Prison Safety and Reform

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

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

Is not the truth that we have 3,500 fewer prison officers in our prisons than in 2010? At the same time deaths and suicides in prisons are dramatically up, and assaults on prison officers are up as well. Will the right hon. Lady just come to that Dispatch Box and say, “I admit it: too little, too late”?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have been clear that staffing is an issue. That is why we are investing in 2,500 more prison officers, but it is not the only issue. We also have an issue with drugs, drones and phones, which we are dealing with, and we have just rolled out testing for new psychoactive substances such as Spice and Black Mamba, which the prisons and probation ombudsman has said have been a game-changer in the system. We are also changing the way we deploy staff, so that there is a dedicated officer for each prisoner, helping keep them safe, but also making sure they are on the path to reform—getting off drugs, getting into work and getting the skills they need to succeed outside.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

It is important that legal aid is available in the most serious cases, such as those in which life or liberty is involved, a person’s home is at risk, domestic violence is involved, or children are being taken away from their families. That is the legal aid provision that we have here. The hon. Lady claims that that is a two-tier system, but we claim that it is one that is targeted on need.

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

I should declare an indirect interest, in that my wife is a legal aid solicitor and part-time judge. The previous Lord Chancellor promised a review of LASPO. The legislation has not worked. It is a complete and utter shambles, and it urgently needs a review. When will it be properly reviewed?

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

This is an important reform; we need to get it right. We will be introducing proposals in due course. We will deliver on this manifesto commitment.

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

Which convention rights does the Justice Secretary propose to leave out of the Bill of Rights?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I remember with fondness our time together on the Justice Committee, where he had many good thoughts to put forward. We will be putting out our proposals in due course, which will discuss these issues in detail, but one of the important points is that we want the ultimate arbiter of those rights to be the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Courts and Tribunals Fees

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased to be called to speak in this important debate. I start by declaring an interest: my wife sits as a fee-paid, part-time tribunal judge in the social entitlement tribunal and is a criminal solicitor receiving public money. Prior to my election to this House, I was with Wilberforce barristers chambers in Hull, where I practised criminal law, and recently I have re-enrolled—if that is the right term—as a solicitor.

In my respectful opinion, the Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), goes about his business fairly and is entirely impartial and objective. I welcome the Committee’s report and recommendations urging the Government to publish the impact of employment tribunal fees and its proposal that fees must be substantially reduced. It is worth noting—I make a party political point here—that Labour, in opposition, when the fees were being considered and discussed, opposed them absolutely. We opposed them throughout the debate. I remember attempting to speak to Ministers to make submissions directly to them. I cannot remember whether I got a sit-down meeting, but I do recall chasing them through the Lobby, telling them what problems I thought the fees would create and what the consequences would be.

We also opposed and voted against the statutory instrument, because we knew from the evidence from the experts, from people contacting us, from the unions and Citizens Advice briefings, from the Bar Council and the Law Society—from anybody who knew anything about it—that the fees were unlikely to work. The number of tribunals has dropped by a massive 70%. We are talking huge percentages. We cannot begin to pretend—I doubt that the Minister, in good conscience, would get to the Dispatch Box and pretend—that the majority of those cases were unmeritorious. I do not think that the Government would say that. So what does it mean? It means that people are being shut out of accessing justice. I pay tribute to Unison the union for bringing legal challenges in judicial review. The latest case is to be heard by the Supreme Court later this year. I will not predict the outcome, but it seems to me, as a lawyer, pretty favourable to the union.

When the fees were introduced, the Government told us they were to pay for the employment tribunal service’s running costs, but it is not working. In 2014-15, the Ministry of Justice said that the net income from the fees was £9 million, but the expenditure of the service is £71.4 million. Thousands of workers are being shut out of seeking justice. That leads me to think that this is purely ideological. The Justice Secretary has overturned so many of the policies of his predecessor Lord Chancellor that the rumour in this place is that he is considering changing the name of his children. It would not harm anybody, would it, if he just said, “Look, this isn’t working. We didn’t expect this to be the fiasco it has become”? We can do something about this. We should scrap the fees, and we should scrap them now.

Access to Justice: Vulnerable People

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on raising this subject for debate. I did not intend to make a speech today, but in the absence of other colleagues I thought I would have a go.

Not one Member of this House regards access to justice as something that should be restricted to the rich, and nobody thinks that ensuring that people have access to fair trials and that the criminal and civil justice systems work are not serious issues. When the coalition Government came to power in 2010, it had already been flagged by the previous Government that changes to legal aid were in train. The hon. Gentleman did not set out which of the Government’s changes to legal aid the Opposition agree with. I presume they agree with some of them; perhaps the shadow Minister can tell us which.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early. I think he is about to tell us that the previous Labour Government would also have made cuts to various Departments and that the Ministry of Justice would have taken a hit, but the reality is that the coalition Government and this majority Conservative Government have made a shocking mess of the justice system. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 cut hugely the number of vulnerable people who have access to the courts. The hon. Gentleman should not lecture the Chamber about the fact that the previous Labour would have cut. We accept that we would, but this issue is not about just cutting. The Government have been completely and utterly incompetent.

[David Mowat]

I thank the shadow Minister for his lengthy intervention, during which, I note, he did not answer the question I asked him. He will get a chance later to tell us which of the coalition Government’s changes to legal aid the Opposition support. Presumably they support some of them or would have done something else altogether.

Access to justice matters, and all of us have constituents who are affected by it. We heard that the Bar has been threatening to go on strike over some of the changes. I want to talk about the structure of how we do law in this country, because perhaps something is wrong with it. There were 2,500 practising barristers in 1980 and 15,000 in 2010, and there are 16,000 now. The Bar has grown hugely as legal aid costs have grown. I am not saying that is wrong—a very large number of talented people work at the Bar—but it is not indicative of a profession under major stress.

I do not want to make a cheap point about earnings at the Bar, but I will say this. A significant minority of practitioners earn from criminal legal aid sums significantly in excess of how much the Prime Minister is paid.

[Karl Turner]

rose—

[David Mowat]

One moment, and I will certainly give way.

That is not to say that salaries at the Bar are too high in general, but it is an issue. No other public sector employees—I accept that the Bar is independent, but perhaps that is one of the issues—earn money of that kind. Think of how much surgeons in the national health service earn.

[Karl Turner]

Come on!

[David Mowat]

I will certainly give way, and perhaps this time the shadow Minister will answer the question.

[Karl Turner]

The hon. Gentleman is about to begin the fat cat lawyer argument, but the reality is completely different. The reality is this. A criminal solicitor, for example—

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind you, Mr Turner, that interventions should be short? We are not too constrained by time, and you will have a generous amount of time to make it up.

[Karl Turner]

I am obliged, Mr Bailey, but I wonder whether you would just let me make the point. A criminal solicitor, for example, of about five years’ experience earns about £28,000. A criminal barrister with the same experience earns about £30,000, but is self-employed. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could visit his local chambers and make that argument to members of the Bar and criminal solicitors.

[David Mowat]

I thank the shadow Minister again for his intervention. I make the point again, because I chose my words carefully, that a minority of barristers earn from criminal legal aid—that is, the public purse—sums in excess of what the Prime Minister is paid.

[Karl Turner]

Silks.

[David Mowat]

That is not the case with professions such as medicine—for surgeons and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is always a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mr Bailey.

To declare my interests, my wife is employed as a criminal duty solicitor and part-time judge and, before my election to the House, I was a member of Wilberforce barristers’ chambers in Hull. I was a junior member of the Bar and certainly not earning “fat cat” moneys, as the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) might want to believe.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing this important and timely debate. It could not have come at a better time, because the commission chaired by Lord Willy Bach is as we speak hearing evidence from experts in the professions on how we deal with this problem of access to justice and legal aid.

The Bach commission was established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the leader of the Labour party. It is fair to say that the Leader of the Opposition understands legal aid. He, unlike any other leader of a political party that I can remember, actually gets it, as no one else has done. He understands it, he cares about it and, as a result, he has established the Bach commission to look at access to justice and legal aid. He is also doing that in a non-party political way.

Members of the commission have been appointed by Willy Bach not because of their politics or any sort of association with or affiliation to any political party, but, on the contrary, because of their expertise and their knowledge not only of legal aid and access to justice, but of other things. For example, one member, a particularly huge asset to the commission, is Tanni Grey-Thompson, who is also providing expertise in relation to disability. So the commission is non-partisan and we hope that it will come to a view on how we provide access to justice for the most vulnerable people in our society.

It has to be said that the Government have made a real mess of access to justice and legal aid. Since 2010, advice-and-assistance matter starts in social welfare have gone from 471,000 down to 53,000, a drop of 91%. So more than 400,000 people are now not provided with the opportunity to receive legal advice and are not given the chance to access the courts. They are often left paddling their own canoe, faced with extremely complex issues of procedure and law, and left to do all that on their own.

In reality, no money is saved, because the courts are delayed. Judges are complaining constantly, privately in the main, but complaining none the less that cases are delayed while litigants in person are left fending for themselves, trying to navigate through complex areas of procedure and law. There is no real saving.

Following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, exceptional case funding was supposed to help people who are denied access to lawyers. I think this is right—I will be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong—but last year, for example, only 394 applications were granted under the scheme, rather than the 3,700 or so estimated. Clearly, the system is not working.

The Government might be about to reintroduce the residence test. They got excited about that and were pleased that the judicial review was successful, in that the Government won, but the lord justices who heard the case for review were not considering the practical effects of the residence test. They were simply deciding whether the residence test was legal or “Wednesbury unreasonable”; they were not considering whether the test itself was practical or could be implemented successfully. To reintroduce the residence test would be a huge mistake. I have not heard from a lawyer who has been able to explain how it would work. I have asked the Minister, too, how it would work. Will he explain exactly how he intends the residence test to work in practice?

As for criminal legal aid, the Government are now attempting to implement a system that will see the number of duty contract providers reduced from some 1,650 to 526. There has been a cut of about 17.5%. The Government say that the number of providers needs to be reduced and consolidated, in order to allow them a profit on their work. The system, however, cannot work. It will not work and the Minister knows that it will not work. It is undergoing litigation, but the reality is that the Government have made a terrible mess of the duty criminal contracts since 2010. It was needless, in truth, but the entire thing is in a terrible mess now, to the point of a whistleblower coming forward. The whistleblower was employed through the Legal Aid Agency to help with the procurement exercise and was able to explain how chaotic the entire system was.

Last night I received an email from a criminal law solicitor, Mr Andrew Gurney of Gurney Harden Solicitors in Ashford. I will not read the entire content of the email, but that firm of solicitors was successful in its application for six contracts. Mr Gurney makes the point:

“We were involved in 6 successful bids and our early estimates put our costs at £30,000”—

so he knows. He knows that the system is impossible to implement. His firm has spent £30,000 in applying for contracts that everyone knows will probably not happen, because everyone knows that it is impossible to implement the system.

The system is not fit for purpose, and the Government have been warned about it. The Justice Secretary privately accepts that the idea of removing more than 1,000 firms of solicitors and leaving some areas without access to duty solicitors is unmanageable. So even Ministers privately believe that access to justice for the most vulnerable people will be denied as a result of the Government’s plans to implement a system that is absolutely chaotic. It is time that the Government listened to people who know better than them.

That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Warrington South. We need consensus. We need to put politics aside. It is all right for me to come here and attack the Government—I enjoy that—but the reality is that will not get us anywhere. We need to sit down and accept that people need access to law. As my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party has said, that ought to be considered a basic human right. If the state is taking on an individual, surely the most basic thing required of a civilised society is to allow that individual access to people who have experience and expertise in the area of law that they are trying to navigate.

[Jo Stevens]

It is somewhat ironic that, later on this morning, the Minister for Human Rights will be appearing before the EU Justice Sub-Committee because the Government have not implemented a European directive adopted by other member states in 2013 that gives criminal suspects a right to access legal advice following arrest.

[Karl Turner]

I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend makes an important point.

It is time that we grew up. The Bach commission, with its cross-party members—I suspect some appointments are political and some non-political—chosen for their expertise only, not for their politics, will hopefully come to a view that can save money while providing access to the courts, lawyers and justice. As I have said, we need to do that in a non-partisan, non-political way. I sometimes find that difficult to manage, but it is crucial that we grow up.

Before I finish my remarks, I will mention the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). I think we have seen a drop of 80% in employment tribunals. The hon. Member for Warrington South talked about people in the law profession earning more than the Prime Minister, but we now have employment judges sitting idly in tribunals throughout England and Wales with no work to do because of the fee that needs to be paid for a tribunal to be heard.

Women want to raise serious issues. I think of a case that I advised on pro bono and referred the woman to a solicitor: she had told her employer that she would take maternity leave at some point in the not-too-distant future and he said, “Well, that’s not very convenient. I’m afraid you’ll have to find something else to do for a living.” I think she needed to find £1,300 to get her case to a tribunal, but she could not possibly afford that. I managed to find a solicitor who was prepared to act for her pro bono, but she still did not have the money—it would have taken her several months to save that up.

Sadly, the reality is that employers react to those cases only once the money is paid in. Before that, they do nothing—they are using that as a tactic. Therefore, while terrible employers such as that would have to settle if the case were taken to tribunal—they would not get anywhere near success, because they had clearly been discriminatory—because the woman concerned could not get the £1,300 together, she was at the stage of saying, “Fair enough, I give in.” The statute bar in employment cases means that people have to get their act together within three months and she could never have managed to save that money up in that period.

I do not know whether I am making this point well or not, but it is not about saving money because we have employment judges with no work to do. It is purely ideological. There is no reason for it—it does not save a penny.

[Jo Stevens]

Does my hon. Friend agree that another consequence is that while there are lots of good employers, bad employers, because of the tribunal fees, can get away with unlawful practices and they have no incentive to change their behaviour to become good employers?

[Karl Turner]

Absolutely. I know the Minister well, I think, and he does not want a situation to arise where employers get away with treating their staff badly. I do not think he wants that for a second, but that is an unintended consequence of the Government’s policy and it needs to change. It comes to something when the Lord Chief Justice comes out of his comfort zone as a senior member of the judiciary and criticises Government policy. It is appalling.

I will finish on this note. The hon. Member for Warrington South—

[David Mowat]

rose—

[Karl Turner]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned me four times in his remarks, but he has yet to answer the question I put about which changes to the legal aid system the Opposition support. I want to ask him about his interesting comments on residency, because the Opposition reject the proposed changes to be used, at least in part, to prevent prosecutions against British soldiers in Iraq, which among other things led to Al-Sweady. Does he propose any changes to that mechanism, or is he sanguine about the fact that we are the only country in the world that pays people to sue our soldiers? I am genuinely interested in that.

[Karl Turner]

With respect, I am not prepared to go into the hon. Gentleman’s Daily Mail-reading fraternity line. Frankly, that is outrageous. One thing I think the Bach commission will establish is consensus of opinion, so I will not make Opposition policy about the residence test on the hoof, but it is disgraceful that women who have been trafficked will probably be refused access to law as a result of the Government’s proposed changes.

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

indicated dissent.

[Karl Turner]

I think the Minister may be saying that that is not correct.

[Mr Vara]

There are exceptions.

[Karl Turner]

Of course there are exceptions, but we have seen how exceptions have failed. The Government must be careful. I finish on the point made by the hon. Member for Warrington South—

[David Mowat]

Mr Bailey, may I come back on that? As it happens, I do not read the Daily Mail, but clearly the hon. Gentleman does.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Order. I point out, Mr Mowat, that it is the privilege of the Member speaking to accept your intervention, not me.

[Karl Turner]

indicated assent.

[David Mowat]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. We have talked about how the country is on a slippery slope on access to justice, but can he name any other country whose criminal justice system pays people through criminal legal aid to sue its own Army?

[Karl Turner]

The hon. Gentleman is desperate to get me on to that. He mentioned fat-cat lawyers who earn more than the Prime Minister, so he was probably referring to the Prime Minister’s brother who is an eminent member of the Bar and Queen’s counsel barrister reported to have earned £1 million. What he does not mention is that some of that £1 million was probably paid privately—it is very unlikely that he earned £1 million from criminal legal aid. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue, and I was reluctant to comment on it, but I am afraid he tempted me too much.

[David Mowat]

rose—

[Karl Turner]

I am not going to take a further intervention from the hon. Gentleman, because, frankly, he has nothing to offer that would benefit the debate.

Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon on securing this important and timely debate. We now need a consensus. We need the Government to listen. In my respectful opinion, the new Justice Secretary has had the sense to change policies of his predecessor’s that were wrong, and there are things that he can put in place to mitigate what has been an unmitigated disaster in the justice system. I invite the Minister to respond to the comments that have been made by hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister kindly explain how the residence test will work in practice?

[Mr Vara]

Clearly, we have said that someone has to be here for a minimum of 12 months. We will ensure that when an application is made that criterion is fulfilled. If the person is in one of the exceptional categories, the criterion will not apply.

[Karl Turner]

Let us say that a solicitor is taking instructions from a client. What evidence will be needed to prove habitual residence in the United Kingdom?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced barrister and an experienced politician. He will appreciate that the function of this House is to put policy into implementation, by ensuring that it becomes law. The practical process will need to be thought out—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]—as is the case with every other measure introduced by the present and previous Governments, and during the 13 years when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government, and even before that. That is something that will be dealt with and resolved.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for whom I have huge respect and regard, spoke passionately; but he will of course be aware that the matter is a devolved one. I wish him well in his dealings with David Ford, with whom I too have had dealings. To the extent that it will help, I will certainly tell him the next time I see him that the hon. Gentleman was speaking passionately and would like him to give a sympathetic ear when he raises the issue. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) will appreciate that, again, the issue is a devolved one; but he has put his views on record—including in our little dialogue during my speech.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) for bringing a realistic perspective to the debate, and for pointing out the reality of the situation. He repeatedly asked the shadow Justice Minister which of the cuts that we have made his party would reverse. I am not surprised that no reply was forthcoming, because in an interview with The Guardian on 30 January 2015, the former shadow Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), said:

“I don’t have a magic wand to wave. I can’t commit to reverse the £600m cuts to legal aid made by the Tories and Lib Dems. We will still have to take tough decisions on reducing the deficit.”

However, it was not only the former shadow Justice Secretary who took that view. The person in his team dealing specifically with legal aid, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), was interviewed by John Hyde of The Law Society Gazette on 24 September 2014:

“‘We’re not going to get in a Tardis and go back to before,’ he said. ‘We are in a world where resources are tight and it would not be right to pretend otherwise.’”

The article goes on:

“Slaughter conceded that the Labour party would have been forced to make cuts to family law funding and promote mediation as a cheaper option. He added that a Labour government would seek to promote and improve mediation services on offer.”

He is quoted as saying:

“‘We are going to be honest about the tightness of resources—we can’t tackle everything immediately and other elements”

of public spending

“will have a higher place in the queue.’”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Lady seeks to justify the fact that her party says it will not make cuts reversals of £600 million by saying, “There you are.” Of course we support mediation. In fact we have said that in family cases where there are divorces, rather than the two separating parties engaging solicitors and then barristers, and then going to court—all paid for by the taxpayer—it is far better for them to sit around a table, trying to have a constructive dialogue with mediation. That way of reaching a solution is preferable.

Given that the shadow team has said it would not make any cuts, perhaps its members could reflect on whether the next time one of them speaks they might be supportive of our proposals, rather than simply saying, “Don’t reduce.”

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister concede at least that the leader of the Labour party has set up the Bach commission, to look at the issue of access to justice? It would be constructive for Ministers at least to acknowledge that. It is true that my colleagues said previously that they could not just wave a magic wand—of course not; but some of the cuts were badly made and chaotic. Areas—swathes—were taken out of the scope of legal aid, with the consequence that the most vulnerable people suffered; and the reality was that that did not really save money.

[Mr Vara]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I just made—that his party’s shadow team said it would not reverse any of the cuts. That kind of contradicts what he says; but as far as Willy Bach is concerned—and he is a man for whom I have much respect—I wish him well with his commission. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) will be aware that we have said there will be a review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 three to five years from its implementation. That will be a thorough review in relation to the way forward.

I want to mention some other points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Aberavon referred to some research conducted by Rights of Women, showing that 38% or 39% of women do not have the evidence needed to apply for legal aid. That research was based on responses from 61 people, which I hope even the hon. Gentleman will agree is a small sample—much smaller than researchers would ordinarily use to generalise across the wider population.

There is much debate about the amount of work available and the number of lawyers around to do it. The Law Society has itself accepted that there are far too many people chasing too little criminal work. We must recognise that the legal profession needs to take a wider look—not just at legal aid—at how things are going. In a relatively short time the structure of the legal profession has changed. There was a time when there were simply solicitors, barristers and legal executives; but now barristers in particular face competition from solicitors who have higher rights of audience than previously. There are more people wanting to qualify as barristers, as well. Alternative business structures are coming on the scene. That means that more and more people are chasing the same amount of work.

Draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Claims Management Complaints) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 General Committees

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

It is always an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Gillan. The Opposition do not take issue with the regulations; on the contrary, we welcome them. The only criticism we might have had is that they seemed to take a long time to be implemented in the first place. If memory serves, they were first discussed in February 2012 and were implemented in August last year.

I have only one question for the Minister: given the shortfall of £500,000 in the first year, what steps will he take to ensure that we do not see a continuous shortfall and a ratcheting effect, requiring us to come back to Committee, perhaps annually, to increase fees? With that said, we have nothing further to add.

The Shrewsbury 24

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mike Penning]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am generally very fair about these sorts of things, and I would have come to that point in my speech, but I just felt—perhaps wrongly—that there was something that one of the Labour Administrations since 1972 could have done to address the concerns of the Shrewsbury 24. I think that must be a fair assumption by any description.

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

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) introduced some compelling information and evidence. Will the Minister make a judgment on what he has heard today?

[Mike Penning]

As the right hon. Member for Leigh said, I have been in many Departments, and I do not make instant judgments. I will look carefully at it.

On the shadow Home Secretary’s point, I am more than happy to meet the campaigners. I know that the Minister for Security—probably the more relevant person for the documents we are referring to—is also more than happy to do that. If there are other Ministers in Government who it would be pertinent for the campaigners to meet—I am probably putting my foot in it again, as usual—I cannot see any reason why they should not be able to do so. That is a way we can move forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

There are, of course, rules and regulations as to who qualifies and who does not. I cannot comment on specific individual cases, but the Legal Aid Agency does try to make sure that it is only those who qualify who get the assistance it provides.

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

In June, the Justice Secretary criticised what he called the two nation justice system, but restricting civil legal aid according to how long an individual has lived in this country clearly widens the gap between those afforded access to justice and those not. The residence test would have denied justice to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes. Does the Minister think that that is right, and if not, will he drop the two nation justice policy of the Justice Secretary’s predecessor?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman needs to appreciate that we have had to take tough measures. It is vital, and the British people in their millions rightfully say that they want overseas people to have some connection with the UK before getting use of the taxes that they pay. The residence test has gone through the court process to the Court of Appeal, and if it goes further, the Government will object and robustly defend our stance on the residence test.

Employment Tribunal Fees

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Westminster Hall

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

While my hon. Friend is on that point, I want to mention the fact that under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, legal help was available to advise clients on whether they had a claim that was worth pursuing at a tribunal. Would it not have been better for the Government not to mess around with legal help under that Act, and to allow people the opportunity to receive that legal advice, which often acted as a safety net?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for his intervention. Of course he is absolutely right: that advice is an important safety net. I know from experience that the majority of people who are advised that they do not have a claim will take that advice on the chin and will not pursue the claim, so the fact that we have not been able even to maintain levels of access to advice has probably only made the situation worse.

As I was saying before the intervention, there are rules to deal with unmeritorious and vexatious claims. I want the Minister to tell us today whether he considers that those rules are effective, and if he does not, what he will do to change them.

Denying access to justice via a high fee level is arguably making no difference at all to the number of vexatious claims being lodged, because if this system was weeding out vexatious claims, the success rate would increase. The fact that it has not suggests that the fee system is a deterrent to all. Ministry of Justice statistics indicate that success rates have in fact remained broadly the same, rather than increasing. In the four quarters before fees were introduced, success rates ranged between 10% and 9%. In the four quarters after fees were introduced, success rates were broadly similar at 9%, 9%, 5% and 13%. Even the president of the employment tribunals, Mr Brian Doyle, suggested that only a very small percentage of claims can be identified as weak or unmeritorious and that we need to be careful about the way in which we bandy around the term “vexatious” when it comes to claims.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Karl Turner]

Before the short suspension for us to run along to the Division Lobby, I was explaining that there is a difficulty with the Government suggesting that the fee remission scheme is the answer to employment tribunal fees. I said that there were three problems. First, there is the possibility that the remission scheme is not being brought to public attention. As far as I understand it, most people do not know it exists. I have spoken to various law centre staff and citizens advice bureau advisers who have said that people genuinely do not know that the scheme exists and are sometimes surprised to find that it does. Secondly, the fee remission scheme is an absolute minefield. Thirdly and lastly, how can any individual without legal help know what their own legal position is and whether they might be entitled to a fee remission?

I mentioned the first case study, but another one has come to me as an MP. It is the case of Mary, who was employed as a personal assistant. She brought a sexual discrimination claim when her employer was not happy that she had become pregnant. She left the job and immediately found other employment. Even with the fee remission, she was still required to find £840. It is fair to say that she begged and borrowed to come up with that money. However, she said to me that if she had not had family members and friends who were prepared to help her out financially, she would have had a problem. She could not have gone to a loan shark, and clearly she did not want to borrow money, but she considered it and eventually borrowed from friends and members of her family. But for that, she estimated that it would have taken her three months, even on a reasonable salary, to save the money to pay for the fee. We know that the statutory bar for bringing an employment case is three months. Clearly, people are not managing to get the money together to get an application in on time.

Such examples show that since 2010 the Government have attacked the rights of workers. Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, employment cases were taken completely out of the scope of legal help; the Government have increased the time required to gain employment rights from 12 months to two years; we have seen the introduction of employment tribunal fees; and we have also seen the introduction of the Trade Union Bill, which further dramatically undermines the rights of working people. Any claim that this Government are on the side of working people is utterly disgusting, and I put that in the strongest possible terms. It is absolutely disgusting to suggest that this Government are on the side of working people.

The Government argued that the reason for introducing fees was to prevent vexatious claims, and then they argued that it was mainly to recover the cost of running the employment tribunal service from users who could afford to pay. However, the latest accounts from the Ministry of Justice show that in 2014-15 the net income from employment tribunal fees was £9 million, while the expenditure on the service was £71.4 million. That means that the increase in net income from fees covers 12.5% of the cost of running the service. That12.5% gain in revenue was achieved at the expense of a 69% overall drop in people bringing claims to employment tribunals—tens of thousands of workers deterred from seeking justice for breaches of their employment rights. The evidence must suggest that the Government’s introduction of tribunal fees is purely ideological. It is punitive and shuts thousands of workers out of accessing justice.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan in the Chair]

I am conscious of the time, and I am keen for the Minister to reply to hon. Members who have spoken. As I said at the outset, they are probably an awful lot better informed on the subject than I am. I do not want to take up too much more time, but I have some questions that I hope the Minister will make a note of and try to answer.

What is the Minister’s assessment of the high expenditure of the employment tribunal service? If it is terribly difficult for him to come up with a full answer immediately, I am happy for him to write to me. Given that the volume of cases is down massively, will the Minister explain why there has not been a corresponding drop in running costs? We are all keen to save money—we all want to make efficiency savings wherever possible—but the evidence seems to suggest that there is no genuine saving from the completely unfair introduction of fees.

[Jo Stevens]

I just want to provide an anecdote. I was talking to an employment tribunal panel member last week. He is supposed to sit for 31 days a year, but in the past 12 months, because of the paucity of cases being brought to the tribunal, he has been able to sit for only nine. We have some expensive people sitting in employment tribunals having to string cases out because people cannot afford to bring claims.

[Karl Turner]

I said that Opposition Members have a great deal of knowledge and experience in the field, and my hon. Friend has just highlighted that. Employment judges, who are paid—I will guess at the amount—probably upwards of £140,000 a year often sit idly without any work, as a result of what the Government have done with fees.

Finally, if, as the Government have claimed, the dramatic fall in the number of cases is down purely to the removal of vexatious claims, why have we not seen an increase in the percentage of successful claims? If the necessity to introduce the fee scheme was about preventing vexatious and unmeritorious claims, surely the success of the claims that are in the tribunal system should be going through the roof, but that is clearly not happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

It is important to appreciate that once the Government website publishes terms of reference, which have been there for many weeks, it is not appropriate to seek to change those terms of reference simply because one is in a debate, no matter how many times colleagues try to press me to respond in that way.

[Karl Turner]

I will give the Minister one last opportunity: is the possibility of the complete abolition of the fees in the review?

[Mr Vara]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave setting out the three objectives against which we are basing the review.

It is important to note that the introduction of fees was designed to encourage parties to use alternative ways of resolving their disputes. Colleagues will appreciate that such means can often be more effective, less stressful and less expensive than formal litigation. For that reason, the previous Administration introduced the new early conciliation service, under which anyone contemplating bringing a complaint to an employment tribunal must first contact ACAS, which will offer conciliation that is free of charge.

ACAS’s evaluation of the scheme during its first year shows that the early results are promising. Although participating in early conciliation is not compulsory for either party, the vast majority do so. In 75% of cases, both parties agree to participate. The scheme was used by more than 80,000 people in its first year. Recent research by ACAS shows that more than 80% of participants in early conciliation were satisfied with the service. Much has been said so far about lawyers acting for people, so it is important to note that we have a free option, without lawyers who charge fees, that will also be less stressful and in an environment that is constructive to arriving at a solution. Sadly, it is often the case that when lawyers are involved, it can be antagonistic. That is not always the case, but it can be the case when two sets of lawyers are acting.

I assure colleagues that it was always our intention to carry out a post-implementation review of the impact of fees on employment tribunals. As Members will be aware, we announced that review in June. The aim of the review is to look at how effective fees have been in meeting the original objectives, as I mentioned. Following their introduction, there has been some concern—it has been expressed today—about the impact fees have had on people’s ability to bring claims before the tribunal. Those criticisms have tended to focus on selected statistics, taken in isolation and out of context. In particular, the fall in the volume of claims issued in the employment tribunal has been pointed to as proof that people are being denied access to justice. That is too narrow a perspective when considering this rather broader issue. The fall in the number of claims is likely to be the result of a number of factors. Crucially, there is a failure to take account of the significant increase in the take-up of conciliation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

The concept of McKenzie friends is relatively new. [Hon. Members: “No, it’s not.”] I said relatively new. We are keeping an eye on advice and what fees, if any, are being charged.

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

In the first quarter of the year, at least one party was not represented in 76% of private family cases, while the Master of the Rolls has warned that civil courts are experiencing significant impacts from the rise in the number of litigants in person. Part 1 of LASPO has been an unmitigated disaster. Will the Justice Secretary now bring forward the much-needed review of LASPO to mitigate the shambles of his predecessors?