on YouTube that makes up the majority of video content online. This might feature content that is potentially harmful to children—I accessed the video to which I referred earlier through YouTube this morning—and it is presently unregulated. The BBFC and the Dutch regulator NICAM have together developed a tool for ordinary people to age-rate UGC across different countries and platforms. I hope that my technological friend to my right, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan, will consider that a good thing.

The tool is designed to enable those with responsibility for children to make fully informed viewing choices about non-professional content online. Through a single, simple, free-to-complete questionnaire, the tool instantaneously produces an age rating that can be shown on screen. The ratings can differ from country to country to reflect different national sensitivities and concerns over content. The tool is simple. It contains six questions about the content of the UGC, on behaviour, drugs, horror, language, sex and violence. Completing the questionnaire takes less than a couple of minutes. It also includes a facility for viewers to report content that, in their view, might be illegal. In the UK, such a report would go direct to the Internet Watch Foundation, about which much has been said this afternoon.

The tool is also flexible. For instance, the questionnaire may be completed by those uploading content. Alternatively, it may be completed by those viewing the content online. The ratings can be linked to online filters. This new initiative will shortly be trialled by Mediaset in Italy, and the BBFC and NICAM are looking for trial partners elsewhere, including in the United Kingdom. This is an example of the kind of initiative that can make the online world safer for children, and it has been welcomed by the EU Commission’s Safer Internet Coalition. I very much hope that our Government will get behind this initiative to help parents and children to make better informed choices about user-generated content. As we have heard this afternoon, there is no silver bullet on this issue, but with such incremental advances, our children will be better protected.