Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

18. What progress his Department has made on bailiff reform.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

We have legislated to set out the process that bailiffs must follow when taking control of goods, and to introduce a simplified, transparent fee structure. Further legislation for a new certification process will ensure that only fit and proper individuals can work as bailiffs. These reforms will come into force in April.

[Mr Cunningham]

I welcome that simplification, but what is the Minister doing to protect vulnerable people from some of the excesses of bailiffs?

[Mr Vara]

May I first put on record what a doughty campaigner the hon. Gentleman has been on this issue? I very much hope that the proposals that we will be putting in place in April will meet with his approval. We are putting in place a governance system that will make it absolutely clear when bailiffs—or enforcement agents, as they will be called—can seize goods and when they cannot, as well as how they should deal with vulnerable people. We are also putting in place a fee structure that is clearly understood and, most importantly, ensuring that enforcement agents have mandatory training and receive a certificate. If anyone acts as an enforcement agent without that certification, they will be committing a criminal offence.

Shrewsbury 24 (Release of Papers)

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Anderson]

I will run the debate; the hon. Gentleman should just sit there and listen.

In 1972, the unions, exasperated at the failure to achieve progress, called the first and so far only national building strike ever held. Four months later, the strike was called off after the unions forced their employers to concede the biggest increase in basic pay rates ever. It was a victory for the working man, but a bitter blow for the employers, who were determined on revenge. They were not alone. The Tory Government were rattled by the success of one of the least well-organised groups of workers in this country and were determined to help their friends in the building industry.

To pursue that revenge the employers’ body, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, went on what can only be described as a fishing expedition. It wrote to its members on 20 September 1972, two weeks after the strike ended, seeking any information related to possible violence and intimidation during the strike. The clear intention of the federation was to pass the dossier on to the Home Secretary for his consideration so that he could tighten up the law on picketing in industrial disputes. The federation specifically asked its members for information on any incidents available to them, including signed statements from any eye-witnesses; copies of any photographs from local newspaper photographers of, as the federation said, “the more notorious occurrences” that would give strong support to the submissions; and any other kind of suitable evidence that members might have come across, such as tape recordings and personal photographs.

It was not just the members of the federation who were being written to. In a letter to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Robert McAlpine complained that there was no problem with the law governing pickets and their activities, but that the problem was rather down to

“the lack of enforcement of the law by the police”.

That was a clear shot across the bows of the people who had the responsibility of ensuring that the law was adhered to on the ground. The police, in whom we put our faith to ensure that the law is upheld properly, were being told by an employer that they had not done their job properly.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Anderson]

Yes, but will my hon. Friend please be quick?

[Mr Cunningham]

I will be as quick as I can. It is not only in the building trade that blacklisting has gone on since the ’70s; it has gone on in other industries. We have recently had debates about that. More importantly, the Tories have not changed. Look at the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, because that tells us a lot. They want to make the law worse for working people.

[Mr Anderson]

My hon. Friend is right. Some things, sadly, never change.

When the dossier was completed in October 1972, it was passed on to the then Home Secretary, Robert Carr, who immediately instructed the chief constables of West Mercia and Gwynedd to investigate events in one particular part of the country—that is, the area in and around north Wales. He obviously wanted to pursue the agenda laid out by the employers in the dossier despite reports such as those in the Financial Times—hardly the workers’ friend—that said:

“This document is itself flawed since it suggests the existence of a sinister plot without being able to substantiate the allegations.”

Those involved who are in the House to listen to the debate today believe that the Home Secretary gave the job to the police so that they would put bones on the case that the employers were trying to make.

Why was that important? If it could be shown that the activities of the pickets were deliberately planned to intimidate, the charges laid against them could be much more serious than those for the argy-bargy that was the norm on picket lines. In particular, if conspiracy could be proven, the potential to lock up some of the leaders of the dispute for a very long time became a reality.

The choice of north Wales as the focus for police action was not an accident. Despite evidence of much more aggressive activity in other parts of the country, the Home Secretary deliberately focused on north Wales. That might be purely coincidental, but I can assure the House that no one involved in the campaign believes that to be so. North Wales was a part of the world where the McAlpine family had a huge amount of political influence. They were not only influential players in the Tory party but one of the biggest developers in the building industry, including at the site in Brookside in Shrewsbury that was the epicentre of the case against the pickets. In addition—again, this may be purely coincidental, but I doubt it—the high sheriff of Denbighshire, the man responsible for law and order in the area, just happened to be the ninth member of the McAlpine family in succession to have held that post.

As the police investigation gained momentum, 31 pickets were arrested on 14 November—two months after the end of the dispute. The men were released without charge, but three months later, on Valentine’s day 1974, 24 of them were rearrested. A barrage of charges— 242 in total—were levelled at these men, all of whom were charged with intimidation. Much more seriously, the first six to go on trial were charged with conspiracy to intimidate contrary to common law. This was the charge that the employers’ body wanted to see, because it gave the establishment the chance to send pickets to jail for long periods. The intent was clear—lock these people up and the rest of the trade union movement will know that legitimate trade union activity, including picketing, could now be treated as a criminal act.

So how did these workers become embroiled in this legal minefield? On 31 August, a joint meeting of members of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and the Transport and General Workers Union was held in The Ball and Stirrup pub in Chester. At the meeting, which was the first time many of those present had met each other, a request was read out from union members in the Shropshire area seeking support from other comrades throughout the north-west to successfully prosecute their case in their area. The meeting agreed that a group of pickets would travel down to Oswestry on 6 September to meet local activists and then decide which locations to picket.

That meeting is crucial to the issue. Anyone who has ever been involved in picketing, and looking round this room, I see a number of people who have been, knows that, especially when you are going outside your own area, you have to plan properly—basic stuff including where people are going to be picked up, when they can expect to get home, and where they are likely to be throughout the day. You also need to ensure that anybody going picketing is aware of the need to behave properly at all times and give them clear information in case there are problems. The meeting was simply a planning meeting, but crucially, when the case went to court, it was classed as a meeting to conspire to intimidate workers on the ground. No evidence was ever laid to substantiate that claim, but it was the crux of the case and it was what led to imprisonment.

The prosecution were so intent on getting jail sentences imposed that they even charged a person with conspiracy who was not present at the planning meeting. John McKinsie Jones had been collecting union subs in the downstairs bar of the pub, and he left before the planning meeting even began. He was nowhere near the meeting, yet amazingly he ended up being sentenced to nine months in jail for conspiracy to intimidate. How on earth can someone be part of a conspiracy when they are not even at the meeting where it is discussed?

It is interesting to compare what happened to the pickets who were charged with 242 offences between them and those at other courts who had been involved in similar activities. Earlier in the year, two trials were held in Mold. At the first trial, only minor charges were upheld by the jury and the maximum fine was £50. At the second trial, the jury found all defendants not guilty of anything. One of the main reasons for this was that in Mold, prior to the jury being selected, the lawyers for the defendants exercised their long-held right to challenge potential jurors. As was the right of the defence laywers, they were looking for people who might have connections with the building industry or might be hostile to trade unions. As a result of the cross-examination, a number of prospective jurors were excluded from the jury.

However—again, forgive my scepticism—after those trials, but before the Shrewsbury ones began, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, another part of the Tory hierarchy, unilaterally banished the right of lawyers to challenge jurors. This was done without warning and contrary to decades of practice, and without any prior consultation with the legal system or other interested parties. In order to try to get a fair trial despite these clearly deliberately motivated changes to the legal process, the defendants’ lawyers requested that the trial of those charged in relation to picketing in Shrewsbury be held in Mold or be moved to an area of the country that was more neutral than Shrewsbury would have been. The judge flatly turned down that request and set 3 October 1973 as the date for the first hearing.

The trial judge, Mr Justice Mais, was a surprise choice for such a high-profile, politically charged case. He had little, if any, experience in cases of this magnitude, or in criminal cases at all; his expertise was mainly in rural and ecclesiastical matters. His behaviour throughout the case led many to question his capability and impartiality. A number of issues gave rise to this concern. For example, when the jury were called to bring in the verdict, they were unable to come to a majority decision—they were tied at eight to four. The judge asked them to keep going but they said, “We’re too tired to go on today—we need to have a break.” So he agreed to give them a break and let them stop in a hotel overnight, but he closed by saying:

“You should go to the accommodation prepared for you…and I suggest that you continue your deliberations there.”

That was an extraordinary thing to suggest. The only place where a jury should consider any case is in the jury room and nowhere else, be it a hotel or anywhere else.

If that were the judge’s only error, it would still be wrong, but throughout the trial his behaviour was, to say the least, questionable. The campaigners provided me and other Members of this House with reports from David Altaras, a junior barrister who defended Ricky Tomlinson at the first trial. In 2012, he gave a statement in which he said:

“Given the fact that I regularly adjudicate criminal trials myself I have no hesitation in saying that, during the trial, the Judge’s conduct towards the defence frequently crossed the line between permissible and impermissible behaviour and amounted to a display of obvious hostility towards the defendants. He took particular exception to John Platt-Mills who represented Des Warren and to Des Warren himself. I vividly recall an occasion when Mr Platt-Mills was cross-examining a witness (probably a police officer) and the Judge took off his wig and threw it on the bench in irritation. I recall occasions when he threw his pen down and turned to face the wall when either a defendant was giving evidence or the defence were adducing evidence in cross-examination. In addition, I can remember his rather rude interruptions during cross-examination.”

He went on:

“During the Judge’s various outbursts, I remember members of the jury nudging one another. My own view at the time, a view shared by other members of the Defence team with whom I discussed the Judge’s behaviour, was that the jury (a) could have been in no doubt where the judge’s sympathy lay and (b) could have absolutely no doubt that he loathed Mr Platt-Mills.”

So we had a court case where the legal system had been changed to deny jury challenges, that was held in an area where the defendant’s legal team were genuinely concerned about the lack of neutrality and was presided over by a judge whose inexperience was matched only by his partiality.

But it gets even worse. The campaign team’s researcher, Eileen Turnbull, has trawled through documentation that is in the archives at Kew. She has uncovered a letter dated 25 January 1973 from the then Attorney-General, Peter Rawlinson, to the then Home Secretary, Robert Carr, in which he advised the Home Secretary that in his view, having discussed the case with Treasury Counsel and the Director of Public Prosecutions, these

“proceedings should not be instituted.”

That was the highest legal advice in the land. We remember how, in the previous Parliament, my party was, quite rightly, lectured by then Opposition Members about the failure of Tony Blair to listen to the Attorney-General in relation to the Iraq war. In this instance, the same authority advised the Home Secretary not to pursue the case. The Home Secretary ignored him, and we have to ask why. The people who went to jail are clear about the reason. They have no doubt that the pressure from the building industry, particularly from a man who would soon be appointed as deputy treasurer and chief fundraiser to the Tory party, was overwhelmingly more important than the views of the people entrusted with advising on legal issues at the highest level.

We must remember that this pressure had been felt by the police at the highest level, with the result that in the autumn of 1972 they set up a huge fishing expedition. A team of detectives were billeted in north Wales and 800 statements were taken, of which 600 were discarded. This was despite the fact that on the day in question—6 September 1972—not only were no arrests made, but the police actually congratulated the leaders of the pickets on the disciplined way in which they conducted their activities. We must also remember that this was all done at the behest of the building employers’ federation.

Another issue of grave concern was the decision during the trial to allow an inflammatory television programme to be aired on the very night of the prosecution’s summing up. Under the title, “Red under the Bed”, the programme was an attack on this country’s left-wing political parties and trade union activity. It specifically referred to the ongoing trial. The day after it was aired, Judge Mais dismissed the defence’s attempts to have the TV company charged with contempt. Indeed, he criticised the defence for having the temerity to raise the matter. What is of even greater concern is that the papers that have already been released show that the then Government, right up to the then Prime Minister, were involved in assisting the programme to be produced.

There is clear evidence in the paperwork already in the public domain that a special unit was set up in Government to undermine legitimate trade union activity and to paint left-wing political activity and parties as subversive, despite their legitimate right to agitate in a modern democracy. That was all being done behind closed doors and it would never have been exposed without the determination of those who still seek justice today.

These men went to jail as a direct result of the onslaught of the establishment over a prolonged period, which was clearly designed to deter the wider labour movement from using industrial action to pursue its legitimate claims. Des Warren was given a three-year jail sentence and Ricky Tomlinson a two-year sentence, and John McKinsie Jones—the man who was not even present at the so-called conspiracy meeting—went to jail for nine months. Other men received suspended jail sentences. At the second trial, three more pickets—Brian Williams, Arthur Murray and Mike Pierce—were given jail sentences. At this and the subsequent third trial, others were also given suspended jail sentences.

These men and those who have been campaigning for more than four decades contend that they went to jail and got criminal records as a direct result of direct political interference in this country’s political and judicial systems by very strong personalities who pressurised politicians, senior police and members of the judiciary to take part in a witch hunt and to send out a clear message of intent that people involved in industrial disputes would face exceedingly serious consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend may not recall that at that time a number of employers’ organisations, including Aims of Industry, were trying to influence industrial relations.

[Mr Watson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

So we have evidence that the Government and the security services were working closely with television production companies, newspapers and secretive organisations that were the forerunners of today’s blacklisters to produce propaganda to discredit trade unionists. The present Government posted a response to the e-petition on the website, claiming that the withholding of the information was due to an “intelligence and security instrument”. Why? This was a strike organised by building workers 40 years ago with the aim of improving their pay and conditions of work.

If Members want to know the thinking of industrialists at the time, they should read Lord McAlpine’s book “The Servant”. He wrote that the servant

“must have his own network of informants and men who will assist him. The servant must always know how to use the network of the State.

Dealing in deceit, as the servant must, great caution must be required. Avoid small deceits: like barnacles on the bottom of a ship, they build in the minds of people whom you may need to convince in a large deceit”.

What greater deceit can Members imagine than depriving those young men of their freedom and liberty?

The Stasi published their files after the Berlin wall came down in 1989. I think that we can publish ours now.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman on that. We all agree that we need to deal with these prisoners. If the model works, that is fine, but if it does not, it will be a disaster. Pausing a bit would have been a good idea. There were two pilots that were cancelled halfway through. If they had carried on, we would have had some evidence to consider. Even people like me who need some persuasion about the system would see that it works and that there is no danger to the public. Instead, we rush headlong into the dark.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been too much social experimentation between the private sector and some public sector organisations, such as the probation service? In industry, for example, if a company were bringing in an innovation, it would have a pilot scheme either to silence the doubters or to answer them. I agree that we should have a pilot scheme on this. It is far too dangerous to deal with it in the abstract.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. That feeling is held widely across the House, and not just on these Benches. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) referred to ideology. The Bill is a victory for ideology over common sense. That by itself is ridiculous enough, but the inherent dangers of it make it even more insidious.

To avoid treading over old ground, I will not talk about the risk register. None the less, it still alarms me that the risks were seen as so high at the commencement of this exercise, and I have no reason to believe that they have changed for the better since.

Briefly, let me refer to new clause 4. The impetus behind it is to ensure that we do not rush headlong into implementing these reforms without first having a pilot, which would be independently evaluated and reported on to both Houses of Parliament. I notice that the esteemed Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), is in his place, so I must be careful about what I say. Over the past few weeks, we have taken evidence from many sectors involved in probation and rehabilitation. A considerable amount of it was from people who had been involved in previous Government privatisations. Surprisingly, they were saying, “Don’t do it. Don’t rush in. It is not proven. It may not be cost-effective and it could cause huge problems.” Such people are surely aware of the risks involved and they came before the Committee to give their opinion. It is not simply a matter of one political divide against the other. Some of those people presented as being more in sympathy with the Government than with anybody else, but they said not to do it because it is unproven and could be dangerous.

The probation service has prior experience of the damage that can result from privatisation. Building management, for example, has been contracted out to the private sector, which has resulted in a great deal of waste and inefficiency. I have heard of an engineer being sent from Liverpool to Cardiff to fit a carpet tile even though, ironically, there is a carpet shop opposite the Cardiff probation office—you could not make it up.

In 2007, the running of bail beds was outsourced to a company called ClearSprings, which had no experience in the criminal justice sector. Numerous complaints were made about antisocial behaviour and drunkenness and the contract had to be removed. We know about Serco and G4S, so I will not go there again. Clearly, there is a significant prospect of disorder and possible dangers if the plans do not prove to be sensible. As for the Government’s risk assessment, time is short so I will not go there.

The restructuring will mean that there will have to be an entirely new operating model with 21 new government companies; that staff will have to be allocated to new roles in community rehabilitation companies and the national probation service; that no fewer than 18,000 staff members will be transferred to new employers; and that up to 250,000 offender cases will be reallocated. It would be foolhardy indeed to proceed without some guarantee of success.

It would not be unheard of for new measures being introduced to the justice system to be piloted nationally. Recently, pilots on payment by results have been held at HMP Peterborough and Doncaster, albeit voluntarily, while in recent years Governments have held pilots on satellite tracking, the domestic violence 28-day prevention order and drug reduction schemes. Piloting is not unheard of.

This is not a question of reputational risk for the MOJ. We are all concerned about the safety of the public more than anything else. A further risk register produced by the probation employers last November of last year warned of a high risk of

“a failure of the programme to be delivered either in scope or within the timescale set by ministers”.

At this eleventh hour, I plead with the Minister and his colleagues to give the scheme a chance and to give us all a chance to evaluate it. We might come back one day saying, “Yes, it was right,” or, “No, it was not.” If the answer is no, many people will suffer. Those members of the public are the people whom it is our duty to protect.

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My view is that we should seek to renegotiate our membership and to address some of those issues, but it is a matter that will have to wait for a majority Conservative Government. I share many of my hon. Friend’s concerns and believe that we cannot go on in the way we are.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Is it not true that the Lord Chancellor does know the legal interpretation and is waiting for further instruction from the UK Independence party?

[Chris Grayling]

No.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment:

“That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] because the implementation of the proposals in the Bill depends on the Government’s proposed restructuring of the Probation Service; believes that this proposed restructuring will see the abolition of local Probation Trusts, the fragmentation of supervision of offenders on the basis of their risk level and the commissioning of services direct from Whitehall; further believes that the Government has failed to provide any costings for their proposals; notes reports that suggest the Ministry of Justice’s own internal risk register warns that the Government’s proposals could result in a high risk of an unacceptable drop in operational performance; and further declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the grounds that none of the Government’s proposals has been piloted nor independently evaluated, potentially resulting in an unnecessary risk to the public’s safety.”

We support many of the Bill’s objectives, despite that awful speech by the Justice Secretary. The first part of the Bill, consisting of clause 1, was inserted by the other place because of its concerns about controversial plans to reform and restructure the probation service. Clause 1 requires any change to the structure of the probation service to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. We note that, so far, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) supports clause 1, but we will see as the evening progresses and as the votes transpire how he moves his position, and whether he decides to vote with conviction or do what the Conservative Whip asks him to do. I will return to clause 1 later.

The second part of the Bill, clauses 2 to 13, deals with the supervision of offenders released from short custodial sentences. All offenders released from sentences of less than two years would be subject to at least 12 months’ mandatory supervision in the community. It has always been a ridiculous anomaly that short-sentence prisoners, the group with the highest rates of reoffending, are the ones left to their own devices when released from prison. As the Justice Secretary just read out, the previous Labour Government tried to address that with the custody plus proposals. I will come back to those later—accurately, rather than by rehashing history in the way attempted a short while ago. Nevertheless, extending supervision to those who serve less than 12 months in custody should play a part in reducing reoffending.

The Bill would also put on a statutory footing the requirement to have regard to the special needs of female offenders when making supervision arrangements. We are grateful to Lord Woolf for his important contributions on that matter in the other place. For the avoidance of doubt, we also welcome the introduction of the new drug appointment requirements and the expansion of the categories of drugs that can be tested for. The third part of the Bill, clauses 14 to 18, would amend the community sentencing framework.

As much as the Justice Secretary would like us to do so, however, we cannot read the Bill in isolation. It is a smokescreen for fundamental changes to the way in which probation works in England and Wales. The motivation that the Justice Secretary relies on in public is his frustration that reoffending rates are too high, which he says means that something bold and radical needs to be done. He is in serious danger, however, of doing something that, bold and radical as it is, might make matters worse and increase the risk to the public.

We know that probation works, as those under supervision are less likely than those who are not to go on and commit more crimes. The MOJ’s figures for the most recent full year show that among those who received a sentence of between four and 10 years who were released and supervised by probation, 30.7% reoffended; among those who received a sentence of between 12 months and four years who were released and supervised by probation, 36.2% reoffended; and among those in custody for less than 12 months who were released and not supervised by probation at all, 58.5% reoffended. By the by, it is a shame that the Justice Secretary is not suggesting payment by results for the public probation service. However, I welcome the fact that he appears, at least on this particular aspect, to want to follow the evidence and to use it to inform his policy making. Offenders who receive probation support do better than those who do not. That must be why he wants to extend probation to those who receive a custodial sentence of less than 12 months. But why does he want completely to dismantle our probation service?

We can all agree that too many people are stuck in a cycle of reoffending. Just over a week ago, on a visit to the Justice Secretary’s flagship Oakwood prison, I met one young man who had previously been in prison six times and who could not have been more than 25 years old. It is precisely that group of people whom we need to get to grips with. It is not only a waste of taxpayers’ money, although we know that on average it costs £40,000 a year to keep someone like him in prison. There is a cost to society, too, as crime is estimated to cost the country £12 billion a year as well as creating, as the Justice Secretary said, needless victims of crime, heartache and misery. It is also a waste of human potential for people to spend their time locked up behind bars when, if properly reformed, they could contribute more meaningfully to society. Nobody would disagree with the need to address the offending behaviour of those individuals, but we do disagree with dismantling probation.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Is there not a competition among various Secretaries of State to see who can privatise the most? The Secretary of State is advocating a policy that was pursued the last time the Conservatives were in government, when the solution to all problems was either privatisation or banging people up.

[Sadiq Khan]

If the Justice Secretary was saying that he had evidence that privatising probation worked or that it would save money, he would have an argument. He is saying neither, which is why we suspect that this is all about ideology rather than the evidence of what works. Although we agree with the broad objectives of the Bill—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I can hear chuntering from the Lib Dem Whip, the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), which is quite distracting. I am not sure whether she is trying to persuade her hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham to vote with her, or to put me off my stride—[Interruption.] She is certainly better than the Justice Secretary at trying to put me off my stride.

Although we agree with the broad objectives of the Bill, there are some major areas of difference between us and the Government and some big questions remain unanswered. Those questions are so fundamental that they cast a shadow over the Bill and call into question whether its objectives can be implemented without taking a serious gamble with public safety as a result. The Bill has been brought forward against a backdrop of upheaval and change—change that is not informed by evidence or statistics, but driven by recklessness and ideology.

Probation Service

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

What my hon. Friend describes is a repetition of what happened with the Work programme. Small companies, charities and voluntary groups are used by the big boys as bid candy to get the contracts and are then elbowed out. We saw that with the Work programme and we will see it again in probation.

Do Members know who will be able to bid? G4S and Serco. The allegations against both companies are so serious that the Serious Fraud Office is investigating them, and yet the Justice Secretary is refusing to rule them out of the bidding process. By the way, there is no obligation for the staff of those companies to be trained or experienced in this area. Those companies have no track record of providing such services.

We are not confident in the ability of the MOJ to procure the contracts, given its poor track record. Last year, we had the scandal of court translators under this Government’s watch. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) is busy reading her texts, but I will read what the Public Accounts Committee, of which she is a member, said of that debacle. She can correct me at any stage. It stated:

“The Ministry was not an intelligent customer…The Ministry failed to undertake proper due diligence…The result was total chaos…the Ministry has only penalized the supplier a risible £2,200.”

There is no guarantee that the big private companies will not run rings around the MOJ yet again.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I apologise to my right hon. Friend for being a little late for the debate. Is not the picture that is unfolding of this Government that they are the friends of the private sector who see the state as a golden calf that they can milk when it suits them? This proposal is not in the public interest and it is not in the taxpayer’s interest. G4S wants to be considered, but it has some problems in South Africa at the moment.

[Sadiq Khan]

The question that our constituents are asking is: why are the Government so keen to suck up to the big and powerful?

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

I agree; my hon. Friend is right that ASBOs simply do not work, so the idea of continuing them does not make much sense.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Before the 1997 election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and I campaigned for ASBOs. We did so because when we knocked on doors in certain estates, we often found that elderly people were being terrorised by gangs. In that part of Coventry, those people used steel doors to protect themselves. That is why we need to be careful when we say that ASBOs work or do not work. It depends greatly on the local authority and the police to make ASBOs work. I do not quite buy what the hon. Gentleman said; he had better put something in place that is stronger than ASBOs. Anybody who deals with inner-city problems in Coventry, London and other places knows that people can be terrorised on estates. That is why we need to be very careful about what we do to ASBOs.

[Dr Huppert]

I absolutely accept that there are problems of antisocial behaviour, including in many areas of my constituency. I am sure that all hon. Members’ constituencies are affected by it. The fact that there is an antisocial behaviour problem, however, and the fact that the words “antisocial behaviour” appear in the name of the order does not mean that the one is a solution to the other. I simply do not accept that they have been a very effective mechanism. Much better approaches have been taken by a number of innovative councils. Islington, for example, has tried antisocial behaviour contracts, which have been far more successful and there has been a range of successes elsewhere.

Simplifying the toolkit available is another issue. I welcome the idea of going down from 19 powers to six, which will make it much it much easier for people to find out what the options are. That is another reason why I reject the idea of keeping ASBOs together with IPNAs—injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance—which seems to me to be the worst of both worlds. The Bill must be aimed at trying to prevent harm and I hope that we will be able to solve that problem, helping people to get their lives back on track by dealing with the problems, rather than basing things on mediaeval punishment and state-aided revenge.

There are some concerns about the changes to IPNAs. ASBOs dealt with behaviour in

“a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”,

while IPNAs talk about

“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”.

I certainly hope that my hon. Friend the Minister causes nuisance or annoyance to the Secretary of State; I expect that to be part of a working relationship and I am rather nervous about Secretaries of State being allowed to apply for IPNAs on this basis, if only for health-related issues. There is concern about what is meant by

“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”.

I suspect we all carry that out on a regular basis or could find people whose conduct could be described in that way. That worries me, as it could be used more broadly. We heard from the Association of Chief Police Officers that IPNAs could stigmatise and criminalise young people unnecessarily, and they also tend to blur the distinction between criminal activity and nuisance.

The report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) for his excellent speech, clarifying detailed and important amendments—says that

“the new…definition of anti-social behaviour is broad and unclear”.

I agree completely; the definition must become rather more defined.

When the Home Affairs Committee carried out pre-legislative scrutiny, we argued that there should be a test of intent or recklessness and that any action taken should be “necessary”. Something in that space is absolutely essential: whether it be through the wording used or by the introduction of a mens rea to try to offset the lower threshold to avoid hitting people with mental health issues, we need something to tighten up the definition of IPNAs without being overly broad.

My right hon. Friend was absolutely right about positive requirements. These are, in principle, very good and very helpful, but the concern was, as we heard in the Select Committee, that the councils would struggle to deliver those positive requirements in some cases. We know that the court

“must receive evidence of suitability and enforceability before a requirement is imposed”,

but not that the positive option will be available to someone. We must check that the positive requirements are doable, which I hope can be confirmed.

We have to deal with the issue of children because a huge number of these IPNAs will be issued to children. They have to be heavily involved in the resolution programme while being viewed as victims. I agree with new clause 33, sponsored by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as the courts must take into account the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in any of these legal proceedings. I hope that the Minister will focus particularly on that.

Legal Aid Reform

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

I find it extremely worrying that the Government should pursue a line that would put small and medium-sized firms out of business, apparently deliberately. It flies in the face of everything they are trying to do to promote growth and the high streets. I trust that the Minister has noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

I hope that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) will catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that she wishes to speak specifically about issues relating to civil legal aid for prisoners. I shall not have time to speak about that myself, but I think that it is important for it to be covered today.

Let me now say something about the residence test. As a former children’s Minister, I know that the proposed changes have particular implications for children, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on refugees, I am very concerned about the impact on those who seek sanctuary on our shores.

The Bill that became the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishing of Offenders Act was highly contentious and fiercely debated in both Houses. Many were persuaded of the need to save money, but all sought to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society would continue to have access to justice. Time and again, Ministers assured the House of Commons that when people’s lives or liberty were at stake, access to justice would be preserved. However, the new residence test appears to undermine that directly.

Schedule 1 of the Act lists the categories that the Government sought to protect from cuts—groups whom they recognised to have a vital need for legal representation. Children who may be subject to care orders, children with special educational needs, victims of domestic violence, victims of trafficking, asylum cases, those in immigration detention, those facing immediate homelessness, and those with mental health issues are just a few of the very vulnerable groups that are identified. I am afraid that people in all those categories may be denied legal aid if they fail to pass the residence test.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that what may happen—if it is not already happening—is that citizens advice bureaux and law centres will become overloaded with casework, and people in all the categories that she has listed will start coming to elected Members of Parliament for help?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

As the founding chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid, I am pleased that Back-Benchers have organised an opportunity for us to discuss this important issue at this time and to touch on not just the “Transforming Legal Aid” agenda but the impact of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, much of which came into effect this spring.

As we know, the predominantly civil legal aid cuts that have come into effect have taken out of scope swathes of provision for benefits, social welfare and large areas of housing and employment. It has happened at the same time as local authorities are struggling with a 30%-plus reduction in their own funding, which has added to the squeeze on advice services. That impact is being felt up and down the country. Just this week, we were sorry to hear the news that Birmingham law centre was the first major urban law centre to go under. I am struggling to see whether we can sustain Paddington law centre, the second oldest law centre in the country, which has been hit by legal aid reductions and the loss of grant funding. Shelter, a major housing charity, has seen its advice services decimated as a result of cuts.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only will citizens advice centres be affected, with people denied public justice, but small law firms will go out of business and 400 big companies will have a monopoly?

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is correct. This is something that we will see in terms of the “Transforming Legal Aid” agenda. We are seeing advice deserts emerging. We are seeing the concentration of services in larger providers and, critically, we are seeing the loss of specialist services, which are so important. As is often the case with this Government, we are finding that cuts—the £350 million taken off the legal services budget—do not always mean savings. As we were warned, we are already seeing an increase in the number of litigants in person appearing in court. The Bar and judges warned that it would lead to additional costs.

A number of changes that have impacted on housing need have led to an 86% rise in homelessness acceptances in my local authority alone. Homelessness decisions remain within scope of LASPO, but debt and welfare advice provision does not and those issues are what lead people to the brink of homelessness in the first place. As a result of the loss of advice services and the dramatic increase in homelessness, we are seeing extra costs falling on local authorities and wiping out a number of the savings.

It was interesting to see in the comprehensive spending review statement yesterday further resources being directed to the troubled families programme. It is slightly ironic that we are rightly investing more in troubled families, knowing that debt and arrears are at the heart of the problems that they seek to overcome.

Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to the Select Committee for producing the report for this debate and for taking parts of it out of its important wider investigation into the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all the points that he and the Select Committee have made are under consideration. Clearly, it is in everyone’s interest that the various investigations proceed as fast as possible, consonant with the fact that many of them are being carried out by bodies that are rightly independent of Government.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister say what the attitude is of the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers to the Bill?

[Damian Green]

The Police Federation and the superintendents have written to express their reservations and I have written back to them. I obviously meet the Police Federation and the supers regularly. I am meeting the Police Federation next week and this matter will be on the agenda. I have not had a formal exchange with ACPO, so it would be unfair for me to express its collective view.

The findings of the independent panel’s report are deeply distressing. The failure of the authorities to protect the fans, the attempts to blame them and the doubt cast on the original coroner’s inquest are particularly troubling findings. It should not have taken 23 years to get to this point, but finally the report gets us to the stage of knowing the truth—a truth that is now accepted by all. The report exposes many attempts that were made by the authorities—those charged with protecting the public and with uncovering the truth of the events—to change official records, obscure the truth and paint a different picture of what happened.

The truth is both shocking and essential, but it is not the end. As the Bishop of Liverpool has said, we now need to move from truth to justice. It is that move that is at the centre of the Bill. As the Home Secretary set out to the House in the debate on 22 October, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has announced an investigation into the panel’s findings. That is an important step on the path to achieving justice for the victims of the disaster.

The IPCC will investigate the conduct of the officers at Hillsborough on that day, and those who were involved in the subsequent investigations. That means that it will investigate both misconduct and criminality, not only of any officers who are still serving in any police force in the UK, but of any officers who have since retired. Normally, the IPCC would pursue retired officers only for matters relating to criminal behaviour. For criminal behaviour, the sanctions are clear: the officer, serving or retired, will face criminal charges. For misconduct matters, sanctions can bite only serving officers, so it is rare to undertake an investigation of retired officers for misconduct. However, in relation to Hillsborough, the IPCC has made it clear that it will investigate retired officers for both criminal behaviour and misconduct because the public interest is compelling.

Leveson Inquiry

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who has told harrowing tales from her constituency.

There is agreement across the House that the Press Complaints Commission has failed and that there has to be something better. The dispute is not about whether things should carry on as they are, but about how things should change. Many Members have referred to the failure of the self-regulatory model for the press, but I question that. I do not think that we have a self-regulatory model. The PCC is not a regulator. Lord Leveson addresses that point in the summary of his findings:

“The fundamental problem is that the PCC, despite having held itself out as a regulator, and thereby raising expectations, is not actually a regulator at all. In reality it is a complaints handling body.”

That means that there is still an opportunity to look seriously at what real independent self-regulation would mean. The industry has a window of opportunity to do that and to present it to the House in a credible way.

There is no requirement that all newspapers, even national newspapers, are members of the PCC; it does not have the power to fine people for breaches of its code; and, crucially, as other Members have said, it has no powers of investigation. I believe that that is at the heart of the series of crises that have affected the newspaper industry for far too long. We saw that particularly strongly in the investigation by the Investigation Commissioner, Operation Motorman, which looked at the practices of the press in illegally accessing personal and confidential information, including through phone hacking. That information was published in 2006, with an update report in 2007. It suggested that 305 journalists, from a variety of national newspapers, had been in receipt of information that had been obtained illegally. Nothing was done about that.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a deep interest in this subject. Why does he think that no action was taken in relation to the Information Commissioner’s report? That has always puzzled me.

[Damian Collins]

That is a very good point which Lord Leveson tries to address in his report. It ends up being a game of no one being responsible. The PCC is not an investigative body, so it stood back and said, “Where’s the beef? Where’s the evidence to prove your allegations?” The Information Commissioner does not have the right to launch any further investigations or prosecutions, so no one was held responsible. That is why the new body has to have the power to seize such a report, go into the relevant organisations and investigate the matter.

There was no lack of information about criminality or information being obtained illegally; the failure was that no one acted on that information. The Information Commissioner’s report was largely ignored, as was the 2010 report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which also suggested that there was widespread knowledge of illegal practices within the media.

The police knew in 2002 that the News of the World had hacked Milly Dowler’s phone. We know from information that was produced for the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in this Parliament that Surrey police discussed that with executives at the News of the World at the time. It was illegal, so why did the police not prosecute them or take action against them? Nothing was done about it. Evidence produced by the Select Committee’s inquiry demonstrates that senior executives and legal managers within News International understood that phone hacking was widespread and not related to a single reporter. Again, nothing was done about it.

The questions that were asked in that case are similar to those asked in the debate between the PCC and the Information Commissioner: “Where is the real evidence? What should we do?” There was no incentive or reason to do anything and there was no external pressure to push for a conclusion. That is why it is crucial to have an independent body with powers of investigation in the media and the power to fine.

I believe that the police got off lightly in the Leveson report. Lord Leveson skirts over the issue in the summary. One part reads a bit like the “Yes Minister” irregular verb game: “I give off-the-record briefings; you leak; he has been prosecuted under the Data Protection Act 1998.” Lord Leveson suggests helpfully that off-the-record briefings should be redefined as “non-reportable” briefings to clear up the distinction. On leaks, he suggests that police officers should perhaps have less access to the police’s computer system. That is woefully inadequate. A number of people raised the concern that if one called the police in certain situations, the News of the World turned up before the police. There was a ready trade in information between them. Lord Leveson does not go into that in anywhere near enough detail.