Oral Answers to Questions
John Leech Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
As a Government, we have had to take some difficult decisions about legal aid. It is certainly the case that there is less legal aid money available for family law cases than there was. I am afraid that is a natural consequence of the financial challenges that we have faced. It is interesting that no party in this House has pledged to reverse these changes.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
What has been the cost in wasted court time, particularly in family proceedings where people have not been properly prepared for their proceedings, as a result of cuts to legal aid?
Chris Grayling
So far, there has been an increase in the number of litigants in person. Of course, we have always had litigants in person in our courts. We continue to monitor the situation closely. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), is working hard to look at additional ways of smoothing the processes that people have available to represent themselves. None the less, progress in our courts has so far continued pretty well.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
John Leech Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Does the Minister envisage the girls and younger boys being educated completely separately from the older boys?
Andrew Selous
What we have committed to is separate living accommodation. When I visited a secure training centre recently, I saw young children—both girls and boys—happily learning how to put up wall paper and to cook banoffee pie. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the accommodation will be separate. The whole set up and design of the secure college will be such that it will be possible to have considerable separation if and when we need it. I hope that he is reassured by that.
Interpreting and Translation Services
John Leech Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Pritchard. This issue is of particular interest to me, not because I am on the Justice Committee or because I am a former Home Secretary or anything like that, but simply because it was brought to my attention in the previous Parliament by constituents who worked in the interpretation service. They told me about the dangers of what was then the initial move towards such a system by the police service in Greater Manchester and some other police services across north-west England. It is a shame that we did not learn from the mistakes of the original contract with the police service and stop this before it started.
I thank two of my constituents, Marc Starr and Kasia Beresford, who have been particularly helpful on this issue over the years. Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) mentioned Madeleine Lee, which is a name that rings many bells, as I have received many e-mails from her in recent times. I also pay tribute to the Select Committee and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) for conducting the inquiry and for ensuring we had this debate following the Government’s response. The issue is of great interest to many Members from across the UK.
I apologise to the Minister because some of my remarks may not be particularly friendly towards the Ministry of Justice. I appreciate that she was landed with this when she became a Minister, and that it was not of her doing. I appreciate that some of the things that have happened are certainly not a direct result of her being a Minister, but of course she is now the person responsible for dealing with the mess in which we find ourselves.
The Select Committee’s report is pretty damning. The report accuses the Department of gagging staff and stopping them from participating in the consultation, which the Committee suggests might be contempt of the House. Fortunately, it was able to get enough information from other sources for it not to want to pursue that matter. That prompts me to question what the Department had to hide. The report also pointed out that the Department was warned throughout its consultation that quality standards would dip due to the imposition of a tiered system and lower pay for interpreters. The report concluded that, although there were administrative efficiencies compared with the previous arrangements, there were no real fundamental problems with the quality of the service provided by members of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters with a diploma in public service interpreting. The national agreement, with a few issues, worked reasonably well.
In a nutshell, the system was not broken. The MOJ was warned that its proposals would cause problems, which certainly proved to be the case. When the Select Committee decided to investigate, the MOJ tried to stop staff assisting the inquiry. Frankly, that is not good enough.
In its response to the report, the Ministry of Justice admitted a problem with performance:
“We know that performance in the MoJ under the contract has not been of a satisfactory level. Many of the points raised in the Justice Committee’s report have already been acknowledged and acted on, and others are being actively taken forward. We have gone back to the Framework Agreement itself to see whether changes can be made which will impact beneficially on performance, alongside ongoing work in the Department to improve our own processes. We are not complacent and are continuing to challenge and resolve issues which affect performance.”
I argue, however, that the Department is being complacent.
The Government, according to their response,
“expect that the changes to interpreters’ terms will increase the number and availability of Tier 1 and 2 interpreters”.
The changes, however, were not supported by Professional Interpreters for Justice, the interpreters working for Capita or those with the tribunals service who attended meetings to discuss the changes. Will the Minister explain how she can be so certain that the changes will attract more well-qualified interpreters when 85% of well-qualified interpreters have made it clear that they will not work for Capita, because of the lowering of professional standards? Professional Interpreters for Justice made that clear back in March, and yet its advice, the responses to the consultation and my debate back in 2007 have been completely ignored.
As I said, the Select Committee report made it clear that nothing was fundamentally wrong with the quality of the service before the new contract was introduced. No one is suggesting that it was perfect or that improvements could not have been made, but fundamentally it worked well. No one has seriously tried to defend the changes on the basis of driving up standards; they have always been about saving money.
The Justice Committee report recommended that the Department be clearer about the true costs of the contract. The Department, in its response, claimed that the framework agreement had made significant savings over the first year of the contract, but it failed to provide any evidence to back up that claim. The Government’s response recognises that certain costs are difficult to calculate, admitting:
“Reasons for a hearing adjournment are not routinely recorded, so it is difficult to identify adjournments for interpreting problems. However, we would expect any difficulties with interpreting to be raised through the complaints system by staff.”
If so, how can the Minister be certain that savings have been made? The simple answer is that it is impossible to be certain whether any savings have been made under the contract.
In reality, the savings claimed by the MOJ do not include the costs of court delays, case adjournments, repeated remands in custody for offenders and all other related expenses of underperformance, including those of court clerks who have booked interpreters outside the contract because of Capita’s poor service—that goes on, and it goes on a lot. Has the Department made any assessment of such costs? If not, how can the MOJ stand by the claim that it has made significant savings in the first year of operation? I simply do not see how it can. Finally on cost, the Department estimated the staffing costs of liaising with Capita and overseeing performance at £315,000 between January 2012 and March 2013. Will the Minister confirm whether those costs are being reimbursed by Capita? How much will the ongoing costs be of ensuring that its performance continues to be thoroughly scrutinised?
We are not only talking about money; we must not forget justice and access to justice. In giving evidence, Mr Atkinson of the Law Society stated that while miscarriages of justice would occur infrequently, they were possible. Even one miscarriage of justice is one too many, but perhaps more concerning was his comment that
“people are spending time in custody for no reason other than the lack of an interpreter.”
Again, that is not acceptable.
As the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said, 608 magistrates court trials and 34 Crown court trials were recorded ineffective in 2012, as a result of interpreters being unavailable—a 100% increase on the previous year. Does the Minister consider that acceptable? Furthermore, will the Minister tell the House how many defendants have remained in custody as a result of ineffective trials that are a direct result of an interpreter not being available?
I suspect that the Minister will tell me that she cannot answer any of those questions—that the data are not easily available and she does not know the answer. If so, she must accept that her Department cannot justify continuing to defend the contract, and that we must look seriously at cancelling it.
Mrs Grant
The ideal success rate is 98% and I believe the fines were approximately £1,400 or £1,500. I can get that figure for my hon. Friend, but 98% is what we are aiming at and what we are determined to achieve. I am confident that we will.
We have acknowledged and acted on many of the points rightly raised by the Justice Committee, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, and we have genuinely gone right back to the contract to see where changes could benefit performance. We are not complacent; we continue to meet the challenges head on. For the first time, we can honestly say that we have a system that delivers a sustainable service and includes easily quantifiable standards—a system in which people in the justice sector can have confidence. Improvements have been made, but we have more work to do and we will endeavour to do it.
I would like to respond to some of the key aspects of the Justice Committee’s report. Many questions have been asked of the Government today, but I will do my best to respond to a number of the specific issues raised, starting with remuneration. The framework agreement between the Ministry and Capita has allowed us to make significant savings of some £16.7 million in the first year. Such savings are much needed in the current financial climate, but I recognised that the savings were affecting performance and we therefore ploughed an estimated £2.9 million of them back into the system. As I announced in the House on 25 April, the Department has amended the terms of the contract with Capita to increase remuneration for interpreters. The terms now include cancellation fees and greater rewards for more highly qualified interpreters.
Mrs Grant
I am afraid I do not accept that. We do not have supply problems at the moment. The reality of the situation is that we are fulfilling contracts. Our changes equate to an average increase of 22% in remuneration rates, which will attract new and retain existing good-quality interpreters.
Regarding stakeholders, we continue to discuss developments with interpreters and with Capita. There has been open and frank dialogue between the Ministry and the Professional Interpreters for Justice group, and we seek to maintain a productive dialogue. We have a common interest in ensuring that language is not a barrier to justice, and that shared vision was clear to me at a meeting with the Professional Interpreters for Justice group that I chaired at the end of 2012. I recognised the commitment, the concern and the care.
In relation to quality, the contract allows for a greater range of acceptable qualifications and experience than previously, but there are, of course, suitable safeguards. All foreign language interpreters must provide evidence of their qualifications before they can undertake assignments, qualifications which in many instances are the same as those required by the National Register of Public Service Interpreters.
Tiering interpreters according to their skills is the right approach to delivering a sustainable system. Courts and tribunals expect as a minimum a tier 1 or tier 2 interpreter for a hearing, and that has been set out in staff guidance. There is, however, flexibility, and very occasionally the court or tribunal, together with the judge, can be asked to decide if the complexity of the case would allow for the appointment of a tier 3 interpreter. Our changes to remuneration should also attract more interpreters to tiers 1 and 2.
I accept the Justice Committee’s recommendation that a quality criterion within the framework should be independently evaluated, and the Ministry is initiating that work and will be in a position to update the Justice Committee in the autumn. I want to make it crystal clear, however, that it is the role of the service provider—namely, Capita—to ensure that those who work within the framework meet the required standards.
Mrs Grant
If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will come to that point—I am barely halfway through and will go on for a fair bit longer.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) talked about participation in the online survey. As the Ministry of Justice had co-operated fully, we took the view that it would not be appropriate to invite court staff to submit further evidence via the online forum set up by the Select Committee. We took that action because the civil service management code and the Osmotherly rules state that officials
“should not take part in research projects or surveys designed to establish their personal views on Government policies”.
We considered it right and proper to follow those rules.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) referred to the adequacy of the previous system. Setting aside my own experience, I can say that the system was inefficient because an MOJ audit found it to be risky, and the National Audit Office agreed that it was inadequate and did not provide good value for money.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to due diligence, and I can tell him that the procurement process was fair and competitive and that due diligence checks were carried out. However, lessons must be learned from the comments made by the Justice Committee and the NAO, and those from our own assessment. Along with other hon. Members, he raised the suitability of ALS. ALS had a background in the sector, and we felt that it had the capacity to expand to meet our needs, but, of course, that was not the case.
A number of Members have mentioned inefficiencies in trials and the disruption and costs that have flowed from ineffective trials. Magistrates courts listed more than 80,000 trials in the first and second quarters of 2012. Just 345—0.4%—were unable to proceed because of interpreter problems. Although I absolutely acknowledge that it is not good for any trial not to proceed, contingency plans were put in place to make sure that disruption was as small as possible.
[Jim Sheridan in the Chair]
Quality of service has been a recurring theme. We are satisfied with the quality of the interpreters being used, but, as I mentioned, there will be an independent evaluation this year, and we will update the Justice Committee in the autumn on its progress.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith mentioned the cost of cases not going ahead. I am sorry that he has had so much trouble getting a satisfactory response. I am not sure whether I will do much better today, but I always like to try when I am facing him. All I can say is that courts deal with thousands of cases every day. Some cases do not go ahead, often for a variety of reasons, and calculating the cost could take a disproportionate amount of time and money.
The future is important. It might be worth saying that the NAO agreed that our procurement process was fair and competitive and that the contract should be fully implemented. Our review identified a number of processes that have since been improved.
Mrs Grant
That is a specific and very fair point, and I will have to write to my hon. Friend about it.
The Department does not propose to change the current key performance indicators under the contract and framework agreement. The current suite of information available to us allows us closely to manage the performance of the contract. Capita provides us with the number of complaints, which we closely monitor and publish as part of our regular official statistics. However, we are willing to discuss with Capita and our other justice sector partners whether a user satisfaction measure, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, can be added to the management information already collected. A key performance indicator on quality will also be considered in the independent assessment that, as I indicated, is due to take place this year.
The Government are clear that the new contract had a number of problems, and we have taken lessons on board. We realise that it is unacceptable for any case not to go ahead. We now have a system that is robust, sustainable and able to deliver a quality service to people in the justice sector at an affordable level.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Leech Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
The decision to hold the FA cup final at 5.15 pm to allow more football fans to watch the game after their teams have played earlier in the day means that City and Wigan fans will struggle to get back by train. Does the Minister agree that the solution for the future is to reinstate the FA cup final as the showpiece game on the last day of the season, the week after the last round of the league games?
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)
Everyone across the House will have been appalled by the scenes that we saw at Wembley last Saturday afternoon and early evening. Both the FA and the police are looking very carefully into what happened and the causes behind it. Clearly, kick-off times is one element of that. It would be wrong of anyone here to prejudge that investigation, not least because I am almost sure there will be a criminal element to it, but if any action needs to be taken, the hon. Gentleman has my assurance that that will take place.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Leech Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hugh Robertson
Guidance is issued by the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, which produces “The Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds”, commonly known as the green guide. That includes guidance on the importance of inspections and testing of contingency plans, including full evacuation procedures. The guidance is there. If that is not happening, that should not be the case.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Given the impossible task that clubs face to keep some fans seated at football matches, is it not time to carry out an assessment of whether it would in fact be safer for grounds to introduce safe standing areas rather than people continuing to stand in areas that are not designed for standing?
Hugh Robertson
The requirement to have all-seater stadiums was, as the hon. Gentleman will know, one of the recommendations of the Taylor report. I undertook to look at this area when the coalition came to power in 2010. All the advice I received from the football authorities, the police and everybody involved in public safety was to make no change. For any Minister to make a change ignoring the prevailing safety advice would be extremely unwise.
Leveson Inquiry
John Leech Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about such an important issue as the future of press regulation. However, I am disappointed that following the publication of the Leveson report, the media have sought to render the debate as an attack on free speech rather than an attempt to ensure that there is proper redress for the innocent victims who have been bullied and abused throughout this whole affair. We owe it to the victims of these scandals to debate Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals principally with them in mind.
In the run-up to the report’s publication, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that
“assuming he”—
that is, Lord Leveson—
“comes up with proposals which are proportionate and workable, we should implement them.”
I believe that these proposals are proportionate and workable. Similarly, the Prime Minister said that if the Leveson report was “not bonkers”, he would implement it. I also believe that the report is not bonkers, and that it is right for the Government to implement its core principles.
Lord Justice Leveson has suggested tough, independent regulation that will maintain a raucous and vigorous press while at the same time ensuring that the innocent victims of press intrusion have access to justice. This is independent regulation, free of the press and free of the politicians. It is a careful balancing act that can ensure the freedom of the press, and also fair recourse for those who have been wronged by the press.
During the inquiry, the Deputy Prime Minister set out in his written evidence six core principles that would have to apply to a new regulatory system. They were independence from both Government and the media; better protection for journalists acting in the public interest; powers to initiate investigations rather than just complaints; meaningful penalties, whether financial or non-financial; a third-party right of complaint; and membership of all relevant organisations, given that some major news producers have chosen to operate outside the current regime. The question for me is this: do Lord Justice Leveson's proposals encapsulate those six principles? I believe that they do.
Lord Justice Leveson proposes a system of voluntary independent self-regulation overseen by an independent board. The board’s membership would be appointed in a fair, open and transparent way, and would contain a majority of members who are demonstrably independent of the press, with no serving editors. In order to provide sufficient incentives for the press to join the regulator, however, we need to strike a balance between the incentives and disincentives. In order for the incentives to work, it is essential that there is law to underpin the independence of the regulator and also to allow the courts to take membership of the regulator into account when deciding what penalties are required in cases of wrongdoing.
I understand that some Members are wary of using legislation, but Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals do not, and will not, result in state control of the press. Legislation will simply secure the following: continued independence of the media; routine external checks by an independent commissioner, to make sure the regulator or regulators are doing their job properly; and strong incentives for newspapers to sign up to a recognised regulator, including access to a fast, cheap and effective process to resolve disputes and enable victims of press abuse to seek redress. If any newspaper refused to sign up to an approved regulator, it would face higher costs and fewer legal protections. A similar system of statutory incentives is operating in Ireland, which the majority of newspapers—including those who have shunned the Press Complaints Commission here—have signed up to.
Does such a system attack free speech? In my view, it absolutely does not. It simply provides recourse for people who have been treated unfairly by the press. As a Liberal, I firmly believe in a free press that holds the powerful to account and is not subject to political interference, but a free press does not, and must not, mean a press that is free to bully innocent people or abuse grieving families. People who feel they have been mistreated by powerful newspapers need to know there is somebody prepared to stand up for them and investigate their complaints, independent of any interference.
There is a certain irony in the press arguing for free speech. I am one of a number of Greater Manchester MPs who are asked to write opinion columns for the Trinity Mirror-owned Manchester Evening News each Monday. Last week was my slot, and, given that the Leveson report was due to be published, I thought it appropriate to comment on the inquiry and give my opinion. How ironic, then, that the Manchester Evening News refused to print my personal views on press regulation, because it did not think my opinions were appropriate—or, rather, because they were not in line with Trinity Mirror Group’s opinion. So much for the press commitment to free speech!
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
In which case, should that paper be punished?
Mr Leech
I am not for one second suggesting the newspaper should be punished. I am merely suggesting that it is rather ironic for a newspaper publisher bleating about free speech not to allow an opinion to be published in its newspaper, in what is supposed to be an opinion piece by an MP from the local area.
Is the proposed system a slippery slope to state regulation? Newspapers are suggesting that a future Government could legislate further and introduce state control. That is a red herring. A future Government could start the process from scratch and introduce state control. However, setting out the independence of the regulator in law actually makes it more difficult to introduce state control, because the independence of the regulator will already be enshrined in law.
Opponents also argue that Leveson’s model of regulation would not have stopped the hacking and the serious criminal behaviour. That is certainly true, but if proper independent regulation had been there in the first place, newspapers would never have built up a culture of invulnerability and an attitude that they could do whatever they wanted. While an independent regulator would not have directly stopped criminality, I believe it would have stopped the culture that resulted in that criminality.
Finally, I return to my first point about the debate being about the innocent victims. If we implement the Leveson recommendations, can we seriously look the victims in the eye? The answer is clearly yes, we can. I fear that without Leveson, we cannot.
Alan Turing
John Leech Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I begin by adding my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing this important debate at this particular time, to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Alan Turing’s birth. The level of detail about Alan Turing’s life that he went into suggests to me that schools could do worse than look at today’s Hansard and use it as a history lesson on the life of one of our greatest ever scientists.
I also pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Sharkey, for his work in the other place, and to my colleague on the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who has done an awful lot and was trying to push the debate as well. I should pay tribute, too, to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who did an awful lot in his time as leader of Manchester city council to push the case of Alan Turing.
Interestingly, at a 100th birthday celebration at the weekend, the lord mayor, who lives close to the road that was renamed Alan Turing way when the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton was council leader, recalled that, when it was renamed, many people in the area asked, “Who is Alan Turing?” Over time, however, the simple fact of renaming it meant people got to know about him. We may think that something is trivial and does not matter; but just renaming a road led to many Mancunians getting to know much more about Alan Turing and his life.
My final tribute is to Andy, in my office, who has done hours of work on the subject of pushing for a pardon or disregarded conviction. Often we do not give credit to the people who work for us and do research behind the scenes, in this place or our constituency offices.
I first got involved in the campaign in the previous Session, when I was contacted to support the e-petition calling for a pardon for Alan Turing, submitted by William Jones in Manchester in November. In the first two months, the petition got more than 20,000 signatures, and I agreed to take up the issue in Parliament, tabling an early-day motion. In February the campaign went to the Lords, when Lord Sharkey questioned the Minister about whether Alan Turing would be pardoned. He was informed that it would be inappropriate, because Alan Turing was fairly convicted under the laws of the time. Further parliamentary questions uncovered the fact that more than 75,000 people were convicted under the same laws between 1894 and 2004.
A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the cancellation of the relevant penalty. It does not mean that the conviction is quashed. I understand that two conditions are needed for a pardon: moral innocence and legal innocence. The view of the Government has been that since Turing was fairly convicted of what was a crime at the time, legal innocence cannot be justified.
Having failed to persuade the Government to issue a pardon, we considered the possibility of getting justice for Alan Turing through a disregarded conviction. That is probably what most people think of as a pardon, because it wipes the slate clean. It means that the records are changed, so that it is as though the person did not commit the offence, and was not charged, prosecuted or sentenced.
The original campaign was for a pardon, but actually a disregarded conviction would be better. That might have been possible—and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South talked about this—through amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, it proved impossible, partly because the slow workings of Government meant that we were unable to get agreement, with i’s dotted and t’s crossed, to including it in existing measures.
We have not given up. There are plans, as my hon. Friend mentioned, to introduce a private Member’s Bill in the Lords. I understand that that is due to be presented in the next few days, and we hope to get Government support for it. In the meantime, in the Commons, I have submitted a further early-day motion in this Session, to commemorate Turing’s birth 100 years ago:
“That this House commemorates Alan Turing on his birthday, 23 June, for his many mathematical and scientific breakthroughs including the vital contribution he made to Britain's war effort by inventing the machine that broke the Enigma code; regrets that following his years of national service, he received a criminal conviction for having a sexual relationship with another man; deplores the fact that he was forced to take oestrogen therapy or be sent to prison if he did not comply; expresses profound sorrow that he went on to take his own life on 8 June 1954 at the age of just 41 years; recognises that so far over 34,000 people have signed the e-petition on the 10 Downing Street website calling for Alan Turing to be pardoned; calls therefore for a posthumous or disregarded conviction to be granted; and acknowledges the huge and unnecessary suffering that he and so many other gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have had to endure.”
I hope that colleagues on both sides of the House will support the motion—in spirit if not by signing it, if they do not or cannot sign EDMs. I hope that the motion will help to ensure that in 2012 we can put right the wrong that was done. That is very long overdue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing this wholly appropriate debate during the centenary of one of the greatest Britons. I apologise if I cover a little of the same ground about Turing’s achievements. Such is their scale that, like my hon. Friend, I will be giving only headlines in the time available. I am also grateful to Alan Turing’s biographer, Andrew Hodges, for helping my officials and me to get it right. Any mistakes will be entirely mine.
The perspective of history can be a wonderful thing. Decades later, the profound legacy of a brilliant and original mind largely unknown to his contemporaries can be referenced by the President of the United States in Westminster Hall, as Alan Turing was by President Obama last year. Year by year, our understanding grows of how important his contribution has been to our society. It is an astonishing legacy of global importance. One can only feel awe at the brilliance of his intellect and admiration for the magnitude of his achievements. They throw into the sharpest relief the appalling way he was treated by his own contemporary society, a fate he shared with tens of thousands of other gay men of his era. However, the shame, anger and embarrassment properly felt by today’s society at the extreme contrast between his service and his oppression, recorded in the previous Prime Minister’s unprecedented formal apology, still leaves us wanting to find ways to atone and to recognise his awesome achievements. A number of hon. Members have expressed their desire to do so in different ways. I was delighted to learn that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) has been able to do so by naming Alan Turing way. I am delighted that when the opportunity presented itself, it was Alan Turing whom he chose to honour.
Turing was one of the top mathematical minds of all time. He successfully applied his mathematical genius to numerous other scientific disciplines while throwing in the unique ability to combine successful practical application with brilliant theoretical understanding. Turing was a fellow of King’s college, Cambridge in 1935, and his time at Princeton from 1936 to 1938 has been appreciated properly by our American cousins. His 1936 paper invented the concept of the universal machine, which underpins the computing revolution. Turing’s success in America makes all the more impressive his decision to return to England in 1938. He understood the threat that his country faced and, critically, the contribution that he could make to our defence through encryption and code-breaking.
From 1939 to 1944, Turing was almost totally engaged in the mastery of the German enciphering machine Enigma and other cryptological investigations at Bletchley Park. Turing made a unique logical contribution to the decryption of Enigma and became the chief scientific figure, with a particular responsibility for reading U-boat communications. Turing’s contribution was undoubtedly crucial. I endorse the analysis of his importance made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart); the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) made similar points. I do not demur from any of them.
In March 1944, Turing’s principal focus moved to encryption and voice scrambling with the Foreign Office at Hanslope Park, enabling secure communications between the Heads of Government directing the war. That work contributed directly to his development of electronic computing at the National Physical Laboratory and the university of Manchester, including the design of the Pilot ACE, the first modern computer in this country, delivered in parallel with computer development in the United States.
In his free time, Turing became a notable marathon runner, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned. But for an injury, he would probably have been invited to be a member of the British team for the London-based Olympics in 1948. His personal time of two hours and 46 minutes was barely 11 minutes slower than that of that year’s gold medallist. That rather lesser-known achievement is particularly apposite, as we are holding this debate in a year when the Olympics return to London for the first time since 1948.
Alan Turing continued to serve his country at what had become GCHQ, but after his conviction for gross indecency, he was categorised as a security risk and excluded from doing the nationally important work that must have given him great satisfaction. It is difficult to imagine the devastation that he would have experienced as his country switched from seeing him as a profound national asset to seeing him as a serious liability. By today’s standards, the security policy applied to Alan Turing seems criminally stupid, but in the atmosphere of the time—there was the defection of Maclean and Burgess, and the McCarthy witch hunts in the United States of America—it was tragically unexceptional. The atmosphere in both countries is relevant, as Turing had been an emissary to the United States in November 1942, possibly charged with assisting the Americans to address their cipher challenges and the U-boat menace then threatening their coastline. He was probably also involved in the security of transatlantic communications between Roosevelt and Churchill. That Britain possessed such impressive skills was due not least to Turing’s own efforts. Given that such extraordinary abilities existed in one man, one can but imagine the hysterics of the security apparat on both sides of the Atlantic, reinforced by the profound, ignorant and accepted commonplace prejudice of the time.
In what were to prove the final years of his life, Alan Turing used his understanding of mathematics and interest in process to develop a new and ground-breaking theory, the mathematical theory of morphogenesis: the theory of growth and form in biology. His writing on this, published in 1951, is regarded as the founding paper of modern non-linear dynamical theory. My hon. Friend might have been able to elucidate that if he had the time, but I am certainly not able to do so. Some of the theories the publication contained about the occurrence of the Fibonacci sequence in sunflowers are now being tested on a huge scale in the Manchester Turing sunflower project.
Alan Turing’s achievements have rightly earned him the description of the father of computing and artificial intelligence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South and others have said, we have no way of knowing what further advances he might have made had his life not been cut short. His achievements make him utterly unique and, as such, he warrants singling out in the way that we are doing in this debate.
That his exceptional public service should have been rewarded with what appears to us to be a grotesquely unjust conviction for gross indecency has led to the question of whether our sympathy should take the form of a retrospective, posthumous pardon. I will discuss that in more detail in a moment.
That the then offence was in private, consensual and revealed to the police by Turing himself, who had been a victim of real crime, reinforces the appalling unfairness he suffered. The only victim of Turing’s “crime” was Turing himself. The first point is that the law has been changed—indeed, it was first changed 45 years ago—but the conduct that led to Alan Turing’s conviction was only deemed to no longer be an offence after Edwina Currie’s amendment became law in 1994. When Alan Turing was arrested, he is said to have stated that he expected a
“Royal Commission to legalise it”.
It has taken a very long time. Progress over the past two decades has been immense, but more remains to be done.
In fulfilment of our coalition agreement, the Government introduced the disregard provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. They are designed to let individuals get on with their lives, free from having to disclose convictions for homosexual activity where it was consensual and the other person was over 16. There are certain other circumstances in which convictions for those offences have to be disclosed under vetting checks, even though the activity is no longer a criminal offence. The Act allows individuals who have such convictions or cautions to apply to the Home Office for them to be disregarded, thus removing their practical effects from their lives and allowing them to move forward without the burden that the records currently impose.
The provisions are specifically designed to give practical assistance to the living, whose daily lives and, indeed, employment prospects may be affected by the record of a conviction on the police national computer. Extending them to the deceased would be impractical and serve no purpose. In truth, we could be looking for records going back to the 1800s. In many cases, those records may not be held, or may not provide enough information to make sure that the person in question would qualify for a disregard. There is also the question of the impact that disregarding posthumous convictions would have. It would be an attempt to rewrite history. Would it involve changing officially held records? Should we destroy historical evidence of the unjust suffering that many underwent, which would hinder academic research? Those concerns apply to a general pardon of all those, living and dead, who have such convictions. That is why the Government followed the path of a disregard in the Protection of Freedoms Act.
That brings us to the question of a pardon, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and addressed in detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech). Free pardons under the royal prerogative of mercy were formerly the usual means of recognising that there had been a miscarriage of justice and that the convicted person was innocent. Over the past century, however, developments in legislative avenues of appeal have significantly reduced the need to resort to the royal prerogative. Generally, applicants or, in the case of the deceased, their families, have the right to appeal to the relevant appeal court and can also ask the Criminal Cases Review Commission to review their case. The grant of pardons under the royal prerogative is now extremely rare.
It is the long-standing policy not to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy where a person was correctly convicted under the laws that existed at the time. The applicant must be technically and morally innocent, as my hon. Friend has said. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South has said that we should clear Alan Turing’s name. A pardon under the royal prerogative of mercy would not actually affect Alan Turing’s conviction; only a court can quash a conviction and, in that sense, clear someone’s name.
Much as we now feel it outrageous that Alan Turing’s behaviour was treated as a criminal offence, he was guilty of the contemporary offence. To grant him a pardon under the royal prerogative would change the basis on which such pardons are normally given.
If Alan Turing were pardoned, there would be tens of thousands of other people in respect of whom demands for like treatment could be made. Those persons could include about 16,000 living individuals with convictions for homosexuality, and many times that number of deceased victims. The living can benefit from the Home Office’s recent disregard provisions, but both they and the families of those who are deceased, or others on their behalf, could seek a pardon, too.
Mr Blunt
The Department’s problem is that it is extremely difficult to make a sensible analysis that could be relied on. The living can apply to have their convictions disregarded, but I would think that more than 100,000 people have been convicted of these crimes over two centuries, so the potential scale of applications is enormous.
There is also the question of justice. The sex offences of which Alan Turing was convicted are still capable of being offences in certain circumstances where the other party was under age or the sex was non-consensual. In such circumstances, a pardon would be not only inappropriate, but wrong. The records for some older cases would no longer be available, and the way such offences were recorded would make it difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a pardon was in fact justified. It is to avoid that problem that the Government have gone down the route of a disregard by application.
It is also worth noting that the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy has changed over time. Centuries ago it was exercised by the monarch in an unfettered way. In modern times, however, the exercise of the prerogative is not exercised by Her Majesty personally but on the advice and recommendation of a Secretary of State, and it is therefore subject to judicial oversight. Whenever someone makes qualitative judgments on such issues, the prospect of review of the reasonableness of a decision is opened up.
Interpretation Services (Ministry of Justice)
John Leech Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I am delighted to have secured this end-of-day Adjournment debate on the proposed outsourcing of interpretation services by the Ministry of Justice. I wish that it had not been necessary and that the coalition Government had recognised the mistakes made by the previous Labour Government in not taking action to stop police forces around the country outsourcing interpreting services to agencies, which has resulted in a poorer level of service not only to defendants but to police forces and the criminal justice system around the country. This is not the first time that I have raised this issue in Parliament. Back in March 2009, I secured a Westminster Hall debate in response to the north-west police forces planning to outsource their interpreting services. Unfortunately, it fell on deaf ears; I hope that it will not do so this time.
I would like particularly to thank my constituent Marc Starr, who originally brought this issue to my attention, and Geoffrey Buckingham, the chairman of the Association of Police and Court Interpreters, for providing me with a lot of information for the debate, and to recognise colleagues who have contacted me about this issue, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who is in his place.
A framework agreement to regulate the supply of police and court public service interpreters has been brokered by the Ministry of Justice. Its intentions are to endeavour to ensure that interpreting services to the judiciary and police are delivered to a high standard via qualified interpreters in a way intended to save about £18 million annually against the current £60 million budget. The Ministry of Justice has decided that the best way to do so is to let a contract to a single self-regulating commercial organisation that will book interpreters, individually or through agencies, to service the police and courts; determine a rate for the job; and monitor not only the quality of the interpreters’ work and need for further training and review, but its own performance. However, it is highly questionable whether this framework agreement and Applied Language Solutions, which is the agency that will provide interpreters, will be able to meet the Ministry of Justice’s requirements.
The plans introduce three tiers of interpreters, and the intention is to rank interpreters into one of three categories, with a rate of pay of £22 for tier 1, £20 for tier 2, and £16 for tier 3. Interpreters will be ranked according to their qualifications, but also subject to the agency’s own assessment, to which already fully qualified interpreters would be expected to subject themselves at their own personal cost. These rates of pay, along with severe restrictions on travel expenses and an end to travel-time payments, will result in interpreters refusing to sign up to the agency, or to take specific jobs, because of the low rates of pay. I have received evidence from one interpreter in Greater Manchester whose current net pay after travel expenses for a typical magistrates court job in Greater Manchester is £103.75 for anything up to a three-hour job, whereas under the proposed framework agreement it would be £10 for a one-hour job or £50 for a three-hour job, which equates to £4.44 per hour for one hour, rising to £11.76 per hour if the job lasts three hours.
Perhaps an even starker example is that of a Lithuanian-speaking interpreter who sometimes has to travel to Plymouth Crown court from Surrey because of a lack of qualified Lithuanian-speaking interpreters. Under the current agreement, they would receive £246.25 after travel costs for the 11.5-hour return trip. Under the new framework agreement, this would be minus £65.10 after travel costs. Does the Minister seriously think that that is acceptable, and does he really think that this will be an incentive to accept that particular job?
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
I assure my hon. Friend that the worries that he has outlined are shared by interpreters in Wales, whose concern is not so much the finance but the fact that the service is going to deteriorate because of the quality of interpreters who will work at these rates.
Mr Leech
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. That is a common issue that has been raised with me by interpreters around the country, in England and in Wales.
When one adds in the additional disincentives of no pension, holiday pay or sick pay, as well as no job security and no increase in interpreters’ rate of pay since 2007, it is unthinkable to assume that these proposed rates of pay and costs are suitable. It also seems perverse that the new framework agreement encourages the use of an interpreter’s car rather than public transport. Currently, standard-class fares are reimbursed in full, while the car mileage rate is 25p a mile. A higher rate of 45p a mile, which is more in line with the true cost of running a car per mile, along with parking costs, is payable only if the interpreter can show that there was no public transport option. However, under the new arrangements all calculations will be based on the use of a personal car and public transport costs will not be covered—not much of an incentive for interpreters to reduce their carbon emissions and travel on public transport.
One of the stated aims of the framework agreement is increasing the number of suitably qualified and vetted interpreters to meet the demand. There are currently around 2,300 interpreters registered with the national register of public service interpreters. Applied Language Solutions claims that 1,000 linguists have signed up to its Linguist Lounge recruitment website. That means a cut of around 1,300 qualified interpreters available to the courts system, assuming that all 1,000 are NRPSI-qualified. If they are not, the cut in qualified interpreters will be even greater. The failure of ALS to reach agreement with at least 1,300 qualified interpreters shows the level of opposition to the proposals, in spite of evidence to suggest that ALS has sought to pressurise interpreters into signing up, with thinly veiled threats that the registration is closing soon. Does the Minister think that that is appropriate behaviour for a company purporting to implement the legal interpreting and translation register, which surely must be consistently open to applicants as a public resource?
Does the Minister also think that closing the list when more than half the NRPSI-qualified interpreters have refused to sign up will increase the availability of suitably qualified and vetted interpreters? Of course it will not. We should look at the evidence from where outsourcing has already taken place and at its impact on the quality and availability of interpreters. The Ministry of Justice claimed on 6 July that “collaborative authorities” had
“concerns that NRPSI registration does not necessarily guarantee quality. The evidence for this is anecdotal, but has been consistent enough to warrant action.”
I would prefer to rely on hard evidence, and there is significant evidence that the outsourcing of interpreting services by police forces has resulted in the use of unqualified interpreters.
When Cheshire constabulary outsourced to ALS, only 34% of the interpreters provided by ALS were on the NRPSI. In Lincolnshire, outsourcing led to a reduction of registered interpreters from 68% to less than 30%. Where outsourcing has taken place there has been a significant reduction in the number of registered interpreters being used—clear evidence that the quality and availability of interpreters is reduced.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my constituent Svetlana Clark who is a member of the Chartered Institute of Linguists and a public service interpreter on the national register, that the potential cost to the judiciary of adjournments, mistrials, appeals and failed prosecutions as a result of inadequate interpreting cannot be overestimated and does not serve the interests of justice?
Mr Leech
I do agree with the hon. Lady’s constituent. There is lots of evidence to suggest that where unqualified interpreters have been used there have been delays in police and court action, resulting in additional costs. I have been handed pages and pages of examples of unqualified interpreters being sent to police stations and courts by agencies, or interpreters proficient in the wrong language. One example that made it into Private Eye was ALS providing a Czech-speaking interpreter for a Slovak-speaking suspect. ALS’s explanation was that
“it is fair to say that most people from Slovakia essentially speak Czech.”
Is this really the sort of organisation that we want in charge of ensuring that justice is done?
Other questions have been raised about the suitability of ALS to fulfil the role. The Minister has already assured me that the Department’s procurement specialists were satisfied by the company’s stability and probity, but the fact remains that more than 50% of qualified interpreters do not and will not work for it. The company has been found to be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 on three occasions since 2007. Can the Minister assure me that potentially highly sensitive data are safe and that is it appropriate for them to be handled in non-UK call centres?
Finally, will the Minister explain why foreign-language-speaking interpreters are being treated differently from British sign language interpreters, who will retain their existing terms and conditions? Surely that contravenes sections 13 and 19 of the Equality Act 2010, by providing less favourable terms to foreign-language interpreters? The Ministry of Justice also intends effectively to re-test foreign-language interpreters, but not British sign language interpreters. Surely it is a contradiction that the Ministry accepts BSL qualifications as valid but rejects foreign-language interpreters, even though they have the same level of accredited qualification.
These proposals have not been properly thought through. The MOJ has failed to look at the evidence from outsourcing, and failed to treat all interpreters equitably. I hope that it is not too late for the Government to take a step back and review this decision. If they cannot do that, I would at the very least strongly urge the Minister closely to monitor the performance of the service, paying close attention to the delays and additional costs that will undoubtedly occur when cases are delayed as a result of a lack of an available interpreter, or when mistakes are made when under-qualified interpreters are used.
Nick Herbert
My understanding is that it does.
Some of our stakeholders—primarily interpreters and their representative organisations—oppose the new model. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington has eloquently set out some of their concerns. They suggest that our proposals will reduce the quality of interpreters and translators working in the justice sector to the detriment of justice itself. Interpreters have suggested that there will be breaches of articles 5 and 6 of the European convention on human rights with, for example, suspects spending longer in custody, collapsed trials and miscarriages of justice. I do not accept that these are valid claims.
Let us first remember that the current system does not meet our needs. We already have the unacceptable position that approximately 400 magistrates court trials and a number of considerably more expensive Crown court trials cannot go ahead as listed because the interpreter does not attend court.
Let us consider the following scenario. A member of court staff receives notification that a defendant due to appear in court for a pre-trial hearing the following Monday morning requires an interpreter. That member of staff accesses the register and starts to make phone calls. Interpreter 1 is not available. Interpreter 2, despite repeated call-backs, cannot be contacted. Interpreter 3, who lives some considerable distance away, is available and takes the booking. At around the same time, the Crown Prosecution Service needs to book an interpreter in the same language for a prosecution witness due to give evidence in a trial. The witness is due to give evidence on Monday afternoon. The interpreter originally booked has pulled out. The CPS accesses the register and starts to make phone calls. Interpreter 1 is not available; interpreter 2 answers the phone and accepts the booking. After 20 minutes of phone calls, we now have two interpreters in the same language travelling to the same court building on the same day. Under the current arrangements, we would pay each of them a payment equivalent to a minimum of three hours work and possibly travel time on top of that.
Nick Herbert
I do not accept that the problems my hon. Friend describes will characterise the new service we are setting out under the framework agreement. The difference with our new framework agreement is that the court staff and the CPS each make a single phone call or send a single e-mail to ALS. ALS then not only contacts the interpreters, but its infrastructure means that it knows about the two jobs and can ensure that one interpreter is used for both jobs—saving on costs for the justice sector and providing a more worthwhile piece of work for the interpreter who is booked.
Ensuring that interpretation and translation are of the appropriate quality and widening the available pool of interpreters are fundamental elements of this reform and have always been so, and the Government believe that they will be delivered. The framework agreement is clear about the quality standards that are expected. It requires detailed and meaningful management information and comprehensive key performance indicators, and it will be properly managed. In addition, all interpreters and translators will be required to abide by a comprehensive code of conduct, which emphasises that they should accept only assignments that they are competent to undertake.
Clearly, in any system for the provision of such services there will be exceptional cases in which it is not easy, or always possible, to find a person with the specified qualification requirements within the time scale sought. That happens under the present arrangements, and—we must be realistic—we cannot rule it out entirely under the new arrangements. Such cases are currently managed as well as possible on the ground by the police and courts as appropriate, and that will continue. The new arrangements will help to mitigate the problems with a tiered approach, and, perhaps most crucially, with objectives to promote the recruitment and training of new interpreters, particularly in certain areas of the court or in certain languages.
Our proposals constitute a reasonable and sensible response to the need to improve efficiency in our spending on interpreters, drive up standards and reduce burdens on the justice system, while ensuring that we maintain quality standards. We believe that when, for example, a defendant or witness needs an interpreter, he or she should be entitled to one. We do not want police officers, court staff and other workers to spend time telephoning and booking interpreters. We do not believe it is acceptable that the taxpayer can pay hundreds of pounds in fees and travel expenses to an interpreter who will deal with a 10-minute traffic hearing in a magistrates court which results in a fine of less than £100. We want interpreters to spend more time interpreting than travelling, and we believe that positive benefits will result from the introduction of more competition.
We have considered carefully what interpreters have told us. What they have said has influenced this project, and has, I believe, resulted in a more robust model. The fact that we have decided to adopt a framework agreement that is opposed by some interpreters does not negate that consultation. The alternative models that they suggested would clearly have led to some savings—we acknowledge that—but they did not meet all the objectives that we sought, and did not offer us the controls that we needed. As I said earlier, we were looking for the best possible service at the best possible price. The Government are satisfied that the framework agreement will ensure that the justice sector continues to have access to quality language services, while ensuring the provision of value for money on behalf of the public.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of the pay that interpreters will receive under the new arrangements. We have always been aware of the claims by interpreters that lower pay will cause them to seek alternative work. As a result, bidders involved in the procurement process were tested to ensure that rates of pay would be sufficient to attract and retain linguists with the appropriate quality standards. ALS has now published the rates that it will pay interpreters. We know that making that information available has not eased the concerns of some foreign language interpreters. We have seen calculations by interpreters which suggest that revised terms and conditions would lead to a reduction of between 40% and 60% in remuneration, and would drive them from the profession. However, the situation is not as simple as those calculations suggest.
It is not possible at this stage to produce a detailed analysis of how individual interpreters will be affected, because the whole model is being changed, not just the hourly rate, but we believe that the improved technology available to ALS will enable interpreters to be given work in a more efficient and co-ordinated manner. For instance, an interpreter may be given a series of assignments on the same day and in the same general location. We also know that a large number of interpreters have registered with ALS. Ultimately, the framework agreement offers the opportunity to any linguist, irrespective of race or other protected characteristic, to perform services for the justice sector if appropriately qualified.
My hon. Friend also expressed concerns about the company, and concerns have been expressed by others about the competitive process. During a dialogue that was robust and rigorous, ALS satisfied the procurement specialists at the Ministry of Justice of its financial stability and probity. Failure to satisfy officials in that regard would have resulted in its elimination from the process. I am satisfied that my officials took all the necessary steps to ensure the financial probity of ALS such that the framework agreement was properly awarded to that company. My officials were aware of the criticism that had been made by some interpreters of ALS. The selection of questions and criteria used for the procurement process was influenced by the issues that had been raised. In particular, the process focused on relationships with interpreters, market rates and quality issues. This process was applied equally to all bidders, including ALS, in line with procurement law principles.
This is nothing new. Many goods and services are provided successfully across the justice sector by commercial entities, and in many cases this ensures a continued improvement in quality and standards. Opportunity for, and creation of, profit can be a useful tool in establishing greater quality standards. We are not creating a monopoly. The UK market for language services is worth about £940 million annually and the justice sector currently represents about 7% of that market.
My hon. Friend also asked why language services professionals for the deaf and deaf-blind are treated differently from foreign language interpreters. While there are differences in the detail and operation of the frameworks for foreign language interpretation and language services for the deaf and deaf-blind in tiering and assessment, we do not accept the suggestion that this constitutes unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Ultimately, the framework agreement offers the opportunity to any linguist to perform services for the justice sector, if appropriately qualified.
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns about these issues, but I hope I have gone at least some way to allaying his concerns about the way in which this framework agreement will operate, in particular by emphasising not only the importance of ensuring quality in relation to interpretation services, but the significant savings that can be made in this sector of the justice system.
The public finances are under great pressure. We have to deal with the deficit, so we have to make savings in the criminal justice system, where costs have risen very substantially over recent years. This is one way in which we can make those significant savings. We cannot dismiss an £18 million a year saving in this sector. That is a substantial sum, which is why we think it is important to maintain our commitment in this regard.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Leech Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Djanogly
The hon. Gentleman needs to appreciate that we are not considering some future project—the advice line exists. It was used by 600,000 people last year and it is getting something like a 90% satisfaction rating. Poorer people can be called back so that they do not pay for the call. Those who live in remote areas often greatly appreciate the telephone call, and those who are disabled also much appreciate having access by telephone. I take the exact opposite position from the hon. Gentleman and say that the advice line will help vulnerable people.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Does the Under-Secretary accept that restricting advice on housing matters could result in more homelessness and additional costs to homelessness budgets in local authorities?
Mr Djanogly
No, I do not, because we are not proposing to remove legal aid when imminent homelessness is a possibility. Legal aid will be retained in that situation.