Probation Service

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Forget my speech; I just want to make a couple of points so that other Members can get in. I am the secretary of the justice unions parliamentary group, and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) is its chair. Over the past eight years, that group has enabled us to work with probation officers, prison officers and police officers, as well as members of the Public and Commercial Services Union, to gain some understanding of what is happening in the service. To be frank, I did not vote for the previous Government’s legislation. I know that the intention was not for it to be used to roll out privatisation in this way, but I was worried that it would be.

I went to a lecture at the weekend by Angela Davis, the 1960s radical who is now a university professor. She has done research into what is called in America the “prison industrial complex”, in which every prisoner under supervision is a profitable asset—someone who people can make a profit from. I fear that that is where we are now going with this roll-out of privatisation. As others have said, we are talking about a 70% privatisation of this probation service, which is so successful at present and was about to welcome the roll-out of management of offenders with less than 12-month sentences and was rising to the challenge.

We have looked at how privatisation of the justice system has worked. Perhaps we should reflect on Oakwood prison, where a report last week told us it was easier to get drugs than a bar of soap. Privatised companies have made profits in prisons by reducing wages by 23%. That is the prospect held out to probation officers—professionals who are committed and dedicated to their task. If these people are saying—they are front-line staff who know their job—that the public will be put at risk, for God’s sake let us start listening to them.

Finally, let me send out this warning to Ministers. We have heard so much advice about the risk posed by this privatisation to my constituents and members of my community, so if Ministers go ahead irresponsibly without heeding those warnings, they will be held responsible for every member of the public who is harmed, hurt or murdered as a result of these ill-thought-out reforms. This is a warning from me: if any of my constituents are harmed, I will hold Ministers responsible and I will seek to ensure that none of them ever holds public office again.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and that is exactly why it is important to add to the Bill the requirements to deal with bullying. We can deal with the bullies as well as the victims, because bullies are often victims of wider bullying, perhaps at home. The positive requirements would enable all sorts of agencies to intervene at an early stage and protect not just the victims, but the bullies themselves.

Bullying is not just face to face any more. Cyber-bullying is a massive problem, and it is certainly something that Ayden experienced. We are seeing increasing numbers of cyber-bullied victims. Some 63% say that the bullying started offline and then continued online. Bullying is not the same as it was when I was at school, when it was people being mean to each other in the playground. It is now persistent bullying on and offline. That is why I am pleased that the Government accepted the need to put bullying back into the guidance on the injunctions. It was originally in the guidance on the 1999 Act that introduced ASBOs. The subsequent review of ASBOs in 2002 also included persistent bullying, but the 2006 guidance—which until recently was the current Home Office guidance—did not mention bullying. I was grateful therefore for the commitment in Committee, from the former Minister, that bullying would be included in the guidance. Having seen an early draft of that, I am content with the guidance that will be issued.

If we are including bullying within the guidance of the injunction, it is logical to give those who primarily have responsibility for dealing with bullying—mainly schools, which unfortunately retain most of the responsibility—the tools to deal with it. That is why in Committee I pressed for head teachers and principals to be given the opportunity to apply for the injunctions. That would have been a permissive power that I thought would be a logical step. Unfortunately, that view is not shared by the teaching unions, all of which I have subsequently consulted, so I am reluctantly resigned to the removal of heads and further education principals from the Bill and I accept Government amendment 4.

I hope that bullying is not taken off the agenda. I hope that it is recognised as an extremely important issue for both children and parents, and that we recognise that further steps need to be taken to protect our children. We must ensure that perpetrators of bullying are dealt with in a way that helps them in their family and in society, and that they can have the positive requirements that the injunctions will give, despite the teachers and principals not applying for them. I am pleased that the Government continue to recognise the importance of bullying by keeping it in the guidance on the injunction, but I am sad that the teachers did not feel that they wanted the power to apply for it.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I support amendments 158, 176 and 177, which have been tabled by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I am not sure that they go far enough, but they are what we have before us.

On amendment 158, my anxiety relates to the wording in clause 1. It almost legislates for pre-crimes, which became fashionable a couple of years ago. Hon. Members might recall that, at the time of the royal wedding, Dr Chris Knight and a number of his friends wished to protest against expenditure on the royal wedding. As part of a theatre group, they were going to take papier-mâché representations of the royal family to Buckingham palace on the day of the royal wedding and ceremonially guillotine them. The police arrested Dr Knight and his friends, detaining them—this was eventually legally challenged—on the basis that this was not a crime, but a pre-crime that could, at some point in the future, be designated as a crime.

The Bill, without the relatively minor amendment from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, states:

“The first condition is that the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing a nuisance”.

That is not conduct causing a nuisance and not a crime that is taking place, but a judgment that there could be a crime in the future. That is a burden of judgment placed on a police officer or others that is almost impossible to determine and will leave us open to legal challenges until the cows come home. I support the amendment because it would at least define “reasonable judgment”, with criteria brought forward when the judgment is exercised. Otherwise, we will potentially be giving officers and others—in particular, the court—extensive powers, with little evidence on which to base the exercise of those powers.

The theme of our concerns in amendment 176 is to ensure that people have the right to express their views and the right to protest. Part 1, by designating certain forms of behaviour as unacceptable, can close down, as pre-crimes, certain activities. Those activities are exemplified by the experience of Dr Chris Knight, who was simply attempting to voice an alternative view. I am grateful to Mr Matthew Varnham for pointing out, in his evidence to the Joint Committee, that, as the Bill currently stands, any spontaneous act of protest could be designated as antisocial behaviour.

Curiously enough, I met Mr Varnham on a protest in Parliament square—people with disabilities were campaigning against work capability assessments. The protest had been applied for in advance and the police had given permission for it to take place. Spontaneous acts will take place at such protests. Groups will break off spontaneously and undertake other forms of protest, because they will have been convinced by the people speaking or by the debate that has taken place that further action needs to take place. As the Bill stands, that form of spontaneous protest would be outlawed and we would be dragging people through the courts simply because they went along to listen to a speech—for example, by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)—were excited by it, and decided that they wanted to do something spontaneous to ensure that his views were echoed in the wider community. At the moment, they would be arrested. God forbid that the right hon. Gentleman would ever incite anyone in that way—not on the basis of his speeches in this place, but perhaps elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

I said that we would not press the amendments to a Division tonight so that we can hear what the Government have to say, but we are committed to the amendments and we are clear that the Bill needs to be amended in the way that we propose. We are not going to back-off. We need a better Bill.

[John McDonnell]

I am hoping that the relationship the right hon. Gentleman has with the Minister is so influential that accommodation can be reached on this matter. If there is not accommodation, I think the amendment will come back at a later stage, because the measure will be seen to be unacceptable. If it did go through, I think it would cause future Governments—here and elsewhere in Europe—immense difficulties as these matters are contested, because the right to free speech is being undermined, as well as the articles of human rights legislation that allow people to enjoy the freedom of being in their own home.

On that basis, I support the amendments and hope we will get a positive response to them from the Minister.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I agree with much of what he said, particularly about the consequences of the riots, which I shall come back to. Let me start by welcoming the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) to his new post and by congratulating him on his promotion to Minister of State. His injection of liberalism into this Department will be hugely welcome after decades in which Conservative and Labour Governments have clamped down on civil liberties and taken illiberal approaches wherever possible, playing to populism’s worst flaws. I greatly look forward to him playing his role as Minister of State in this Department.

I disagree with what the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) said about the effectiveness of ASBOs. I do not think they were effective at all, but I do think substantial improvements can be made to the Bill. I hope this new Minister will take the opportunity to reflect on our comments and come up with something that takes them all into account.

--- Later in debate ---

Similarly, any prohibitions or positive requirements granted must be for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in antisocial behaviour, so it would not be possible or right to impose requirements that were completely unrelated to the respondent’s antisocial behaviour. It is important not to import new requirements into the test that could set the threshold too high and delay providing relief to victims and communities.

[John McDonnell]

I wonder whether the Minister could re-read the script that he has just read. He spoke about an individual having

“engaged or threatened to engage in conduct causing nuisance or annoyance”.

The wording in the clause is

“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”.

That is the problem. That is where judgment enters into it. That is why amendment 158 was tabled. It would put the emphasis on reasonableness in that judgment.

[Norman Baker]

I understand entirely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I make no promises, but I have a lot of time for his analysis of the legislation and will consider the point carefully.

I will turn to the amendments that my right hon. Friend has tabled to clause 12, which sets out the limited circumstances in which an injunction may exclude someone from their own home. I agree that the courts must consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to exclude someone from their home, regardless of whether they live in social housing, rent privately or own their own home. However, I am not persuaded that those principles need to be included in the Bill.

We have made it clear in the guidance that not only do we expect that the exclusion power will be used only rarely, but that the court will pay special attention to whether it is proportionate to use the power, taking into account the individual’s article 8 rights. As such, applications should be made only in exceptional cases that meet the high threshold set out in clause 12—that is, where there is a threat of violence or a significant risk of harm.

Several of my right hon. Friend’s amendments to clause 21, which provides for the criminal behaviour order, are similar to those that he tabled in respect of the injunction and are unnecessary for the same reasons. The draft guidance to the Bill makes it clear that we expect that the courts will follow existing case law from the House of Lords in relation to antisocial behaviour orders and that they will apply the criminal standard to criminal behaviour orders. The amendments to clause 21 are therefore unnecessary.

My right hon. Friend has also tabled an amendment to the new dispersal power to explicitly exempt all peaceful assemblies from its use. I agree that that is an important point, but I would argue that the safeguards that we have built into the legislation will ensure that the dispersal power is used proportionately, while maintaining the flexibility to allow the police to act quickly to protect victims and communities from antisocial behaviour. Where behaviour is lawful and is not causing harassment, alarm or distress, the test for using the dispersal power will not be met. Mere presence in an area is not itself a ground for dispersal, so the power could not be used. The test will be met only if someone’s behaviour is causing or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to members of the public, or crime or disorder in the locality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for dealing with all the new clauses and amendments—those that I moved not on my own behalf but on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights; the Opposition Front Benchers’ amendment; and his own Government amendments.

For the record, first, my constituency is called Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I know that it is the fourth formulation of the name in 30 years, but none the less, we have to keep up. Secondly, the Minister is still a good friend, but for him to call me “my very old friend” was not a way to get off on the right foot. He is not that much younger than me, although I accept that there is a gap between us.

On the substance of the new clause and amendments, I am clear that we are right to say no to antisocial behaviour orders, for reasons that Members of all parties have given evidence of. We are also right, as a Government, to introduce two options—a criminal order and a civil order. I hope that when the Bill becomes law, Ministers will produce something that makes clear the benefit to youngsters of not having a criminal record, because they will not have committed a criminal offence.

In relation to certain of the new clauses and amendments, I believe that the Joint Committee and other colleagues will not want to let the matter rest. I refer particularly—I am guessing, because the Committee will form its view collectively—to new clause 33, amendments 158, 165 and 166, and, most importantly, amendments 176 and 178.

[John McDonnell]

The last one is amendment 177. I think the right hon. Gentleman said it was amendment 178. On amendments 176 and 177, I do not think the Minister has gone anywhere near far enough to satisfy the concerns of the Joint Committee or other Members.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the length of time that people are spending in prison has been increasing, not decreasing. I agree that we need to take advantage of the opportunity to turn people’s lives around in prison. Those who say that short sentences do not work and should not happen always miss the point that 80% of the people who arrive in our prisons have been through a community sentence that has not worked. On sentencing, we have introduced extended determinate sentences, which means that people will probably spend more time in prison for serious offences than would previously have been the case.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

With such a major reform, it is important that the right hon. Gentleman takes the existing staff with him. Will he clarify what consultations will take place with the trade unions in prisons and probation services? On prisons, the redesignation of individual prisons means that there may well be a reassessment of the number of staff who are needed and of the skills and training that are required. On probation, morale is precarious and there are concerns about the failure to allocate the supervision of medium-risk prisoners because of the potential risk to the general public.

[Chris Grayling]

With a major reform such as this, it is always important to do everything that we can to take staff with us. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who is responsible for prisons and probation, will meet the unions today. We have regular contact with staff organisations across the Department and that will continue.

I hope that probation staff will look on today’s proposals as an opportunity. I have talked about the potential for a co-operative approach in some areas, about greater professionalisation in the probation service and about a highly skilled public probation service. The strategy is not about getting rid of people who work with front-line offenders; it is about extending the system and making it more efficient so that we can provide more support to the people who need it.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

I do not want to elaborate—I want to sit down and let others get in—but let me give an example. I refer my hon. Friend to Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry—to the evidence he took and the commentary he made in his report. He made the case that people who are associated with others can get swept into the press’s undermining or attacks entirely unjustifiably. The example given by one of our hon. Friends was that of an elderly mother who is nothing to do with the individual concerned—she lives somewhere else, in another house—but is pursued by the press, who go after her, knock on her door, go up her drive, sit outside her house and have cameras focused on it, drilling her with questions and trying to get things out of her. We are talking about people who are totally ill-equipped and unprepared for that degree of exposure and who never asked for it. Obviously I am not seeking to stop the press if they knock on the door of my neighbour, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the deputy leader of the Labour party, at her home in my borough or at my home. That is fine, but it is not fine if they suddenly start pursuing all sorts of other people and giving them grief.

I think we now understand much better what the parameters are. We are hoping to protect the innocent who have been the victims, not to make the press have a more difficult job to do in pursuing proper inquiries into people who are properly the subject of public interest.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

There are other victims of this whole process, some of whom were revealed in the evidence to Leveson by the National Union of Journalists. They were the journalists who stood up and said, “I refuse to implement some of these strategies”—these tactics, manipulations or whatever we want to call them—and as a result lost their jobs, while others were victimised. The culture of bullying in some newsrooms was exposed in the NUJ’s evidence. That is why part of the union’s policy was to advocate a conscience clause.

I am grateful that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said, there is a “brush past” in schedule 2 to the charter, with the reference to Leveson’s recommendation that:

“The industry generally and a regulatory body in particular should consider requiring its members to include in the employment or service contracts with journalists a clause to the effect that no disciplinary action would be taken against a journalist as a result of a refusal to act in a manner which is contrary to the code of practice.”

That would add to the architecture of protection and lift the standards of journalism in our country. That is why I welcome the important reference in schedule 2, which my right hon. and learned Friend shared with us. I regret the fact that it is a brush past, rather than something more specific, but I understand the negotiations that had to take place. We will need to return to this issue in the coming months. As the board of recognition panel is established, the regulator then applies for recognition. Consideration of whether the regulator has taken the recommendations into account is critical. One of this House’s roles will be to explore whether full consideration has been given to the conscience clause.

When the idea of a conscience clause was introduced into the debate by Leveson, there seemed to be cross-party support for it. Certainly the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement in support and the Prime Minister said he would consider the matter. Since then, the NUJ has been invited to go off and negotiate a conscience clause with individual employers. Unfortunately, that has not been taken seriously by a number of the employers. Negotiations have not proceeded and so far a conscience clause has not been inserted into a single contract. This is therefore an important factor to be taken into account by the recognition panel, and the regulator needs to put it firmly on the agenda for the future. A conscience clause would be an additional bulwark of support in establishing the point that we should not go through this cycle again and that there is a standard of journalism that we do not expect any journalist, editor or publisher to resile from. This will be beneficial in the long run. It will not impose onerous conditions on employers or publishers, and it should be welcomed as it will ensure a level playing field and a high standard of journalism right across the profession.

I am grateful for the reference in schedule 2 to Leveson’s recommendation 47, but I believe that the House needs to pay close attention to the roll-out of the process to ensure that it is considered by the regulator and that it forms part of the considerations of the recognition panel when the regulator is appointed.

[Guy Opperman]

Our constituents want a press that does not abuse the innocent, but that exposes the wrongdoer, the charlatan and the fraudster. I pay tribute to the work of Lord Justice Leveson, and to the people who have given evidence. Anyone who has ever given evidence or conducted legal proceedings will know that giving evidence is a traumatic and upsetting process, and to give evidence to the Leveson inquiry was a brave thing to do. Credit must be given to the Prime Minister for setting up the inquiry, and to all the parties for reaching some sort of agreement. However, it is a truism in legal circles and certainly in parliamentary circles that last-minute law is normally bad law. It is a matter of concern that the provisions have been produced overnight and that, even today, we are receiving manuscript amendments—only in Parliament are manuscript amendments typed—on important issues relating to exemplary damages, costs and the like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I will speak to new clause 12, which I tabled along with the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and other hon. Members. I agree totally with the comments that she made in arguing for specialist courts.

Under new clause 12, registered intermediaries, which were first introduced in 2004, would be assigned to support all very vulnerable witnesses. Children are very vulnerable witnesses because they do not communicate in the same way as adults. Recent NSPCC research showed that more than 90% of children under 10 do not understand the questions that they are asked in court. It also showed that more than half of young witnesses experience stress symptoms ranging from sleeping and eating problems to self-harming. Children under stress become confused in the witness box.

Registered intermediaries are communication specialists, such as child psychologists, who are trained to help child witnesses to communicate their evidence effectively, both at the police interview and the trial. However, NSPCC figures show that only 2% of young witnesses were assigned a registered intermediary. That has to change.

In view of the tremendous cross-party support for new clauses 12 and 14 today, and in the wake of the Rochdale and Jimmy Savile scandals, I hope that the Minister will feel able to give a positive response to the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and me that call for specialist courts and registered intermediaries to give the victims of sexual abuse the confidence to come forward so that justice can be done.

[John McDonnell]

This is the parliamentary equivalent of “Just a Minute”.

I will speak to the amendments in my name, which are amendments 103 and 96 to 98, which relate to clause 25. Clause 25 commences the process of privatising the work of the fines officers of the courts. They are not just bailiffs, but officers who exercise judicial powers. This will be the first time that the House has privatised any office holder who has judicial powers. What do I mean by judicial powers? These officers can make a deduction from a benefits order, make an attachment of earnings order, and order the variation of the length of time over which a fine can be paid.

Clause 25 will privatise the 2,000 jobs of the fines officers and hand the work over to private bailiffs. We have seen the report by Citizens Advice on the role of private bailiffs. They are misrepresenting their powers, using intimidating behaviour, charging fees in excess of what is allowed in law, failing to accept reasonable offers of payment and failing to recognise debtors in vulnerable situations, as required by the national standards for enforcement agents. We are handing over these powers to private bailiffs, who have failed significantly and have intimidated many of our constituents, and yet we know that the existing fines officers are performing well and meeting every target that is set by their management and the Government.

This is a privatisation too far. We have never privatised the roles of judicial officers. This matter needs the consideration of the House. I urge the Government to think again. This measure is just an enabling part of the legislation and I hope that the Government will step back before they implement it.

[Damian Green]

On the last point, I think it is fair to say that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) thinks that every privatisation is a privatisation too far. He is wrong. Choosing the sanction or collection method, which is what fines officers do, is not a judicial function. Those are essentially case management decisions and have been performed by administrative staff since 2006.

On amendment 1, we recognise that we must make allowances for the fact that some people find themselves in hardship and find it difficult to pay their debts, but that does not mean that the court should permit those convicted of an offence to ignore the sentences imposed on them. Fines are a criminal sentence, and taxpayers should not be subsidising those who avoid payment for whatever reason.

I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said about new clauses 12 and 14 by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who has a distinguished record in this field. The Government and HM Courts Service already do a huge amount to protect victims and witnesses. There is always more we can do and we will take this issue away and consider it.

Metropolitan Police Service

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Like many hon. Members, I was elected in 1997 and at that time I went out on the beat with police officers, as many of us did. Some may recall John Hannington, who used to work in the House of Commons. He was one of my beat officers and we went round Barnhill ward together. We had one beat officer per ward then.

I had one of the earliest safer neighbourhood teams. We got the sergeant, two PCs and the PCSOs and it was a major success. We set up the ward panels and mapped out the beats, in terms of crime problems in a particular area. I set up initiative meetings—I still have them every quarter in each ward—where I meet councillors, police and local residents, and we tackle the problems together. We have launched projects for the young people, including anti-drugs, domestic violence and safety for the elderly projects. It has been an overwhelming success in building confidence in policing in the local area. That process has been destabilised since 2010.

Sergeant vacancies are either not filled or there are delays in recruitment, PCs are not replaced for long periods and PCSOs are not replaced at all, in many instances. Premises on estates in my constituency, where we have relocated teams, are now under threat of closure. In addition, staff are withdrawn from the whole area—I do not know whether other hon. and right hon. Members have noticed this—to police demonstrations, and so on. I understand that there are priorities, but there was a commitment that there would be sufficient resources so that safer neighbourhood teams were not withdrawn in that way.

What has happened in my community? If hon. and right hon. Members read the newspapers this morning they may have missed it, but as a result of the changes Hayes is now in the top 10 in the country for burglaries. Drugs are becoming a real problem, particularly drug dealers preying on youngsters. We were working hard in the town centre to reduce the fear of crime and attract people back in at night. However, the town centre teams have been hit hardest since 2010. I fear that we are going backwards rather than forwards.

It is not just about numbers. Ben Bradford, the Oxford criminologist, made a valid point when speaking to the London assembly. He said that it is not just quantitative, but about the qualitative relationship: how police interact with constituents, to give them confidence, respect and reassurance. When experienced staff are lost, particularly sergeants with years of experience, and that level of supervision is lost for new, young officers coming in, it undermines the quality of the policing and the interaction between the police officer and members of the public, and it undermines an element of accountability upwards as well as downwards.

Right hon. and hon. Members may have talked to police officers. Morale is low in the Metropolitan police. Their pay and pensions have been hit and they have been hit with increased work loads and demands on their time. When the Police Federation ballots to see whether officers want the right to strike, that is a warning that morale is at rock bottom, and Ministers, mayors and others, should take heed. There now needs to be a halt to the cuts, proper investment in the police service and engagement with the community, rather than our being ridden roughshod over as we have been recently.

We have the consultative meeting in Hillingdon tonight at 6 o’clock, although I will be here objecting to one of the cuts in welfare benefits. I will communicate these views to the Mayor and others, but the view that I am getting back from the consultative meetings so far is that they are public relations exercises, simply set up to convince people that the numbers are going up when they know that the reality is that the number of police officers is falling and cuts are taking place. I hope that this debate will help.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend’s constituents should not get too excited, because I am told that the meeting last night ended with the deputy mayor saying that he was on the home run. Clearly, he believes that the task has been done and they are going through the motions. I apologise to my colleagues who still have to go through this process, but it is purely cosmetic and a matter of dressing up unacceptable cuts in false statistics in a way that will make those palatable to the media.

[John McDonnell]

When MPs, members of the public, local councillors and the police themselves at street level are saying that the Mayor has got it wrong, someone needs to listen, and if the Mayor does not the Minister should.

Transforming Rehabilitation

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely give that commitment. One problem has been that if prisoners who are in prison for a short time have no support after they leave, all prisons can do while they are inside is to stabilise the situation. When there is through-the-gate rehabilitation, with somebody waiting to ensure that rehab continues in the community, we have a much better chance of addressing the issues to which my hon. Friend refers.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The probation service is staffed by highly qualified, professional, extremely dedicated and hard-working people. Medium-risk cases can be complex and serious in their consequences. The public will be concerned that the same levels of qualification and professionalism should apply to supervision. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the same level of qualifications and experience will apply to probation officers in the voluntary and private sectors?

Leveson Inquiry

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) has given us a salutary reminder of why we are here, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon).

It is important in these debates to listen to the practitioners as well—all the practitioners, not just the editors. There is nobody keener than the National Union of Journalists to protect its members’ ability to do their job. That is why it recommended the Irish system in its submission to Leveson, on the basis that it worked well, despite the NUJ’s earlier reservations. The NUJ ensured that Leveson was aware that the Irish system was underpinned by statute, but it was important to acknowledge that the Irish system recognises the union as a key stakeholder in designing the architecture and implementing the system.

I want to deal with changing the culture. As part of the inquiry, Leveson looked at the issue of a conscience clause and said in recommendation 47, on the advice of the NUJ, that the matter should be considered seriously by the editors. The background to this is that there has been a code of conduct since 1936—it was developed by the NUJ—to set the standards for journalists in the performance of their role. It included a commitment that journalists

“do nothing that would intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by…public interest.”

It also gave a commitment to ensure prompt correction of any inaccuracies. The NUJ set up an ethics panel, to which people could go to seek redress. For decades it largely worked. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) reminded us of when it worked, when editors worked with the union to ensure that it did. He mentioned Cudlipp, but there was also Harry Evans and Rees-Mogg, whose descendant is not in the Chamber at the moment.

The system worked until roughly the mid-1960s, when a different culture was established in the industry. Unfortunately, it was a culture of bullying and intimidation in news rooms. It undermined the implementation of the code of practice—and yes, it is not unrelated to the introduction of Rupert Murdoch’s News International on to the journalism scene in this country. From then on, it was NUJ policy to lobby this House to introduce protection for its members—for all journalists—through a conscience clause in their contracts of employment, so that a journalist could refuse to undertake any instruction that was unethical and went against the journalism code of conduct, but also against what eventually became the PCC code of conduct. That was backed up by a Select Committee recommendation in 1993 that a conscience clause should be introduced. The recommendation was opposed by all the editors. They refused to consider the matter or even to open a debate on it. On five occasions over the past 10 years, I have tabled amendments to employment legislation to introduce at least some consideration of a conscience clause, but they have been rejected following lobbying by the editors and the proprietors.

The Leveson inquiry received evidence across the piece about the culture of bullying. It has not gone away; indeed, it has got worse: many journalists had to submit their evidence anonymously for fear of victimisation. However, some very brave people did stand up. The general secretary of the NUJ, Michelle Stanistreet, presented her evidence, for example. I want to read the House a quote from the evidence to the inquiry from Matt Driscoll, who has been incredibly brave. Speaking about the use of unethical practices, he said:

“At the time I felt uneasy about such methods.”

He was referring to blagging. He went on:

“However, I knew that I could not bring up my concerns on the editorial floor for fear of being seen as a troublemaker. Any writer who questioned the morality of these methods would have been a marked man. It seemed that any method that could stand a story up was fair game.”

Witness after witness gave evidence to say that if they had stood up and spoken out, they could have been sacked. Rupert Murdoch’s response was to suggest that they could have resigned, to which Lord Leveson said that they could have done so, but they wanted to keep their jobs.

Leveson has recommended that the editors and proprietors now consider adopting a conscience clause. Bizarrely, when Rupert Murdoch was interrogated, he accepted that proposal and now supports it. There should therefore be no reason for such a clause not to form part of a journalist’s contract. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister also said last week that the matter should be given serious consideration, as did the Leader of the Opposition.

The NUJ has now written to proprietors proposing the commencement of discussions on the introduction of a conscience clause in the contracts of all journalists. The Secretary of State is meeting the proprietors, and I congratulate her on involving the NUJ in those discussions. She is meeting representatives of the union as well, and they will be part of the overall discussions. It would be extremely helpful, now that we have cross-party consensus on the need to consider a conscience clause, if she could seek assurances from the proprietors that they will take the matter seriously and engage in discussions and negotiations on the issue and on the contractual changes that would need to take place for existing and future journalists. This could form another part of the architecture of a cultural change in journalism in this country, as well as protecting those who want to stand up for higher standards.

I want to raise another important matter. A conscience clause in a contract can be enforced by the individual, but in this culture, even if they have the ability to resort to law, they often do not feel that they have the capability or the strength to protect themselves. That is why they look to collective action and collective bargaining by their union on their behalf. However, the loopholes in the existing employment legislation have been used by News International, in particular, to enable it to refuse to recognise the NUJ.

The union had a large number of members working for News International, and it approached the management to request recognition in the normal way, but News International set up its own staff association. The trade union certification officer refused to certify the staff association as an independent trade union, because it was not seen as independent of Rupert Murdoch. Nevertheless, a loophole in the law allowed News International to refuse to recognise the NUJ as a licensed, certified, independent union. Instead, it recognised the staff association, denying NUJ members the necessary recognition that would allow them to engage in collective bargaining. That loophole in the law needs to be closed if we are to ensure that the terms of a conscience clause are enforceable not only in law but as a result of collective bargaining.

I conclude by urging the House to listen to the practitioners, the people who have endured the intimidation and bullying and the people who have had to operate in this culture, which has so denigrated their profession. I think the NUJ needs to be integrally involved in designing and implementing the new reform architecture. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has made a start on engaging with the union and ensuring that the whole industry will design our reform procedures.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to speak on one narrow point of the proposal with regard to railways. I represent a railway estate in my constituency that traditionally housed railway workers and their families, and I chair the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group. I have dealt with constituents who in their working lives have tried to intervene to protect passengers and in so doing have become victims of assaults, and who have been witnesses to the tragic suicides at my local station and across the country. In the past five months, my local station has seen four suicides in which an individual has stepped in front of a fast train. That has an immense traumatic impact on not just the family of the victim, but on the driver and other staff who were witnesses, and on those who deal with the aftermath of the incident.

I was, therefore, extremely concerned that the proposal, which has been considered by two delegated legislation Committees, is described by the impact assessment as

“Clarifying eligibility for the scheme and changing the scope of the scheme to no longer make payments for mental injury to those who…are employed on the railways and witness (or are involved in the aftermath) of an injury resulting directly from an offence of trespass on the railways”.

That goes back to the 1980s when we campaigned and won a recognition that there should be some form of compensation for those workers who were traumatised by the experience of suicide, largely as a result of their train hitting the victim, or seeing it from the platform. Initially, the House of Lords did not accept that suicide was within the remit of the compensation scheme, but in 1990 a Conservative Government did accept that, and so compensated those who were victims of such trauma. The proposal is, therefore, a significant step backwards, which will impact on a large number of people who suffer in such a way

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) quoted one example of what had happened to a shop worker, so may I quote an example provided by the RMT of what happened to Karen Jordan, from Barnet, who has been driving trains for 10 years and has twice had her train impact with a suicide victim? The last occasion, the RMT says,

“was a routine journey but as the train rounded a bend she spotted what she thought was a tarpaulin on the track. When her train hit the object she saw a pair of shoes, socks and lower legs. Even if she had been able to apply the emergency brakes she would have been powerless to stop it hitting the man.”

The driver saw that person cut in two. She was traumatised, and experienced flashbacks and nightmares. She was eventually allowed to retire on medical grounds, but during the period concerned she was off sick. Yes, she received sickness benefits, but under the new compensation scheme arrangements she would not have satisfied the criteria for eligibility for the emergency fund for that very reason. Had the incident occurred today, she would have received no compensation whatsoever.

The loss of any form of income on any scale will have a significant impact on many workers receiving relatively low pay. According to the findings of an HSBC survey that were reported in the newspapers over the weekend, a third of all households have less than £250 in the bank, and among those in their 40s the proportion is 42%. Previously, someone who had had an accident at work and received sickness benefits, thus experiencing a significant loss of earnings, would be tided over by the £1,000 or £2,000 provided by the criminal injuries compensation scheme, and prevented from—in the words of HSBC—falling into destitution.

We will not vote on the scheme today. The formal vote may take place next week or a couple of weeks later, which means that we have time to iron out some of the anomalies. People will suffer if the scheme is accepted in its current form, and I think they will believe that the House has not protected their interests.

We are all committed to ensuring that victims are protected, and we all want to see the perpetrators pay more. What we are saying is that there are problems with the scheme that is being proposed at present, and that further discussion is needed. If it is possible for that discussion to take place on a cross-party basis, and if we can reach a consensus, let us at least attempt that before we rush this measure through and have such a severe impact on people’s lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Grant]

The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) raised the issue of late reporting in these cases, but I can confirm that the new discretion introduced into the scheme—

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that it is a point of order, not a point of frustration.

[John McDonnell]

It is a point of order. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice referred earlier in the debate to a letter being circulated about the compensation scheme relating to the legislative proposal, but it was circulated only to Conservative Members and not to Opposition Members. Therefore, we want at least either to see the letter or to have the Minister explain it to us. That is why Members are seeking to intervene.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that engages the Chair. The point has been put on the record, but the Minister will wish to continue her speech.

Defamation Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Garnier]

Yes and no. Subsection (2) includes the phrase “amongst other matters”, so it puts what Lord Nicholls said in the Reynolds case into statutory form. I think that it is more sensible to leave this in the form of developing common law, but if we are to set something in stone, clause 4 is better than the somewhat confusing provision tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark.

Bad points are never improved by repetition, but it is a pity that we are doing away with the common law. Although I have lost that battle, I might as well wear my black in mourning at its passing.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

It is entertaining to be following the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier), not least because he was a junior in a libel action that was taken against me some years ago, which almost cost me my home. I think that it was one of the cases when Carter-Ruck was roving wildly.

[Mr Garnier]

You did libel somebody.

[John McDonnell]

Let us not go into it now; we can discuss it another time.

I am the secretary of the parliamentary group of the National Union of Journalists, which obviously has taken an interest in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said that this is something of a dress rehearsal for what comes out of Leveson and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) said, there is real concern about the Bill’s practical implications and what might arise from Leveson.

It is clear, as hon. Members have said, that good journalism is essential for a healthy democracy and that investigative journalism plays a vital role. As the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said, we have heard today about the worst journalism, in the form of the performance of The Sun on Hillsborough, but there are examples from recent years of the best journalism, such as the exposure of corruption in the House with MPs’ expenses and of ministerial relationships. For me and the NUJ, it is critical that the Bill does nothing to undermine the vital role of good journalism and the contribution that it makes to our society. Of course, it is also important to ensure that journalists uphold decent standards of behaviour, so we must get the balance right, and I have tabled amendments to deal with the Bill’s practical implications on the basis of the way in which journalism operates and the pressures and pace of journalistic practice.

Although I welcome the context of clause 4 and the range of factors of which a court must take account when reaching a decision about the protections of privilege, the measure raises questions about practice on the ground. Subsection (2)(f) deals with the court taking account of

“whether the defendant sought the claimant’s views on the statement before publishing it and whether an account of any views the claimant expressed was published with the statement”.

Amendment 1 inserts a reasonableness test with the words

“within…a reasonable amount of time following initial publication”.

The aim is to broaden the potential for journalists to claim the defence of having contacted the claimant within a reasonable time frame, not necessarily before publication.

We all agree that it is good practice for a journalist to contact the claimant before publication, but that is not always possible for a variety of reasons, some of which relate to the way in which the courts have been used—the threat of a lawsuit or the triggering of an injunction or a super-injunction, and, in some cases, the threat of physical force. Often injunctions are sought by the rich and powerful, who are keen to prevent the publication of a detrimental story, or to delay its publication until they have had time either to hide the damaging evidence, or develop an appropriate public relations strategy to limit the damage. I believe that it should be a defence that the claimant’s views were published either concurrently with or within a reasonable time after initial publication, as existing journalistic codes already demand.

Amendment 2 is designed to acknowledge the fact that, yes, journalists should take all reasonable steps to check the accuracy of facts, but to recognise also the pressures of a news environment. While rushing to print is no excuse for poor journalism, journalism is part of a commercial operation and getting the story first is often crucial for a newspaper or broadcaster’s commercial viability.

[Mr MacShane]

Many years ago, early in my trade union life, the Daily Mail made up quotes, attributed to me, regarding a BBC meeting on a strike issue. When I remonstrated with him, the journalist said, “Oh, come on Denis, it’s the kind of thing you’d have said anyway.” It was, but that missed the point, which was that I had not used those words. I am worried that a future judge, reading my hon. Friend’s speech as he tries to work out how to interpret the clause, will think that it is quite all right to wait until after a story is published to seek a quote. Paul Dacre would thoroughly approve.

[John McDonnell]

I would say that falls on the basis of clear malice on the part of the journalist.

The point of the amendment is to recognise the commercial environment in which journalists work. To have a scoop, it is important to get out there and publish a story. Of course, if there are errors or inaccuracies, there is the opportunity at a later date to publish the appropriate corrections. Often, public interest news stories are perishable, lasting only a limited period. It is important to get a story out there while it can influence the public debate.

Amendment 3 follows on from the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme about codes of conduct. Under the amendment, the courts, when considering matters of privilege, would have to have take into account whether the defendant had abided, or tried to abide, by the standard code of practice, which was introduced by the National Union of Journalists and developed from the 1930s onward. That code of conduct includes a requirement that the journalist

“Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair…. Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies”

and

“Differentiates between fact and opinion.”

The NUJ says that within the code of conduct

“material for stories should be obtained by honest, straightforward and open means”.

Only exceptionally in the public interest should any other means necessarily be used to obtain a story.

We all know from the evidence provided to Leveson the pressures that are applied to journalists. Michelle Stanistreet, the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, presented evidence collected from journalists about the pressures put on them to fail to abide by that code of conduct, which is one reason we tried to amend employment legislation. We wanted the code of conduct to be written into employment law, so that journalists would have protection against wrongful dismissal if they were seeking to abide by the code and refused to write a story that broke it or went against it. This measure is another way of introducing the code in legislation, which we should use to uplift the standards of journalism and give people protection.

Finally and more contentiously, I wish to add to clause 4 a further category for consideration. Amendment 4 states:

“In determining public interest, the court shall have regard to whether the claimant is someone in public life, which should be taken to include (amongst others) politicians, public officials, celebrities and others whose influence, earnings or social status is dependent on a public image”.

I introduce that provision with some trepidation, because it is a red light for any journalist who wants to trawl through my private life to demonstrate how someone could be defended on that basis. I do not have any criminal convictions—I have spent a few nights in the cells as a result of demonstrations and so on—and I have no bizarre sexual proclivities that I am aware of, although I have noticed my wife and her friends reading “Fifty Shades of Grey”, so I shall keep Members updated on that one.

The whole point of the provision is to recognise that there are two different categories of people. Civilians do not rely on their public reputation for their earnings and do not parade their standing or use their public image to that effect. Journalism has a role in exposing the wrongdoings or antisocial behaviour of individuals in public life. It has been an essential part of our democracy for centuries in enabling us to judge whether someone is suitable for public office. That applies too to those celebrities who earn a living from their celebrity status and exert some influence in our society. There is case law on this, including a recent case involving Steve McClaren, in which Justice Lindblom said that it was clearly in the public interest to expose a story about someone whom he described as “undoubtedly a public figure”.

In America, there is a public figure defence, which establishes some form of privilege. That means that someone in public office would have to prove either a reckless disregard for the truth or malice when damaging information is published. Refusing to print corrections or clarifications, for example, would constitute evidence of reckless disregard. My proposal recognises what the public appear to appreciate, even if others do not do so: those who enter into public life should be open to public scrutiny. As long as that scrutiny is honest and produces evidence that can be substantiated, they have to take the rough with the smooth. On that basis, we can maintain both the standards of journalism, by making sure that journalists report accurately and fairly, as well as the role of journalism in exposing falsehoods, lies and corruption.

I shall not press my amendments to a Division. Overall, they seek to put into context the reality of journalistic practice. We live in a fast-flowing, 24-hour multi-media world. There are limited staff resources, and journalism is highly competitive, with immense pressures just to survive. Journalists need protection just as much as other individuals if they are to perform their role in society and if we are to value them as the foundations of our democratic society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

I shall be brief in winding up this valuable debate. I am grateful to colleagues, who have expressed different views on how we should proceed. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier) said that it would be best to leave it to common law, but the problem with the common law argument, as he conceded, is that someone is required to go to court to take the law on and test the case. Libel and defamation cases are hugely expensive. I and many hon. Members are trying to ensure first that the law is clearer, and secondly that we protect our constituents from having to go to court to assert their rights.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) argued for a differential test for those in public life and those not in public life. Those of us in public life are much better equipped and able to go to law if we want to do so. If the bar were to be lower for people in public life, so the capacity to respond would also be easier. I do not necessarily accept that that is where we want to go, but that is another debate. The bulk of my constituents and the hon. Gentleman’s are not in a position readily to go to court to defend their interests, and nor could they get an adequate remedy. The new clause therefore seeks to find a remedy outside the courts.

I hear what my hon. Friend the new Minister says about the level of evidence needed to establish malice, and therefore understand that we need to have a debate on that. However, I am encouraged by the fact that she and her colleagues are willing to draw breath, as it were, and to look at the arguments as they have been presented and at the unanswered questions that both current and previous Ministers have said they will address.

There is one last thing to say before asking the House for leave to withdraw new clause 4. Will Ministers look at the big question of the timetable for the Bill, and particularly this part of it, in the light of the Leveson report? We need to ensure that we are seen to be legislating carefully, but we would perhaps make ourselves look foolish if we tried to legislate this year or a few months into the next year in the certain knowledge that we would need to return to the matter. The House and the Government should reserve a space to legislate in the light of Leveson. It would be unacceptable for anybody in the months ahead to put the argument that we cannot return to the matter because we have addressed it in the Bill.

[John McDonnell]

I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and the parties that there should be a discussion on the process through the usual channels. I agree that the Bill could be completely abortive, and that we would look ridiculous if we returned to it so soon after it was passed. There is potential for an agreed discussion on the timetable between the parties.

[Simon Hughes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

Let me move on, because I am giving way far too much and taking a great deal of time.

Lords amendment 170 sounds like an innocuous measure, but it would open up legal aid to cover the costs of expert reports in all the cases that currently are funded by CFAs or no win, no fee arrangements. It would allow lawyers to apply for legal aid to cover the expert report in any case where a client, of any age, was financially eligible, and to still get their success fee in respect of their other legal costs. That would transfer all the risk in a no win, no fee case from the solicitors and insurers to the legal aid fund and the taxpayer. That would be unfair to the taxpayer and would result in a significant expansion of the legal aid scheme.

I have covered with as much care as I can these particularly sensitive areas—

[John McDonnell]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I really must not, because I have taken well over an hour, although I have given way countless times.

In my opinion, the Government have taken a consistent and principled approach to reforming the scope of legal aid.

[John McDonnell]

I just want to clarify one point.

[Mr Clarke]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber for very long during this debate. [Hon. Members: “Yes he has.”] All right; I will give way one last time. I hope that I have deterred anybody else who wants to get me to give way.

[John McDonnell]

I would not have sought to intervene if I had not been here from the beginning of the debate. I have been here the whole time.

I want to get clarity on one point in relation to children. The Children’s Society and the Refugee Children’s Consortium estimate that there are about 2,500 under-18s who will not gain support in relation to immigration matters. My borough deals with more unaccompanied child immigrants than any other in the country. When this matter was raised before, the Secretary of State said that those are uncomplicated cases and that such children can receive advice elsewhere. That has been interpreted as meaning that social workers are able to give that advice. However, social workers are not registered in that way under existing legislation, so there is a conflict between the proposals and the existing legislation that needs to be resolved; otherwise local authorities will be in not only financial difficulties but legal difficulties.

[Mr Clarke]

Immigration cases involving unaccompanied children who turn up at airports and ports are very difficult. The vast majority of them, as far as the legal issues are concerned, are dealt with as asylum cases.

[John McDonnell]

Not all, though.

[Mr Clarke]

No, not all of them, but the vast majority. Once such a case becomes an application for asylum, legal aid is available. I am surprised by the figures that have been given for the cases that do not eventually wind up getting legal aid in that way. The problems posed by such cases, when a child gets off an aeroplane unescorted, go far beyond the legal ones. The Home Office is discussing with local authorities how to improve the response to such children. However, I am not satisfied that that category of children can be given access to legal aid for other claims of a legal kind, which I cannot visualise straight away, that might arise. The vast majority of those cases quickly turn into asylum applications and will therefore get legal aid.

I hope that the House is persuaded that the Government have taken a consistent and principled approach to reforming the scope of legal aid. No one looks to touch this area of the justice system lightly, but change is unavoidable if we are to protect access to justice and ensure that the system is affordable. On domestic violence, children, clinical negligence and welfare benefits we have sought to ensure that scarce resources are targeted where they matter most and where alternative funding or representation are unavailable. It is not easy to get that balance right. In the light of the principles that I set out at the start of my speech, I think that we have got the balance about right with the amendments that we have accepted and those that we oppose.

I believe the Government have been particularly responsive on all the issues. We knew perfectly well that when cutting back on this country’s legal aid expenditure, we ran the risk of damaging our system of justice if we got it wrong. We have made the countless moves that I have listed since we first produced the Bill however many months ago, in response to debate in both Houses. I am grateful to the Commons and the Lords for what they have done, and I hope that I have eventually put forward clearly the Government’s thoughts on the Lords amendments and on our amendments in lieu. I commend our position to the House.