Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and for his tribute to the police. What we have done already, as he will be aware, is that, for the most serious violent and sexual offences, offenders will now have to serve two thirds of their sentences, rather than half, sending a clear message that those who commit serious crimes will be expected to pay for them.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

T2. Since the 2007 Corston review into women in the criminal justice system, more than 100 women have died in our prisons. Inquest has recently published an update to its report, “Still Dying on the Inside”, which details both the tragic and often unavoidable circumstances surrounding deaths of women in custody. What concrete action have the Government taken to resolve this crisis?

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

Every death in custody is a tragedy. Every death in custody is investigated. What we need to do is to improve people’s mental health, stop women and men self-harming in prison and give them the skills and tools to turn around their lives through employment. I recently visited HMP Send, a fantastic women’s prison, and its therapeutic community, which offers a long programme that helps women to come to terms with their offending and to get their lives back on track. Those are the sorts of programmes that do a great deal of work for women and men in prison.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The judgments speak for themselves, and the judges cannot really answer back when it comes to criticism. That is why I am here to defend them.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

T7. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), may I point out that the Association of British Insurers has made very clear its view that the small claims limit in employer and public liability cases should remain at £1,000? We know that the Government would not listen to victims of injury and would not listen to the Justice Committee, so why are they not listening to the industry body that speaks for all insurers in the United Kingdom?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

The £1,000 limit has not been changed for many years, and it is of course a great deal lower than the general small claims limit of £10,000. In my view, a small claims track limit of £5,000 balances access-to-justice considerations with reasonably administering the courts system.

Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid for Separated Children) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2019

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Wendy Morton)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid for Separated Children) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2019.

The draft order makes provision for separated migrant children to be eligible for legal aid for civil legal services for non-asylum immigration and citizenship matters. This important piece of legislation will help to ensure access to justice for vulnerable children.

Let me set out the purpose of this statutory instrument. For those not familiar with the provision of legal aid, legal aid for civil legal services is available to an individual if the service is in scope—in other words, if it is described in part 1 of schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. In addition, legal aid may be available on an exceptional basis where there would be a breach, or risk of a breach, of an individual’s rights under the European convention on human rights or any enforceable EU rights. This is known as exceptional case funding, or ECF.

Eligibility for legal aid, both for in-scope matters and for ECF, is subject to statutory means and merits assessments. Under current arrangements, separated migrant children who are seeking to regularise their immigration or citizenship status in the UK can apply for ECF to receive legal aid for help with their citizenship application, immigration application form or subsequent appeal. However, following litigation and engagement with key stakeholders, including the Children’s Society, this draft instrument will bring these matters into the scope of legal aid. That means that separated migrant children will no longer have to make ECF applications to receive legal aid for citizenship and non-asylum immigration matters.

Let me turn to the scope of the amendment. Since 2018 officials have been working closely with other Departments and children’s charities to finalise the terms of this amendment. It makes provision for separated migrant children to be eligible for civil legal services in relation to their immigration applications for entry clearance, leave to enter and leave to remain in the United Kingdom under the immigration rules. It also provides civil legal services in relation to separated migrant children’s immigration applications for leave to remain where the application is made and determined outside the immigration rules. That would include applications for discretionary leave to remain, leave to remain on medical grounds, as well as exceptional circumstances or compassionate and compelling factors, which may warrant a grant of leave outside the immigration rules.

Further, legal aid will be available to those children in relation to relevant applications for entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain made under the immigration rules by another person, including family members and extended family members, and granted either under or outside the immigration rules. Such applications are determined on the basis of exceptional circumstances under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to respect for private and family life—or because of compassionate and compelling factors. The amendment includes legal aid applications for registration as a British subject or citizen, a British overseas territories citizen and a British overseas citizen.

Let me briefly touch on the procedural and technical amendments. There are some amendments that relate to the procedures for applying for different forms of civil legal services. They are grouped into different categories: gateway work, controlled work and licensed work. The changes ensure that for controlled work and licensed work, separated migrant children who require legal representation in proceedings before a court or tribunal covered by this amendment will be able to receive it. There are also some technical amendments to other instruments relating to the merits and financial eligibility criteria. The changes ensure that the tests applied to immigration matters currently in scope for legal aid are also applied to this amendment.

The statutory instrument takes the normative definition that a child is any person under the age of 18. Where the age is uncertain, the individual is treated by the director of legal aid casework and the legal aid provider making the legal aid determination as being under 18. For the purposes of this amendment, a child is separated if they are not being cared for by a parent or someone with parental responsibility for them. It also accounts for children who are looked after by a local authority, or who are privately fostered but for whom parental responsibility has not been determined. It also acknowledges that some separated children may be in other informal caring arrangements or, indeed, caring for themselves.

A written ministerial statement was laid on 12 July 2018, outlining the Government’s intentions to introduce the legislation. Following that statement, legal aid providers were advised that in the interim they should continue to apply for legal aid via the ECF scheme. To provide clarity for Legal Aid Agency caseworkers and providers, Lord Chancellor’s guidance was issued, specifying that there is a strong presumption under article 8 of the European convention on human rights that separated migrant children require legal aid for non-asylum immigration matters and that, in the light of that, applications for legal aid on behalf of those children did not need to be supported by detailed evidence regarding their vulnerabilities and ability to participate in proceedings.

The draft instrument makes important changes, bringing citizenship and non-asylum immigration matters into the scope of legal aid for separated migrant children. It is a vital piece of legislation that will help ensure access to justice for a highly vulnerable section of our society.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned litigation very early in her speech. Would now be a good time to put on the record that the only reason that the instrument is before us today is because the Government lost litigation that was brought by the Children’s Society?

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I think I made it clear earlier in my speech that the draft instrument was introduced following litigation and engagement, and that is why we are here today: to bring this element into the scope of legal aid.

I hope that you agree, Sir Roger, that the statutory instrument is necessary, and I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful for the contributions to the debate and I will endeavour to respond to them as best and as carefully as I can. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East for his warm welcome and sincerely hope that we continue to meet at the Dispatch Box for some time to come. I also thank him for indicating his support for the statutory instrument.

It is important to say that access to justice is a fundamental right. Last year we spent £1.6 billion on legal aid to support the most vulnerable. On the hon. Gentleman’s point that legal aid should never have been taken away, access to legal aid was and is available for those children under exceptional case funding. As I set out earlier, between the written ministerial statement and now, the Lord Chancellor issued a very clear direction and guidance.

It has taken so long to lay the order because we have been determined to have discussions across Government and with children’s charities to make sure that we get this vital legislation right. It is better to take the time to get it right and to address the issue. I reiterate that ECF has been available during that time.

The hon. Gentleman asked how many children have been affected. Again, between the written ministerial statement and today, ECF has been available for those children with that guidance. Due to those children’s circumstances, it is often difficult to assess the number of separated migrant children who have been affected. ECF data is not always routinely collected, but we will monitor that as we move forward.

[Jo Stevens]

Is there a reason why ECF data is not collected? That seems strange.

[Wendy Morton]

If I may, I will respond to the hon. Lady in writing. I have asked that question.

Finally, as a responsible Government, we must be informed by evidence of what works, provide value for money and focus on the breadth of support that is available to ensure that everyone can access support when they need it to resolve their problems.

Prison Officers: Pension Age

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson]

The hon. Lady must have been listening to Justice questions this morning, when I said exactly that. Since she has a prison in her constituency, I urge her to join the Prison Service parliamentary scheme. If she will bear with me, I will come to the issue of violence in prisons later.

My first reason is that the state has a duty to protect the public. That is why it is the state that prosecutes those suspected of committing a crime, and the state—only the state—that locks up those who are found guilty. That being the case, I do not believe that the state can subcontract the incarceration of those prisoners to the private sector. That leads me to my second reason—

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gordon Henderson]

I will just give my second reason, which is that allowing private companies to make a profit out of the incarceration of human beings is simply immoral.

[David Hanson (in the Chair)]

Before the hon. Lady’s intervention, I remind hon. Members that the debate is tightly focused on the pension age of prison officers, and I hope that interventions and contributions will focus just on that.

[Jo Stevens]

Thank you, Mr Hanson; I will do a quick swerve. On the point about private prisons and the influence of private companies, does the hon. Gentleman agree that privatising probation—the state’s care for people on probation—was the wrong thing to do?

[Gordon Henderson]

No, I do not. They are two entirely different issues. When people are on probation, they have either completed their sentence or they have not yet—[Interruption.] We will have to disagree on that.

If new prisons are built, the Government will have to recruit many more prison officers to staff them. In my area, it has often proven difficult to recruit enough prison officers. I am sure that that applies to many other areas, particularly in south-east England. There are a number of reasons for that difficulty, including the relatively poor salary offered to prison officers, their working conditions, their retirement age and the rising level of violence in our prisons.

The average salary of a prison officer is £23,530 per annum. The problem in my constituency is that people can earn more than that working in one or other of the two supermarket regional warehouses that operate there. There are also plenty of other well-paid jobs in the pipeline locally, and people can commute to London. Those available jobs are more attractive because they provide better working conditions than those of a prison officer.

What are those working conditions? For a start, prison staff are almost as much prisoners as the inmates they look after. Day and night, they work inside buildings surrounded by fences and high-security walls. In addition, prison officers spend their days dealing with inmates who do not want to be where they are. Unsurprisingly, that can make them unco-operative, aggressive and sometimes violent. To add to the problem, an increasing number of inmates have mental health problems.

All in all, that does not make for a happy work environment, and the situation in prisons is getting worse, with ever increasing violence. On average, 30 members of prison staff are assaulted every day. Last year, 1,000 of those assaults were classified by the Government as serious. I know what serious means, because I have seen at first hand the results of some of those assaults, including broken bones, dreadful facial injuries and fingers that have been bitten off.

To try to cut out those assaults, the Prison Officers Association has called repeatedly for frontline prison officers to be equipped with PAVA spray and rigid police-style handcuffs to protect themselves. Last year, the Prison Service ran a pilot in which PAVA spray was issued to staff in four prisons. That pilot was successful, and the Government promised to roll out PAVA across the prison estate. However, that promise has not yet been delivered; indeed, the roll-out has come to a juddering halt. I suspect the reason for that is complaints from the usual suspects, including the Prison Reform Trust, which claimed that prison officers would use PAVA indiscriminately and that its use would breach the human rights of prisoners.

The first of those claims is a shocking slur on the integrity of hard-working professional prison officers, and the second is simply utter rubbish. If the use of PAVA spray breaches a criminal’s human rights, why do police officers carry PAVA as part of their standard equipment? If it is okay for police to carry PAVA, why is it not for prison officers? Section 8 of the Prison Act 1952 states that prison officers

“shall have…the powers, authority, protection and privileges”

of police constables. PAVA offers protection for police and prison officers alike.

That leads me nicely to my last point. What reward do prison officers get for being treated like second-class emergency workers? What reward do they get for dedicating their working lives to the Prison Service in return for a pitiful salary, for working without complaint in a sometimes hostile and dangerous environment, and for risking life and limb on a daily basis? To be made to work eight years longer than their counterparts in the police and fire service, that’s what.

Finally, let me return to the Home Secretary’s speech last week. She said:

“And as well as giving the police the kit and powers they need, we must do more to recognise their commitment, their bravery, and their professionalism.

I have been humbled by the officers I have met and the experiences they have shared with me. This is why I have personally accelerated work to establish the Police Covenant.

This is a pledge to do more as a nation to help those who serve our country.

To recognise the bravery, the commitment and the sacrifices of serving and former officers.

And we will enshrine this into law.

We will also ensure that anyone who assaults a police officer receives a sentence that truly fits the crime, to make the thugs who would attack an officer, think twice.”

Prison officers are equally committed, equally brave and equally professional—they, too, serve our country and make sacrifices to protect the public—so I would like to make my own pledge to the prison officers who work in HMP Swaleside, HMP Elmley and HMP Standford Hill, and their colleagues in prisons across the country, that I will continue to represent them to the best of my ability. I will press the Government to introduce a Prison Service covenant, and I will press for prison staff to receive the same protection from assaults as the police. I want to ensure that those who attack prison staff are given stiff sentences, not a simple slap on the wrist, as has happened so often in the past.

In addition, I assure prison officers that I will support their campaign against prison privatisation, I will support their campaign for better conditions of work, including pay, and I will support their campaign for action to reduce violence in our prisons and for officers to be issued with the equipment they need to protect themselves from attack. Finally, I want them to know that I understand it is wrong that they have been forced into a position where retirement is becoming ever more out of reach and, for some people, potentially unachievable.

As I mentioned, the law is clear that prison officers are entitled to the same powers, authority, protection and privileges as the police. It is time to deliver on the 1952 Act and treat prison officers the same as police officers. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said, and as I said this morning, 68 is too late, which is why I also support the POA campaign for a lower pension age. I urge the Minister to listen to the concerns of our fantastic prison officers and let them retire at 60.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

It is no longer tenable, Mr Hanson. We have reached tipping point, if I might quote a couple of quiz shows. The fact that prison officers are expected to work until the age of 68 disregards basic health and safety; in the opinion of many, it is a complete failure by the Ministry of Justice in its duty of care, under legislation, to prison officers.

I and many Members of the House believe that our uniformed emergency services deserve pension protection. Police officers and firefighters are able to retire at 60,

“to reflect the unique nature of their work”,

to quote Lord Hutton. A prison officer’s unique nature of work has been recognised as being the same as that of a police officer. Section 8 of the Prison Act 1952 gives prison officers

“all the powers, authority, protection and privileges”

of police officers. So the Hutton pension test—

“to reflect the unique nature of their work”—

applies equally to prison officers, police officers and firefighters. Sixty-eight is too late. How many Members of this House would be able to serve on prison landings at 68? There are few who would be able to serve for a week, or even a day, in such violent and dangerous prisons.

[Jo Stevens]

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. He has talked about staff morale being at rock bottom, the soaring violence and the cuts to prison officer numbers. Does he agree that the prospect of having to work as a prison officer until the age of 68 is fuelling the record number of resignations from the Prison Service? We are in a cycle that we cannot get out of unless the pension age is changed and lowered.

[Grahame Morris]

I agree with my hon. Friend. There are many pressures and causes, but the pension age is a significant one. There are a number of remedies that need to be applied, as outlined by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey.

If it is not presumptuous, I wonder whether the Minister might consider inviting the right hon. Lord Hutton of Furness, who I understand is aged 64, to work in a prison and be part of a team being confronted by inmates with socks filled with pool balls, with razor blades and improvised knives, or surrounded by a group of youths, many of whom seem to have access to Spice and illegal substances, who are only too willing to attack prison officers. Setting prison officers’ pension age at 68 must have been an oversight. If the Government seriously and knowingly took that decision, it is a cruel and callous one, and risks the lives of prison officers working in physically demanding and often violent workplaces.

I urge the Minister to take two actions. First, to acknowledge that 68 is too late to expect a prison officer to work in an unsafe workplace. Secondly, to commit to bringing forward in the next Parliament—next week—the legislation and regulations required to align the pension age of prison officers with their colleagues in other uniformed emergency services.

Prison officers have heard the excuses in parliamentary responses; we heard some of them this morning in Justice questions. The offer that the Government previously made, to reduce the retirement age to 65, is simply a bad deal. Prison officers want pension age parity with their uniformed colleagues. The previous offer was attached to a derisory three-year pay deal and excluded many uniformed staff, who would still have to continue to work until they were 68.

I ask the Minister and everyone listening to the debate to watch the latest videos published by the POA and look at the horrific injuries suffered by prison officers. We should feel ashamed that they are doing a public service, protecting the public, while Parliament stands idle, forcing them to work in terrible conditions that are neither healthy nor safe. We should feel ashamed that we outsource our prison service and system, and that the safety and security of prison officers is left in the hands of companies such as Serco and G4S, whose first and foremost interest is shareholders and profits. We should feel ashamed that we want to put prison officers approaching the age of 70 into such terrible and dangerous situations.

Our prisons are unsafe and understaffed. Prison officers are unappreciated and underpaid. The Minister should set out a comprehensive package to recruit and retain prison officers through improved pay, pensions and conditions. I ask the Minister to do more than give empty platitudes and hollow promises to prison officers. Please accept that 68 is too late and lower prison officers’ pension age to 60. No ifs, no buts; stand up today, make the promise and bring forward the necessary legislation next week—and I guarantee the Minister will get my vote for that legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

As I said, it is too early to say whether the new prisons will be privately or publicly run, but no doubt we will be debating that question for some time to come.

On recruitment and retention, we know that retention of staff will take more than a one-size-fits-all approach, so specific action is being taken where attrition is most acute. Improvements to the recruitment process are ongoing and are aimed at reducing the time and cost of hiring, increasing the diversity of new recruits and ensuring that we attract the right people with the right skills.

[Jo Stevens]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Domestic Abuse Bill

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Carolyn Harris]

That was a very powerful point from a well-known champion on such issues who has now taken the opportunity to put those sentiments on record.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend talk about migrant women. I represent a very diverse constituency and domestic abuse is a very significant problem among that community. Will she join me in paying tribute to Welsh Women’s Aid in my constituency, who provide so much help both to migrant women and women in south Wales?

[Carolyn Harris]

I have no problem in congratulating Welsh Women’s Aid. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Support must be available to all victims and survivors of domestic abuse, with no restriction due to immigration status. Safe reporting systems need to be introduced to allow victims to report abuse to police and other authorities without fear of immigration enforcement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State’s moral probity was never in doubt for a moment.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know about the terrible legacy of the imprisonment for public protection sentence, and its negative impact on both reoffending and re-incarceration. Will he meet me, and my constituent whose son received an IPP sentence, to discuss ideas for reform of the licence that applies?

[Mr Gauke]

The challenge of IPP cases is that the Parole Board must satisfy itself that those who have been sentenced to IPPs no longer pose a risk to society. That can be very difficult, and in many cases there are risks to society, so we must be cautious and ensure that we protect the public. I know that the Minister responsible for prisons and probation, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), would be happy to meet the hon. Lady.

Children’s Funeral Fund

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Carolyn Harris]

Thank you very much.

In the press release last year when the introduction of the fund was first announced, Downing Street estimated that around 4,350 children die under the age of 18 each year in England, leaving grieving parents facing thousands in council fees for burial or cremation costs. That same press release went on to quote the Prime Minister saying:

“No parent should ever have to endure the unbearable loss of a child—a loss that no amount of time will ever truly heal. But in the raw pain of immediate loss, it cannot be right that grieving parents should have to worry about how to meet the funeral costs for a child they hoped to see grow into adulthood…That is why I have asked for the Children’s Funeral Fund to be set up in England. For Carolyn, in memory of her son Martin, and in support of all those parents overwhelmed by such harrowing loss.”

I remember at the time thanking the Prime Minister for showing compassion and helping to provide a glimmer of light in the darkness that surrounds families when a child dies. I did not expect more than a year later to be waiting for her to honour the commitment she made. I am struggling even to find the words for how disappointed and hurt I am that we have yet to see the fund become a reality.

Every day, 12 families face this heartbreak. That means that, since this promise was made, 4,600 families will have had to find the money for their child’s funeral. Fair Funerals UK estimates that the average cost of a cremation is £3,596, while that of a burial is £4,561. That is a lot of money for families to find.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I am deeply sorry that my hon. Friend has had to call this Adjournment debate today because of the failure of the Prime Minister to keep her promise. She mentioned the cost of a burial. For some parents of particular religions, a burial is the only option for them, and they cannot move their child from the mortuary to the undertaker without having the funds in place. Does she agree that there are particular impacts on particular communities across England because of the absence of the fund?

[Carolyn Harris]

I totally appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, but the pain is just as painful regardless of religion or culture.

As parents, we all want to give our children the very best that we can. In death, that becomes even more important. When a dignified funeral is the very last gift that a parent can give their child, money should not be a barrier, but sadly, at around £4,000 for a funeral, it really is.

Announcing that a fund will be introduced and then holding back from providing the money was unacceptably cruel to many parents, including to me. The up-front fees payable to the local authority and a coffin are the two necessities that no funeral can take place without. In these circumstances—without funds, but keeping everything basic—the money to cover those two essentials would allow parents to bury their children without cost. All we ask for is that every parent be given the compassion and respect that they deserve to help them through their grief. The Prime Minister has offered a vague promise of the summer, and I hope that she is true to her word. This summer, it will be 30 years since I lost Martin. Thirty years is a lifetime, yet some days it feels like it was only yesterday. The pain does not get any better; it is still very raw. I miss that little boy so much and my heart breaks that I will never see the man that he was meant to be.

The Prime Minister made a promise. She promised to deliver the fund for Martin. She needs to honour that promise for my little boy, for me and for every other parent who faces the unbearable heartbreak of losing a child.

Legal Aid for Inquests

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend makes an important point: the system is completely unfair. The Government and their agencies are given a blank cheque, whereas victims are not. It is not just the families of those lost and charities such as Inquest telling them that. Reports have proposed the necessity for changes for years, yet over the last few years the weight of evidence has mounted. Dame Angiolini in her report on deaths and serious incidents in police custody; the Right Rev. James Jones in his report on Hillsborough and the experiences of families; Lord Bach; two chief coroners; Baroness Corston; Lord Harris; the Joint Committee on Human Rights; the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act; and agencies, including the Independent Office for Police Conduct, have all outlined the need for change. Central to the reports of Dame Angiolini and the Right Rev. James Jones were the voices of families speaking about the impact of the inquest process on their wellbeing, much like the testimonies we have heard today.

In response, the Government launched a call for evidence in July as part of their review of legal aid for inquests. What followed was a Government submission document that was riddled with errors, strewn with inaccuracies and in no way befitting the seriousness of the subject. The short turnaround time for submissions left those whom the Government should have been doing their utmost to hear from unable to sufficiently offer their thoughts.

Furthermore, the document made no explicit mention of, and no adequate attempt to hear from, bereaved families. After its so-called consultation, it was therefore of little surprise that the, in February Ministry of Justice decided to ignore the weight of evidence to the contrary and refused the call for non-means-tested legal aid for inquests where the state has representation.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

The Government’s normal consultation period is 12 weeks. Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that it was six weeks for this consultation, which was held over the peak summer holiday period? Does she share my suspicion about its timing?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern and suspicion. I hope the Minister will answer that point.

For families to fully and effectively participate in the inquest process, they should have access to free automatic non-means-tested legal representation throughout. The Labour party has pledged to provide that, after listening to those who know best, but the Government remain in denial. However, the playing field must be levelled, the inequality of arms addressed and access to justice made a staple of bereaved families’ experience throughout inquests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I had not planned on speaking, but when I saw the debate’s title, I realised that I come at the issue from a variety of angles and, sadly, with a great deal of experience. In about 1994, as a junior lawyer, I was sent—because I was cheap, I suspect —to sit in on inquests concerning elderly people who had died in old people’s homes. In those days, it was common practice for us to provide a report for insurance companies, which even junior lawyers were considered capable of, and inquests were viewed as the place where we could garner information.

As a junior lawyer, I thought that was exciting, and I was pleased to see a system that was inquisitorial and not that adversarial, and where real facts were teased out that could be of use, or not, to insurance companies that wanted to protect their assets from later claims. I remember being excited by the ancient nature of the coronial system, by how flexible it could be and by how it can adapt to needs today and later on.

Ultimately, I became a Government lawyer for 17 years and specialised in article 2 inquests. [Interruption.] I am glad to be described as the best of the best, and we were—indeed, we are, incidentally. In that respect, I had the privilege of taking part in some very sad inquests, including many relating to Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr Litvinenko’s inquest, the 7/7 bombings inquests, and far too many about prisoner deaths. As a Government lawyer, I hope that I was able to help and counsel families, and that we were able to come to the truth of what happened in many of those tragic situations. I also, rightly, protected the Government’s assets in terms of secret material, which is what I was usually there for.

[Jo Stevens]

The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech, but does she agree that it illustrates exactly the inequality of arms at inquests? Insurance companies and the Government have exceptional lawyers, but the bereaved families do not, and that is why the system is so disadvantageous for them.

[Victoria Prentis]

I partially agree with the hon. Lady, for whom I have great respect. I am trying to make a speech that is possibly slightly less political than the one that opened the debate, and to say that there are many reasons for inquests. As a Government lawyer I was useful in protecting the secrecy of what had happened. Often, in a war context, for example, important national security secrets had to be protected. It was not awfully much something that we were protecting from families—often families had been talked through the secret issue in the privacy of their home at an earlier date; it was just something that we did not want to have aired in open court. I am not anti-family at all, and I will come on to say why not, but I am trying to explain why, if the Government are lawyered up, it is, I hope, not often in an adversarial way. In my working life, I tried hard to make sure that it was not that way. I completely accept that it does not always look like that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Before I start, may I say that it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Main?

I want to begin by saying how much I empathise with the aim of an inquiry, which is to find the truth of the matter when someone has died whose safety has been entrusted to the Government—truth that, when found, can provide the families of the bereaved with much-needed and sought-after closure; that simply tells them how and why it is that their loved ones are no longer here; and that provides a foundation of understanding about what mistakes may have been made and how we can learn from them to ensure that what happened may never happen again.

Yet what we find in the present system of legal aid is a great barrier to the goals of truth and understanding. The aim of the bereaved families, more than any other party in an inquest, is to ensure that what has happened to their loved ones cannot happen again, and that nobody must again feel the pain of losing somebody they love in the same, preventable way that they did. However, under the present rules, bereaved families are more often than not forced to fund their own legal representation in these inquiries.

Under the current financial eligibility rules, the threshold for receiving legal aid for an inquest is only a gross monthly income of £2,657—a gross income of just under £32,000 per year. Those earning more must pay for rent, food and all the other basic essentials of life, as well as what can be the crippling costs of legal fees in inquiries that can take months, if not years, to complete, as in the case of the Mid Staffordshire inquiry, the Morecambe Bay investigation and the Harris review. All those inquiries provided great insight into how the state needed to make changes to protect the lives of those who had been placed into its care. However, those who cannot cover the costs face the prospect of representing themselves in proceedings.

When talking about the Hillsborough disaster, Bishop James Jones described how families who had no public money provided for their legal expenses, or who were self-funded, would be forced to pool their resources. At one of the mini-inquests, one solicitor represented the interests of over 90 families. At the generic inquest, one barrister represented 43 families. One of the families was represented by the mother of the person who had died. What a harrowing experience for a woman who had lost her son to be forced to question witnesses and untangle legal proceedings just to find out what had happened to her child.

Compounding that is the fact that all those other families had no representation whatever. Their voice was stolen away from them because they did not have the financial means to represent themselves. It is simply not right, and it is simply not justice.

When we compare that to the funding that the Government or linked organisations have in these kinds of proceedings, we find that, unlike the bereaved families of those lost, the Government are able to bring the full might of the public purse to bear on these proceedings. On 3 April, the Secretary of State responded to my question about public funding for bereaved families. He stated:

“We must remember that there are ways in which we can be sympathetic to and supportive of bereaved families without ending up in an arms race of who has the most lawyers, the most expensive lawyers and so on”.

If we must use the analogy of an arms race, then at present the Government can spend money on the legal equivalent of tanks, helicopters, fleets and so on, while the families of the bereaved are left with the legal equivalent of a stick. It is all well and good for the Secretary of State to argue that we must not enter an arms race, when the Government sit in the position of power, possessing the finance to bring those legal arms to bear.

The Secretary of State also stated that he was “keen to ensure that” inquests

“continue to be essentially an inquisitorial process, rather than adversarial”.

However, I and many others in this place and beyond would argue that the process is already adversarial. While the nature of the inquest itself is not adversarial, we often find that the Government and other organisations do not fear the judgment of the coroner’s court, but that of the court of public opinion.

[Jo Stevens]

Quite often in an inquest a person will be gathering information, and that will be the only venue in which they can do so in advance of potential litigation. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important for families to have lawyers with them to enable them to carry out that process?

[Ms Rimmer]

Absolutely, and that is why I am here today. The Government and other organisations approach proceedings with the aim of damage limitation, instructing combative legal teams to defend state policies and practices, rather than to seek the truth that I spoke of earlier.

There are ways in which we can overcome that imbalance. First, automatic, non-means-tested legal aid for families would both help to level the playing field and prevent families from being burdened with crippling legal costs. It would also avoid forcing families to jump through confusing bureaucratic hoops during what can be one of the most traumatic periods, if not the most traumatic period, in their lives. Non-means-tested legal aid is provided in care and supervision proceedings in which children are to be removed from their parents, and in certain cases under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which demonstrates that there is a precedent.

Secondly, funding for families must be equivalent to that enjoyed by the state bodies, public authorities or corporate bodies represented. Ensuring like-for-like spending between the parties involved in inquests would not only further help to level the playing field for bereaved families, but would prevent the arms race that the Secretary of State alluded to in his response on 3 April. The parties mentioned would be able to spend more on lawyers only if the bereaved families received the same funding. As mentioned earlier, bereaved families do not have the means with which to outspend the Government.

I ask the Government to heed the recommendations made by the 1999 Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the 2003 independent review of coroner services, the 2004 Joint Committee on Human Rights, the 2007 Corston report, the 2015 Harris review, the 2016 report of the Chief Coroner to the Lord Chancellor, the 2017 Angiolini review, the 2017 Bach commission, the 2017 Hillsborough review, the 2017 report of the Chief Coroner to the Lord Chancellor, the 2018 Joint Committee on Human Rights and the 2018 Independent Office for Police Conduct consultation response. I ask them then to finally make the reforms necessary to give bereaved families the tools they need to achieve the fundamental goal of inquests, which is to find out the truth—the simple truth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) on securing this debate. It concerns a very technical subject that is hugely important to a number of constituents, whether because of large tragedies involving the multiple loss of human life or because of the single tragedy of losing someone, from a baby through to someone in adulthood. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) for her kind words about my private Member’s Bill, now an Act, which will enable coroners to have the power to launch inquests into stillbirths. The consultation, which has already been launched by the Ministry for Justice, will explore the whole issue of legal aid for those inquests, too. It is very important that we get the consultation right, so that measures in this sensitive area can be brought in proportionately and appropriately and help in the campaign to reduce the number of stillbirths in this country, which we all wish well. It is also important to explain to already traumatised and grieving parents exactly what happened and how improvements can be made to the system to make sure it is less likely to happen to other parents in that situation in the future.

[Jo Stevens]

In addition, would the hon. Gentleman support legal aid for people who are killed at work? It is not available for the many people who die in fatal accidents in work every year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I hope that I have identified a number of measures that we are putting in place that may help the hon. Lady’s constituent. We are making sure that the process is easier. The Legal Aid Agency is looking at linking up with banks and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, not just in relation to inquests but across the board, to automatically see whether people satisfy the means test, without them having to fill in a whole load of forms. I appreciate that, obviously, automatic non-means-tested legal aid would be much easier for everybody, but we are taking steps to make things easier within the ambit of having a means test.

In February, we announced another measure that may help the hon. Lady’s constituent, which is that we have agreed to backdate the legal help waiver. The director of legal aid casework has the discretion to backdate funding for ECF representation to the date that the ECF application was made, but he did not have the discretion to backdate funding for legal help, even when an application for the means-test assessment to be waived had been successful. We have committed to changing that by the end of the year.

The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) mentioned the threshold for legal aid, as did several other hon. Members. Our action plan sets out a broad, across-the-board review of the means-test threshold for legal aid, which will include the means test for inquests. We have committed to looking at the threshold at which people become eligible for legal aid across the board. We have also committed to launching a campaign to raise awareness about the availability of legal support, including legal aid, which will ensure that all bereaved families are aware of their rights to claim ECF.

I was disappointed by the cynical suggestion of several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Barnsley East and for Hammersmith, that the timescale of the review that we conducted was somehow inappropriate. The hon. Member for Hammersmith identified that that review ran alongside the legal aid review, and the timing was dictated by the legal aid review, which we promised to publish by the end of the year, as he is aware.

[Jo Stevens]

The Minister has not explained why the consultation lasted for only six weeks rather than 12. Is she disappointed that only 48 out of the 89 coroner areas in England and Wales responded to the survey? They are obviously not very interested in the review either.

Draft Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 General Committees

[Lucy Frazer]

To clarify, we are retaining the rules. The only question we are asking today is what law will be applied to various contracts, and the answer is that there will be very limited change in that area. Other matters might affect the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who export goods, but the specific matter that we are discussing is what law will be applied if they have a dispute about the purchase or sale of their goods. In that case, our laws will be similar going forward.

As I have mentioned, our position in relation to the Rome convention, which predates Rome I and Rome II, is different. The UK’s status as a contracting party to that convention will terminate as a matter of international law once the UK has left the EU, and it will no longer be binding on the UK. The approach taken in this statutory instrument is that the substantive rules of the convention, which continue to apply only to contracts entered into between 1 April 1991 and 16 December 2009, are retained. However, the statutory instrument also removes the provisions dealing with the ability of the UK courts under the 1980 Rome convention to refer questions of interpretation to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

We have done an impact assessment, which I am sorry to say is not yet published. That assessment has concluded that the impact on businesses, charities, voluntary bodies and the public sector will be negligible. The amendments to retained EU law and domestic legislation in this instrument merely correct EU-related deficiencies, so that Rome I, Rome II, and—for the purposes of certain old contracts—the Rome convention rules will continue to apply in the UK as domestic law post exit, largely as they do now.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell us why the impact assessment has not yet been published?

[Lucy Frazer]

I apologise; it was intended to have been published, and we thought that it was going to be. It was news to me this morning that it had not yet been published, and I apologise for that, but it will be published. As I mentioned, the effects are minimal.

[Jo Stevens]

Does the Minister know when that impact assessment will be published?

Privatised Probation System

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

Yes, we can learn a great deal from Germany and Denmark, and indeed in some of our most successful prisons, as prisoners develop in their sentence—as they develop more skills—they are given opportunities to cook for themselves and look after themselves, and of course through the use of release on temporary licence, we can get prisoners into work while they are still in prison. This means, when they leave, they are more likely to have a job. One of the key things about reducing reoffending is making sure there is not a cliff edge at the prison door, but that for at least 10 weeks before people leave a lot of preparation goes into setting up the life they will have outside prison.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I genuinely have sympathy for the Minister: he is the man with the shovel and brush following a horse that has been ridden by his colleague the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). We have seen an award-winning public probation service turned into an unmitigated privatised disaster. The Minister did not answer the earlier question about new contracts having break clauses, which was the same question we asked in 2014, so will he confirm that any new contracts issued will have break clauses?