Prisons and Probation

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon]

That is an important point. Rehabilitation is key to an effective criminal justice system and to turning lives around and keeping communities safer. It is not just about violence; it is also about the failure to offer proper rehabilitation programmes, properly staffed and properly funded.

Opposition Members, experts and staff believe that private firms could be deliberately understaffing prisons to boost their profits. It is clearly in the public interest that staffing levels in private prisons be routinely published, just as they are routinely published for publicly run prisons.

If the Government want to reassure the public that private profit is not being put before the safety of prisoners, staff and wider society, will the Secretary of State today commit to making private companies come clean on staffing levels and publish them on the same terms as public prisons do? That is a very reasonable request.

One set of data that private prisons do have to publish is on assaults, which only adds to fears that privatisation is putting rehabilitation at risk. I put on record the shocking new figures that came to light in The Guardian yesterday, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) alluded, on the scale of violence in private prisons. The figures come from an analysis of the Government’s answers to my parliamentary questions, so there is no doubt about their accuracy.

Despite comprising just 13% of adult prisons, private prisons are disproportionately represented among the most violent. Three of the 10 most violent adult prisons are private—that is 30%—as are five of the top 20, or 25%. In the most violent category, male local prisons, four of the five private prisons have an above-average level of assaults. That is 80% of all such private prisons. The figures show that private male local prisons are over 40% more violent than their public equivalents.

Labour has made it clear that, in office, we will scrap privately run prisons. The Tories should follow Labour’s lead and drop their ideological obsession with privatisation but, if they will not, the very least they should do—in the light of these figures and the other issues of safety, transparency and accountability that I have set out—is halt plans for more private prisons and establish an independent inquiry into whether privatisation is creating a threat to safety in our prison system. Again a very reasonable request, and I look forward to the Secretary of State’s answer.

Private prisons are also disproportionately overcrowded, with the 2018 House of Commons Library briefing suggesting that, although just over half of public sector prisons are overcrowded, this rises to 85% in the private sector. The fear is a simple one: more prisoners means more money for private operators, which is one of the many perverse incentives created by running prisons for profit. More analysis is needed on those figures. Again, an independent inquiry could look into whether private prisons are, indeed, more overcrowded.

As I have mentioned, the slash-and-burn approach to prison staffing and budgets was an attempt to drive down public sector costs to those of the private sector. That was done under the tenure at the Ministry of Justice of the current Secretary of State for Transport. Perhaps he should be responding to this debate, as our justice system is full of examples of his dangerous obsession with outsourcing and privatisation. It is not too late for his successor to take a different course.

Prison maintenance, for example, was privatised in 2015, with contracts worth around £500 million handed to Carillion and Amey. The £115 million planned savings to the state never materialised, but our prisons paid the price. Cells were left with smashed windows, while inmates lived in squalor and, in some cases, were unable to access towels and even soap.

Take HMP Liverpool. Inspectors found the prison to be rat-infested, with Dickensian conditions as thousands of basic maintenance jobs had not been completed. After the collapse of Carillion, the Ministry of Justice set up a new public facilities management company to replace the work of Carillion, but it has refused to rule out reprivatising this work, and let us be clear that Amey is still underperforming in too many prisons. Will the Justice Secretary commit today to bringing all maintenance contracts back in-house when they expire?

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and some excellent points. One of the findings of the Environmental Audit Committee’s review of sustainability practices in the Ministry of Justice is that contractors are unaware of their obligations. One site of special scientific interest, an important nature area, was being mown by the contractor with no oversight of the environmental sustainability issues at the prison. Does he agree that any new contracts must be managed in-house in order to have control over the future sustainability of the prisons estate?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Notwithstanding colleagues’ appetite for interrogation, which is often insatiable, and the natural courtesy of the shadow Secretary of State in wanting to accommodate colleagues, I am cautiously optimistic that he is approaching his peroration simply because of the number of colleagues who wish to contribute to the debate. That is not binding. I am merely expressing my cautious optimism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend is right to be a passionate advocate of the important work, done in difficult circumstances, by our probation workers. They need to be valued more. Their importance in our justice system needs to be more fully recognised by this Government. Ending the part-privatisation of probation would be one way of doing that. What was an award-winning service is now fragmented and damaged. The level of serious reoffending has soared, supervision is seriously overstretched and hundreds of millions of pounds have been wasted in bailing out a broken system.

The National Audit Office, parliamentary Committees, the chief inspector of probation, trade unions and many more have all condemned this botched probation privatisation programme. Indeed, the chief inspector, in this year’s annual report, labelled the system “irredeemably flawed”. She flagged a catalogue of deep-rooted problems, including the number of probation professionals being at a critical level, with too much reliance on unqualified or agency staff; eight out of 10 community rehabilitation companies inspected since January last year being rated as inadequate; more needing to be done to keep victims safe and to safeguard children; and the fact that a lack of judicial confidence in probation and community punishments may be leading to more custodial sentences in cases that are borderline. She concluded that public ownership is a safer option for the core work, while improvements are not likely

“while probation remains subject to the pressures of commerce”.

There is really no need to add to that. The chief inspector has concluded that public ownership is a safer option and said that the fact that probation remains subject to the pressures of commerce means that improvements are not likely.

With private probation contracts now ending two years early, Ministers have the perfect opportunity to listen to the experts, reunify this fractured service and remove the profit motive from probation once and for all. As we have heard, the current Transport Secretary ignored all the warnings from the Labour party and others, including unions, probation trusts and the voluntary sector, of the obvious dangers of privatising probation. It is essential that the current Justice Secretary learns from his Government’s mistakes, but so far the Government have said that they will be renewing the private sector contracts and in a way that appears mainly designed to help the companies become more financially stable.

[Mary Creagh]

Wakefield has two prisons—the women’s prison, New Hall, and Wakefield, a high-security establishment—so this is of great concern to my constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Justice Secretary’s decision to abolish local probation trusts and to introduce the profit model into this was one of the worst examples of the reckless, untested and ideology-driven decisions that this Government have made?

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head.

I am now coming to my conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Conservatives now need to drop this dangerous obsession with running probation for private profit and bring it back in-house, where it can focus on keeping the public safe. We are committed to ending the Conservatives’ failed privatisation of probation and returning the service to the public sector. The former chief inspector of prisons, Lord Ramsbotham, is overseeing our important review of how we best return probation to the public sector. I will be publishing Lord Ramsbotham’s interim report this week. I hope the Secretary of State will meet me to discuss this important report.

Throughout our justice system, outsourcing has been used to lower costs by cutting the pay and conditions of the lowest-paid workers. The people who clean the Secretary of State’s office, for example, and the security guards who keep the Ministry of Justice safe have been demanding a real living wage of £10 an hour, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to commit to ensuring that all staff in his Department, including those working under outsourced contracts, actually get the real living wage?

In conclusion, the Conservatives promised that privatisation of our justice system would lead to better services and lower costs. The evidence is now in: it has achieved neither. Instead of savings, we have had bail-outs; instead of improving safety, there is disproportionate violence; and instead of accountability, we have had secrecy. Even in the United States of America this debate on a privatised justice system is moving on—it must move on here, too. The Government must now face the facts: privatisation has failed. When in a hole, stop digging. The Government should scrap plans for yet more private prisons and private probation contracts. For those reasons, I commend this motion to the House.

Environmental Audit Committee

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to make this statement on behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee about our third report of this Session, “The Ministry of Justice: Environmental Sustainability”, which I am delighted to share with the House.

The Committee’s remit includes carrying out regular sustainability audits of Departments and agencies. Working closely with the National Audit Office, we look at whether Departments are doing enough to reduce their impact on the environment and meet their greening government commitments. In the previous Parliament, we published sustainability audits of the Treasury and the Department for Transport, and this is our first audit of this Session.

The Government are the largest purchaser of goods and services in the country, and I pay tribute to the civil servants working across Government to reduce their carbon footprint. The Government should be leading from the front on sustainability. They have signed up to the UN’s global goals, to the greening government commitments, which commit Departments to reducing their impacts on the environment, and to Government buying standards on procurement. All three are aimed at improving sustainable practices.

Why did the Committee choose the Ministry of Justice? With 1,600 sites, the Ministry of Justice has the second largest estate in Government. It accounts for 20% of the Government’s greenhouse gas, waste and water emissions. It is the second largest buyer of goods and services, spending £4.6 billion through external suppliers in 2015-16, which is 10% of total Government spend on procurement. The Committee recognises the financial pressures that the courts and prison services are under, but being green brings financial benefits. UK businesses, for example, could save £23 billion a year by improving how they use energy and water and by reducing waste.

The Ministry has committed to put sustainable development at the heart of everything it does, so with the assistance of the NAO, the Committee examined whether that was happening. First, we were disappointed that the sustainable development goals were not mentioned in the Ministry’s single departmental plan, despite the Government promising us that they would appear in every single departmental plan. That is a worrying trend across Government. Secondly, our audit uncovered significant weaknesses relating to how the Ministry manages its sites, buildings and refurbishment projects, carbon emissions and vehicle fleet and in its approach to policy making.

The Ministry’s estate is one of the most ecologically diverse in Government. Its prisons and immigration removal centres contain 10 sites of special scientific interest, only two of which are in a favourable condition. We also found gaps in the Ministry’s governance and oversight. Senior management are often not informed of sustainability incidents. For example, we heard about one contractor that destroyed a nationally important protected orchid meadow but was not penalised or held to account through the contract.

The Ministry wants all its new buildings to achieve an “excellent” rating under the Building Research Establishment environmental assessment method—BREEAM—and it wants refurbishment projects to achieve a “very good” rating. However, we found that the Ministry had not assessed the environmental performance of nearly two thirds of its new-build and refurbishment projects. Of the 54 that did get the certificate, 14 failed to meet the required standard. Not knowing the rating of a building could not only lead to costs from retrofitting and poor energy efficiency but risk inmates’ health through overheating. When a cost-benefit analysis is put forward, it is predicated on good or excellent standards being achieved, meaning that the building will cost more to run and manage than expected and will not meet the case set out for the project.

We also examined Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and its courts closure programme. Since 2010, 103 magistrates and 54 county courts have closed, and the Ministry is consulting on plans to close nine more courts. There were gaps in the guidance to staff on how to sell off court and tribunal buildings, and the oversight on contractors also showed gaps. For example, people tasked with selling the buildings were unaware of their statutory duty to tell Historic England if the buildings were listed or of particular local architectural significance, and they failed to minimise the risk of new owners letting the buildings fall into disrepair. In my constituency, Wakefield Crown court, sold off 20 years ago, has been left to fall into ruins, leaving my local authority and local council tax payers to foot the bill.

The Ministry of Justice did not meet its targets for domestic flights and carbon reduction in 2014-15. In fact, its use of domestic flights is increasing. We found that in one year there were 108 flights between London and Anglesey and 98 flights between London and Cardiff, as well as flights between Southampton and Manchester, even though perfectly good train services are available. The Ministry did not provide any explanation for the increase.

In the autumn Budget, the Chancellor committed that 25% of all cars in central Government Departments should be electric, yet only two of the Ministry of Justice’s 1,500 vehicles are ultra-low emission vehicles. We also found that the Ministry does not systematically undertake environmental impact assessments of new policies. For example, in February 2017 the Government tried to remove the fixed cap on court costs in environmental cases, but they failed to consider the environmental impact of that decision, despite environmental groups saying it would have a “chilling effect” on access to environmental justice.

The Ministry of Justice acknowledged many of its shortcomings during our hearing, and it has been working to improve its oversight, systems and performance. That is welcome, but we urge it to improve in three key areas. We urge it to embed sustainability in all it does; to follow its own guidance when making policy—it is ironic that the Department tasked with upholding the law is failing to meet its own legal requirements in certain areas—and providing guidance to staff and contractors; and to improve oversight and governance of sustainability, including in the governance of its contractors, such as on buying standards for prison food.

We recommend that the Ministry of Justice sets more ambitious environmental targets for 2019-20, as we found it was setting its targets too low so that it could say, “We have met the targets a year or two early.” That is no good. The targets have to be stretching, and they have to be on just the right side of impossible. The Ministry also needs to develop its sustainability policies, reflecting global goals, and it needs to set out how it will meet its existing targets. It needs to improve its estate management and systematically collect environmental rating certificates for all refurbishment and new-build projects.

The Ministry of Justice should provide better support to staff, especially prison governors and the people involved in selling courts and tribunal buildings, and it should provide guidance and oversight to contractors on how to manage the estate sustainably, including its sites of special scientific interest, which are protected by law. That is particularly important in the wake of the collapse of Carillion, which was a contractor on several of the prisons we looked at. The Ministry must improve its oversight of sustainability issues, and it must show leadership to the rest of central Government on sustainability.

If the UK is to be at the forefront of sustainability, the Government must lead by example. All Departments must do their bit, and the Ministry of Justice is failing to meet that challenge. Sustainability and the environment have been bolted on as a bit of an afterthought. In the Ministry’s response to our report, I expect to see a clear plan that addresses our concerns and incorporates the global goals into everything it does.

I look forward to the Government’s response, and I look forward to our Committee, and my many excellent Committee colleagues, continuing our quiet work in this overlooked but vital part of Government activity. I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to raise this report today.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her very detailed and considered report. She has made some valuable points, and the Ministry of Justice will respond in due course in the usual way.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I hope that the Minister’s intervention will satisfy some of my colleagues.

Let me end by saying that I will be supporting the Government this evening. In my view, it is time for us to grit our teeth and simply get on with it.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I rise to speak about my amendments 293, 294 and 295, which deal with the issue of who decides exit day, but rather than making the speech that I originally prepared, I will keep my remarks brief and broad.

The Prime Minister’s decision to set the exit date and to write it into law is another panic move, and it puts her into a self-tying straitjacket. It is a sop to the hard Brexiteers, and it creates a rod for the negotiators’ backs. It weakens, rather than strengthens, the UK’s position in the crucial nine months that are left for us to negotiate a good deal. Eighteen months after the referendum, we have seen the bluff and bluster on the withdrawal agreement. The Foreign Secretary has gone from telling our European partners to go whistle to being little Tommy Tucker singing for his supper to the tune of £40 billion. We have seen a tug of war take place on EU citizens’ rights, and a deal on no hard border with Ireland taking place in frantic late-night phone calls—a deal that the Brexit Secretary later undermined by calling it a mere “statement of intent”, which has caused all sorts of problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leslie]

I hope that countries do, and we will need them to, otherwise we will literally be planting carrots in our back gardens. If we do not have trade deals with the rest of the world, we will have to produce more domestically, rather than having the living standards we have previously enjoyed. I am a very pro-trade Member of Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman should know where I stand on many of these questions. That is why I am asking what the consequences will be not just if we move away from the trade arrangements we have—the finest, frictionless free trade agreement of anywhere in the world that we have right now with the single market and the customs union—but if we then rip up the free trade agreements with non-EU countries that we have enjoyed by virtue of our EU membership. That is another 12% of our exports. Some 50% of our exports are with the EU through our existing trade arrangements, and then there is another 12%—actually, there is another 14% because there are other territories of those non-EU countries as well. That is a big chunk of our trade. I am very concerned about how effectively we can carry out the grandfathering of those FTAs with the rest of the EU.

We must also bear in mind that there are 164 members of the WTO, and they have rights of veto and objection on many occasions. In fact, we recently tried to lodge a suggestion on dividing tariff-rate quotas. This is getting technical, but that is basically dividing up the EU’s share of low or zero-tariff allowances when countries such as New Zealand or Australia try to import lamb. Amazingly, Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America have lodged an objection to the British divvy-up of those tariff-rate quotas. Of course, apparently America should have been knocking on our door, as we were at the front of the queue, supposedly, but it still lodged an objection to our very first relationship with the WTO.

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend rightly raises the issue of these countries objecting to any changes to quota, because they will first and foremost seek to protect their own economies, not our economy. In the event that we get a percentage of the EU quota but for whatever reason—customs barriers; non-tariff barriers; the withdrawal of purchasing power—that quota of goods cannot be sold into the UK, those countries’ flexibility to then sell those goods to the EU is lost. That is why they are digging their heels in so early on this issue.

[Mr Leslie]

That is a real worry. This will not get media attention or airtime, but it is a big chunk of our economic footprint. It is not just a trade issue with the EU; it is a trade issue in respect of all the free trade agreements with the rest of the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)]

It has been a pleasure to listen to this wide-ranging debate and to hear some of the speeches, not all of which seemed to be specifically about clause 8. I compliment my opposite number, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who very accurately described the clause.

[Mary Creagh]

I do have a speech on clause 8 and I would like to raise some specific points, but I am slightly concerned that the Minister might now be about to speak for 15 minutes, in the tradition that he started yesterday, and I am worried that he will not be able to respond to my specific points.

[Mr Walker]

I am very happy to do my best endeavours to ensure that the hon. Lady does get five minutes to make her speech; she often has interesting points to bring to these debates. Let me discuss briefly, therefore, what clause 8 is for.

As we leave the EU, it is essential that the Government can ensure that we do not breach any of the UK’s international obligations. These international obligations stretch from our promises to other nations, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), to those we have undertaken as a sovereign and responsible participant in international organisations such as the Council of Europe and global ones such as the WTO. This need to prevent breaches of our international obligations is the reasoning behind the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

I am happy to give that confirmation. As I said to the House of Lords Constitution Committee earlier today, no one has any intention to amend the Good Friday agreement.

[Mary Creagh]

By regulation.

[Mr Walker]

At all—by regulation or in any other way.

I will turn briefly to the amendments and respond to new clause 20 in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham East. My Department is leading cross-Government work to assess and act on the international agreements for which, as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, arrangements will need to be made to ensure continuity for businesses and individuals. Any that require implementing legislation or parliamentary scrutiny before ratification will go through the appropriate, well-established procedures. We are working with our international partners to identify the full range of our agreements that might be impacted by our exit from the EU, and we will be taking their views into account. It would not be appropriate at this stage to publish the type of assessment proposed in new clause 20. Doing so would prejudice the outcome of these discussions and how any action would be put into practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

We will be coming forward with more information on this front in due course. However, a lot of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was specifically about trade issues, and we have a Trade Bill that deals specifically with those issues. If I might gently say, a lot of what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked about related to the content of the Trade Bill rather than this Bill.

We do recognise the need to promote stability for businesses and individuals, and we will aim to transition agreements as seamlessly as possible. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Swansea West—I am afraid he is no longer in his place—and I would like to reassure him that this clause has nothing to do with future trade agreements. It is purely to do with our existing international commitments and how we make sure we continue to meet them in the context of leaving the EU.

Clause 8 is a very specific power, which will be available only where a breach of our current international obligations arises from the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. It ensures that we will be able to continue to honour international obligations, which might otherwise be affected by our withdrawal, and it is key to ensuring that we can take our place on the global stage as a fully independent nation. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Members for Nottingham East and for Swansea West will consider not pressing their amendments.

I want to address amendment 345 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. It is well intentioned but unnecessary. The power in clause 8 has a narrow and specific purpose, and can be used where our international obligations might be breached as a result of leaving the EU. World Health Organisation guidelines are not international obligations; they are used to inform air quality standards in international and EU legislation, but they do not, of themselves, form an obligation to be complied with.

The UK has a strong track record on protecting our environment, and in leaving the EU, we will safeguard and improve on that. The whole purpose of this clause is to ensure that we leave the EU with maximum certainty, continuity and control, and that, as far as possible, the same rules, laws and international obligations apply on the day after exit as on the day before.

Of course, some of the existing mechanisms that allow scrutiny of environmental targets and standards by Governments will not be carried over into our law, and that is why the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced on 12 November our intention to consult on a new, independent statutory body to advise and challenge Government, and potentially other bodies—

[Mary Creagh]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

I am going to give the hon. Lady a chance to speak, so I hope she will wait.

That body will also potentially advise and challenge other bodies on environmental legislation, stepping in when needed to hold them to account and to enforce standards. The Government will consult on the specific scope and powers of that body early next year.

We have a number of amendments—from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and the hon. Member for Wakefield, whom I will do my best to give a chance to speak—that seek to place further restrictions on the use of the clause 8 power, beyond those already in the clause. These amendments give me another opportunity to restate our firm commitment to ensuring that environmental protections and the rights of individuals—particularly EU citizens resident in the UK—are maintained as we bring EU law on to the UK statute book. This commitment will be reflected in the use of this clause to ensure that, from day one of withdrawal from the EU, the UK is able to comply with its international obligations.

As we stressed during yesterday’s debate on clause 7, the defence and security of the realm is always the first duty of Government, and the Government are absolutely committed to national security and securing the right future arrangements for security with the EU. I would like to take the opportunity to reassure the Committee that we cannot see that anything that damages our national security would be an appropriate way to ensure continued compliance with international obligations. The same would be true of any change to equalities legislation.

All these amendments are well intentioned, but we have been clear in previous debates that we will preserve rights through this Bill, and not reduce them. In those earlier debates, we also set out that, by giving no definition of what, for example, an environmental protection is, or how one might judge that such a protection was being weakened, amendments along these lines risk unnecessary litigation, undermining the certainty that this Bill aims to create.

In the specific context of clause 8, which is about upholding our international obligations, it is very difficult to see how that could do anything other than require us to preserve rights and protections. Parliament has already approved the UK being party to a number of international conventions and international organisations, such as the World Trade Organisation. We are committed to these international relationships. A key part of that is ensuring that we fully comply with our international obligations. Leaving the customs union and the single market may alter the way in which the UK complies with some of these obligations, specifically with regard to the treatment of WTO most favoured nation status.

Amendment 292 in the name of the hon. Member for Wakefield—I know that she wants to speak to it—does not acknowledge these changes in respect of taxation, or the fact that there will not always be a clear choice about how to comply with such obligations in future. Clause 8 gives Ministers the flexibility to make those changes. Of course, however, we will listen to what she has to say. I understand the honourable intentions behind these amendments, but we believe that this clause is well drafted to continue to meet our international obligations.

The UK is a nation whose word is its bond. This Government introduced the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to ensure a smooth and orderly exit from the EU. Our desire to leave the EU in this way applies both to the actions we take domestically and to our actions in relation to international partners. Clause 8 is key to delivering that, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the Minister for rushing through his speech so that I get the chance to have my five minutes to talk about amendment 292.

Clause 8 allows Ministers to make any regulations to prevent or remedy any breach in our international obligations as we leave the EU, but it also contains a Henry VIII power allowing for those regulations to do anything that an Act of Parliament can do. That includes amending or repealing any Act of Parliament ever passed. It is the most extraordinary and unusual power. I was going to raise the Northern Ireland Act 1998, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for getting the Minister on the record on that.

The Government have been very scant on the details about the sorts of international obligations that may be affected. They have also been unable to say—I was listening carefully to the Minister—why regulations under clause 8 can impose or increase taxation. We do not want to end up in a situation where the Government can raise tax-like charges by statutory instrument. That gives away the supremacy of this place on taxation. The “appropriateness” test is too broad, and it undermines the supremacy of Parliament. We cannot have taxation by the back door.

Crucially, I did not hear the Minister say anything about tertiary legislation. We have focused a lot on SIs—the secondary stuff. Tertiary legislation enables a new public body that needs to be set up, such as a chemicals body, to charge fees. This may not be controversial at first, but there may come a time when such bodies want to increase the fees, as happened when the Ministry of Justice wanted to increase probate fees by, I think, 1,500%. Why is there a double standard in clause 8 as regards secondary and tertiary legislation? We want tertiary legislation to be given the same parliamentary control and the same time limits as secondary legislation. My amendment 292 seeks to restore the supremacy of the House on financial matters.

I want briefly to deal with the environmental regulation that the Minister talked about. The Government currently have a “one in, three out” rule. Many of our environmental regulations come from international mixed agreements signed and ratified, as he said, by the UK and the EU; some are bilateral and some are multilateral. The Environmental Audit Committee has been looking at our progress in reducing fluorinated gases. These are very powerful greenhouse gases with a global warming potential 14,000 times more harmful than carbon dioxide. They are in commercial refrigeration systems, in our car air-conditioning systems, and in 70% of the 60 million asthma inhalers that we use in this country every year. Targets for reducing those gases are set and monitored by the European Union, but we are also a signatory to the UN framework, so it is a mixed agreement. We have just ratified the Kigali amendment to reduce F-gases by 85% by 2036. That agreement is monitored by the EU, so the Bill will convert the regulation into UK law and we will need new regulations.

The explanatory memorandum states that the new regulations may be subject to the Government’s “one in, three out” rule. We cannot have the Government making hundreds, if not thousands, of new regulations that get caught under that absurd administrative rule, so I want the Minister to assure the House that it will be scrapped. I have written about that as the Committee Chair, and Lord Henley has said that there is no clarity about it and no decision has been made. That has to change.

[Mr Leslie]

This is an incredibly important series of discussions. We need more information on the 759 international treaties that may fall on exit day, and I am glad that the Minister indicated that more information would be forthcoming. I want to vote for new clause 22 on the European economic area and the single market, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22

EEA Agreement

“(1) No Minister may, under this Act, notify the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EEA Agreement, whether under Article 127 of that Agreement or otherwise.

(2) Regulations under this Act may not make any provision that would constitute a breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the EEA Agreement.

(3) Regulations under this Act may not amend or repeal subsection (1) or (2).”—(Heidi Alexander.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

My hon. Friend makes the point well. We can all imagine circumstances in which the Government could be in part responsible for failures to comply with various legal obligations—as she says, it might well include failure to comply with air quality directives—and those who suffer harm as a consequence of those Government failures may no longer have the right of redress. Those rights exist not only in environmental legislation but in, for instance, equal opportunities legislation. I can foresee circumstances in which a same-sex couple seek retroactively to claim their right to pension arrangements that might not have existed in the past so that they can accrue their pension rights, but they would not have redress to do so under the proposed arrangements.

The other big one is competition law, which relies very much on the right to challenge the Government, particularly on procurement arrangements. Companies that say they did not get a contract for such and such a reason may well feel that it was partly because they were unfairly treated by Government. Under the Francovich arrangements we have protections so that contracts can be let fairly, be it for house building, transport infrastructure or anything else we can name. A number of protections need safeguarding there.

Perhaps the biggest one that has not been addressed by Ministers and where Francovich may still be required is the protection of the rights of EU nationals after Brexit. A number of EU nationals will continue to reside in the UK after Brexit, but what will happen if their residency rights or definitions change, if their children are affected by changes of arrangements with the Government, or if rights to claim various tax reliefs or other things change in an unfair way for them, as EU nationals? There should be some level of redress against malfeasance by Government in that respect, so at the very least we need to hear from Ministers a better justification for the deletion of this Francovich protection.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. His amendment on Francovich echoes my own, although mine is slightly different on time limitation. Does he agree it is unthinkable that a Government who throughout this Bill have said, “All rights and protections would be guaranteed,” are now seeking to remove the ability to sue the state for imperfect administration, mostly of directives, at a time when they are about to incorporate hundreds if not thousands of pieces of EU law into our UK law? They are saying, “If anything goes wrong with any of that, you’ve got no right to sue us in the future.”

[Mr Leslie]

My hon. Friend is correct about that and she has tabled a very good amendment on this issue. Ministers need to do better and explain why they would seek to wrench out of the protections for our citizens this potential right-to-redress arrangement, particularly as it may well affect malfeasances and the need for redress that takes place before exit day. This is not just saying that this rule will not apply to situations that occur after exit day; its drafting would prevent that right to redress, even if the claim itself relates to an occasion prior to exit day. All hon. Members, regardless of political party, should therefore think of their constituents, the cases we pick up and the surgery discussions we have with people who ask what they can do. The Government are a large and powerful organisation—many Conservative Members often make that point about the size and power of the state—and individuals need rights in order to protect themselves in some of those circumstances. This is something that really should transcend the normal party political issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leslie]

I have been in Parliament since 1997, on and off, and I find that amendments can often be rebutted for a number of reasons but when people say there is a technical deficiency that tends to be the last refuge of the Minister. There may well be arguments that say that we need to cut and paste the charter of fundamental rights or the Francovich provisions, but to do so having regard to changes in the language to take account of new circumstances. Everybody can recognise the need for consequential or supplemental amendments to the legislation sometimes, but let us not kid ourselves: we are talking about some far bigger principles here. I hope the hon. Gentleman would not diminish the importance of the charter of fundamental rights and those myriad legal rights and protections we have that are so essential for the specific and general reasons I have given in this debate.

[Mary Creagh]

rose—

[Mr Leslie]

I will give way one more time but I want to make sure that other Members have a right to speak today as well.

[Mary Creagh]

I am in violent agreement with the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on the issue of Francovich, and I will be speaking to those points in more detail when I come to talk to my amendment. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that certain rights in the charter such as environmental rights, consumer rights and the rights of the elderly in particular, which are not highly developed in UK case law or in any other sort of legislation, are gently being thrown out with the bathwater in this removal of the charter of fundamental rights?

[Mr Leslie]

That is an exceptionally important point. Our legal system is one of the finest in the world. It is a dynamic legal system and is not simply reliant on statute; it can relate to cases as they evolve. The charter of fundamental rights, which could equally be a charter within the UK law, according to this Bill, if it were transposed, could help to maintain that dynamism and the protection of rights to fill the gaps when those unforeseen circumstances arise. We do not know what issues our constituents will bring to us from one week to the next, but we may well have a constituent who has found that their rights have been deprived unfairly and who needs redress to protect them from the Government or others. In our surgeries and discussions, what will we say to our constituents in such circumstances? What will we say when they say, “But you had the opportunity to transpose and retain the protections under the charter of fundamental rights”? Will we say “Oh, well, it was a very busy day. I didn’t really notice what was going on in the Chamber. There were lots of complex things going on to do with Brexit”?

This really matters. I am delighted and proud that many Members from all parties in this House are voicing their concerns and are not prepared to see these rights just swept away on a ministerial say-so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

That could be a solution, but even if we do not have time to move to that and to have the necessary debate—as we highlighted in the question about the statutory instrument powers that the Government are taking to change law—some comfort and reassurance might be provided with the fact that there are some categories of EU-derived law that could do with at least the assurance that they would require primary legislation to change them. That might go some way to providing reassurance to some of the perfectly worthy organisations that have been writing to us that there is no malevolent intent towards this important area in which rights have developed.

[Mary Creagh]

The general principles of European law do not cover the principles of environmental law. That was made clear to us in terms from the Dispatch Box last week. The charter does guarantee those environmental rights. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that environmental principles are one area in which this Bill is deficient and in which our rights will be lost?

[Mr Grieve]

I agree that environmental law is an area that could do with the scrutiny that I have just outlined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it does make sense to look at this category of rights, whether in this Bill or more widely; it is something the House should consider.

Where is the balance to be struck on article 8, which relates to the protection of personal data? My view, for what it is worth, is that I should own my own data and decide what happens to it. It is my own data about me, so I should not have the Government or big businesses saying, “No, it belongs to us.” That is a debate that we should have as a country. This Bill is probably not the right mechanism for that debate, but we need to consider where the balance should lie.

Article 41 sets out the right to good administration. The Minister will say, “Well, of course we administer correctly; we are honourable men”—so are they all. But it is important that, as a matter of principle, every person

“has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies”

and that the right includes

“the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken”.

It seems to me that these rights are self-evident and true, and that we ought to ensure that they are written into our codes, from the point of view of executive action, if they are not already. They include

“the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality”

and

“the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions.”

Those things, it seems to me, are self-evident and basic about what we are and should be about. These are rights that are not written into our system fully and properly, but I think that there is a strong case that they should be. I have of late had reason to ponder such matters in more depth, and the House should consider them to ensure that we execute such things properly in our system, our way of life and the values that we hold dear. The House should take back control to ensure that the rules of law and of executive action apply to each and every person in this nation and that we strike the right balance as we take on the great responsibility of restoring sovereignty to our sovereign Parliament.

[Mary Creagh]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). I voted against this Bill on Second Reading due to the powers that it puts into Ministers’ hands and the fact that it sidelines Parliament in many of these moments of incorporation. We have heard Government Members waxing lyrical about putting things back into the hands of this sovereign Parliament, but the Bill puts into the hands of Ministers the power to pass or strike out almost any law, and that point has been missed in this debate.

I am not a legal expert. I am not a barrister. I do not have a law degree. What I have is a semester spent studying Government law and policy at the London School of Economics as part of my master’s in European studies, and I have a massive book by Craig and de Búrca, which is still on the shelf in my office. As I was reading through the Bill, I noticed “Francovich” and that rang a little bell in the reptilian core of my brain. I thought to myself, “Ooh, that is one of those really important cases that I learned about 20 years ago,” and it turns out that that master’s has been the best money that I ever spent.

Francovich is one of the areas where the Government break their promise to cut and paste the whole body of EU law into UK law. Schedule 1 is their get-out-of-jail-free card and includes the things that they do not like and are not going to incorporate. There are a lot of words about why things will be difficult, why judges will be confused and why everyone will be getting themselves into a twist, but it is a rights grab and it must not be allowed to stand. We must not allow schedule 1, which is essentially a list of the ways in which the Government are curtailing legal rights and remedies that we have enjoyed as a result of our membership of the EU. Admittedly, however, some of those rights and remedies did not exist when we joined and have evolved over time through European Court of Justice jurisprudence and through the treaties.

For the last 25 years as EU citizens, we have enjoyed the right to state compensation when the Government fail to implement EU law correctly and an individual suffers a serious loss as a result—that goes back to my big green textbook. The rule was established after Andrea Francovich took his Government to court for failing to protect his rights at work. He worked for an electronics company in Italy, but he was paid only sporadically, and he was still owed pay when his employer went bust. The insolvency protection directive gives workers the right to be paid if their employer goes bust and they are owed wages, but Italy had failed to implement the directive, and the European Court of Justice ruled in 1991 that the Italian Government must make good the pay owed to Mr Francovich and, presumably, his colleagues. Since then, if an EU member state has failed to fulfil its obligations that come with membership of the EU, citizens can obtain compensation if they suffer damages as a result. I think the reason why that stuck in my mind was that the EU case law was relatively fresh 25 years ago.

How did the ruling apply in the UK? There is a particularly sad case that any one of us could have had as constituency MPs: the case of Ben Byrne. Since 1984, the second motor insurance directive has required member states to provide compensation arrangements for victims of untraced drivers and that the protection must be equivalent to that which is available for victims of insured drivers whose identities are known. In 1993 the then three-year-old Ben Byrne was hit by a car while crossing the road with his father. The driver sped off and was never found. Ben’s parents were not aware of his right to claim compensation until eight years after the accident.

We get such difficult, knotty cases in our constituency surgeries, with people being unaware of their rights and remedies under the law. Many of us will have held the hand of a constituent in terrible cases to ensure that they get justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

There is genuine concern across this House about this matter, because it cannot be right that people cannot raise a claim on EU law “retrospectively”, as the hon. Lady puts it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has raised this problem, so I hope the Government will examine it and come up with proposals that will satisfy this concern from right across the House.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. Often the simplest sentences raise the biggest alarm bells, because things can be missed if we blink, and substantial rights are engaged in this. The Brexit Secretary said in his speech to UBS last week that the UK would remain

“in all the EU regulators and agencies”

during the transitional period. That leaves us with a further conundrum, because transitional rights are mentioned in the European Commission’s negotiating paper and it says that the ECJ will continue to be able to decide, presumably on Francovich, during any transitional period. The issue of the transitional period is stretching the elastic limits of the Conservative party and of the Cabinet at the moment in terms of which wing of the party is going to succeed, but from the point of view of economic stability and job stability in this country I certainly want to see a transitional period. This Bill raises questions about the loss of those rights if there should be, as we all hope there will be, a transitional period.

The problem is that those rights start to erode as exit day looms, because the incentive to follow the EU directives will be diminished for the Government as they will be let off the hook, given that there will be no retroactive right to sue under Francovich.

Schedule 1 therefore fails the basic test of fairness. For example, if the Government are in breach of an air quality directive, perish the thought, and people are suffering a substantial loss as a result, only those who start legal proceedings before exit day would be entitled to those damages. My amendment 139 would ensure that the right to sue the state and to obtain a remedy under Francovich is still available for those who have suffered that loss or damage before the UK exits the EU. This would allow the victims of a Government failure to uphold their rights that took place before exit to obtain those damages. It would bring fairness to this process, as well as, crucially, legal continuity and legal certainty. Brexit must not be used as an excuse to abolish citizens’ rights and protections under the law. In the referendum my constituents did not vote to reduce their rights, and I hope the Committee will be able to test the matter this evening.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I have considerable sympathy with the points just made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). Exactly at which point to create which cut-off when dealing with Francovich is a knotty issue, but the idea that people whose rights already exist and who are damaged before exit should be prohibited from pursuing causes that they would have been able pursue now had they had the wit to start them now is pretty offensive to natural justice, and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will come forward with some adjustment to paragraph 4 of schedule 1.

I mainly wish to dwell on the two other issues that have been raised in this interesting debate, which has been much more of a genuine Committee stage debate than some of the debates, or some parts of them, that we have had in the previous two days’ consideration. The first is on the charter of fundamental rights, where I thought the argument was largely being won by those who argued that it was not productive to have the general principles in that charter brought into UK law, provided that we could satisfy ourselves that case law and statute between them would cover off all the material and substantive rights contained within the charter. I was therefore extremely heartened to hear the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), say that there was going to be a full analysis, which I hope will be sufficient to persuade us all that all the rights are covered off in some other way. If they are, the points that were made about the dangers of judicial activism, which is positively invited by the charter of fundamental rights, would outweigh any advantage to the charter’s incorporation.

Before I come to the main point I want to make about paragraph 3 of schedule 1, I wish to observe, as a slight qualification to some of the things that have been said in Committee, that an element of judicial activism will not only be made possible but actually be required by the Bill, because it refers repeatedly to retained principles and it is impossible for judges to engage in the application of principles without their engaging in judicial activism that goes beyond simply reading the plain face of statutes and the like.

This is all a very grey area. With that in mind, I come to amendment 10, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and paragraph 3 of schedule 1. His amendment refers to paragraphs 1 to 3, but in my view it refers mainly to paragraph 3. There is currently a great oddity in the way the Bill is cast. I very much hope that not too long from now my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General will come to the Dispatch Box and resolve this problem, but it is important to set out the nature of the problem.

Clause 5(2) clearly establishes the principle of the supremacy of EU law so far as the past is concerned. It spells it out in awesome terms, by including the

“disapplication or quashing of any enactment or rule of law”—

if that phrase has any meaning—

“passed or made before exit day.”

Clause 6(3)(a), which we discussed on a previous day, makes it entirely clear, at least in relation to the ordinary operation of the lower courts—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and I are still discussing with Ministers on the Treasury Bench the vexed question of the Supreme Court—that not only retained case law but

“any retained general principles of EU law”

are to be applied by the courts.

It is therefore a strange state of affairs that if we look at schedule 1, we discover that no court or tribunal will be able do the very things that the combination of clauses 5(2) and 6(3) require. No court or tribunal will be able to apply the general principles of EU law to quash or be supreme over any existing UK law. We can have a Bill that says one thing or we can have a Bill that says the opposite, but we cannot properly have a Bill that says in one part of it one thing and in another part the opposite of that thing, so some change is required. That much is, I think, simply a matter of analytical fact.

My preference, which I hope the Solicitor General is going to reflect in his remarks, is for a change of the kind that has come up in various exchanges this afternoon. It is considerably more modest than the rather uncharacteristically complete, sweeping amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. I would simply amend paragraph 3(2) of schedule 1 in such a way as to ensure that it refers to general principles of EU law other than retained principles. At that point, it seems to me, rationality would re-enter the scene, because we would then be saying that after exit day a court in the UK could not use later principles developed by the CJEU—or indeed, while we are at it, any charters or other documents produced by the EU—to overrule English statute, which would of course be a natural and proper consequence of our leaving the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I do accept that that needs to be looked at. The problem with the sovereignty of Parliament is that we always get to the point where the Parliaments of the future can change and erode these rights. I agree with my right hon. Friend’s earlier suggestion that in due course the Human Rights Act ought to be amended to include the broader category of rights. We are seeing an evolution and a change in our rights, and it is important to reflect that in that Act.

[Mary Creagh]

The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. Several of her Conservative colleagues have argued that some of the rights contained in the charter are otiose—one of them being, perhaps, the right not to be subjected to forced expulsion. That is, thankfully, not something that we have seen in this country, but it was a persistent feature in 20th century Europe. We are now at a stage where the Home Office is sending out letters to EU nationals threatening them with deportation. Although some of those individuals may yet have recourse to their rights under the European charter, they will not be able to exercise them after we leave.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

The hon. Lady does my colleagues a great disservice. The rights that my colleagues described as otiose were, for example, the right to petition the European Parliament or the right to stand in EU Parliament elections. I think she is also being unfair to the Home Office, which has made it very clear that the letters to which she refers were sent out by mistake and did not accurately reflect the position.

Nothing that the hon. Lady has said takes away from the point that the charter of fundamental rights contains a third category of rights that may not have protection. I am encouraged that the Government are going to undertake the exercise that has been mentioned, which they need to do, before Report. It is important that the Committee takes very informed decisions about where the gaps are. For that reason, I very much support amendment 10.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Mary Creagh Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I will be joining my colleagues in the Lobby tonight to vote against this Bill, because of the unprecedented Henry VIII powers that will transfer power away from Parliament and give it to Ministers. In some ways, these powers will turn the Prime Minister into a female version of Louis XIV, the sun king, who, as he lay on his deathbed in the palace of Versailles, said, “L’état, c’est moi.” That is what she is doing with the Bill, but as representatives of the British people, sent here with a democratic mandate, we say, “L’état, c’est nous.” We are the legislative force in this country; no sun king or sun queen will be created on our watch, and we will not give up our parliamentary democracy without a fight.

It is perfectly possible to recognise and respect the result of the referendum without sacrificing hard-won economic, social and environmental rights and freedoms. As we have heard, at the general election the people declined to give the Prime Minister the majority she sought. Through the general election, the people have already rejected a hard Brexit, so the question before us tonight is: who governs Britain—this Parliament, or a Prime Minister reliant on some hard-liners in her party and on the Democratic Unionist party, which she is paying whatever it demands to get her laws through?

Clause 9 would allow Ministers to introduce regulations to make any provision that can be made by an Act of Parliament, including modifying this legislation, a huge power that will last right up to exit day. It is therefore the great power grab Bill, which will create an infinite legislative loop: the powers can be extended infinitely to amend laws, through delegated legislation, with no scrutiny. The fact that the power to amend this Act lies within it means that the Bill can eat itself; it is like a constantly regenerating loop in some science fiction nightmare, providing new powers ad infinitum at the whim of whichever Government are in place at any given moment.

We have seen this before, because the Government have form. They did not want to give this place a vote on article 50, or on the final deal. They fought at every turn to frustrate this House in overseeing what they are doing, and frustrate us in our duties and responsibilities to our electors. The powers in clause 9 will end on exit day, but the Bill allows exit day to be set by Ministers, so those powers could continue for many years—indeed, there could be several exit days. That is not how we make laws in this country. We also have money and Ways and Means motions before us tonight that mean that Ministers can spend any sum or raise any tax as a result of this Bill. As well as being a legislative blank cheque, the Bill is therefore a literal blank cheque for the Government. That is not how we make laws in this country.

All these new laws made by delegated legislation can be amended by delegated legislation. The Government say that there will be opportunities for scrutiny, but they want a majority of one on all Delegated Legislation Committees, so that they can rubber-stamp the delegated legislation, despite failing to win a majority at the general election. That is not how we make laws in this country. The Bill can create new criminal offences under the negative resolution procedure of things such as food adulteration or trading illegal chemicals. New criminal offences will be made with no parliamentary scrutiny. That is not how we make laws in this country.

This Bill should protect our hard-won social, environmental, political and economic rights. In fact, it guarantees nothing of the sort. Even if those rights are somehow replicated in the future, the Bill is silent about remedies, and it is the remedies, not the rights, that are the spur to action. The threat of EU fines led to us taxing waste that goes to landfill, which kick-started the recycling industry in this country. The threat of massive fines for filthy air pollution has led to the Government publishing not one, not two, but three clean air plans. The threat of fines under the water framework directive has led to UK water companies cleaning up our filthy beaches and rivers. Those environmental improvements and industries were created because the threat of financial penalties focused the minds of Ministers and civil servants. If there is no remedy for the citizen, the right that the law confers is toothless.

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said on Second Reading that the Government would introduce proposals. Why are they not in the Bill? How many rights that we currently enjoy are threatened by the Bill? Francovich will not apply to the individual, so future rights will be removed from citizens. The acquis communautaire, which we have adopted, refers to the environment, but a third of it cannot be neatly cut and pasted into UK law.

[Helen Goodman]

Is my hon. Friend concerned that the replacement of the European Environment Agency by national bodies with massive powers would also be handled in that way?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We will not simply be able to cut and paste chemicals measures. REACH is the big regulation on registering, evaluating and authorising chemicals. It protects the public and the environment from hazardous substances and it is vital to British jobs, growth and investment. Our chemical industry is the second largest exporter to the EU after cars, selling £15 billion of chemical exports to the EU every year. Leaving REACH could cause market freeze and supply chain disruption to the industry. The Environmental Audit Committee heard from techUK and the defence industries how incredibly concerned they were about that. One in five UK chemicals companies represented by the Chemical Business Association are not waiting for regulatory certainty from the Government, and are already investigating opportunities to set up shop in other EU countries, harming jobs, investment and growth in this country.

The Bill does not protect the citizen and it does not incorporate either the principle of EU law that the polluter pays or the precautionary principle. For those reasons, for the vast destruction of our environmental and social rights, I shall vote against the Bill.

Prison Officers Association: Protest Action

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Justice Committee, for joining me in condemning today’s illegal industrial action. I again urge the Labour Front-Bench team to join me in that condemnation. The Chairman is right about safety in our prisons. I can confirm that several issues were on the table in the discussions with the POA and that offers have been put forward. That is why I want the POA to come back to the negotiating table, instead of indulging in illegal industrial action, so that we can work together to make our prisons safer

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Prison officers in my constituency do an amazing job with the most dangerous and difficult offenders at Wakefield prison and New Hall women’s prison. Action such as today’s is, thankfully, incredibly rare, but does the Secretary of State have any regrets that her Government and the previous Government have presided over a slow-burning crisis that has culminated in today’s action, riots in Bedford prison, an increase in violence and self-harm, and escapes from Pentonville?

Court Closures

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for calling this debate. I also agree with him that this was a flawed consultation and decision, particularly in relation to Bridgend magistrates court and law courts, which house state-of-the-art court facilities in which the public purse has invested hundreds of thousands of pounds for repairs, modernisation and renovation. That is all to be thrown away.

Following the closure, the court’s civil, family and tribunal work will got to Port Talbot justice centre and the magistrates work to Cardiff and the Vale court. I hope that this local example will illustrate the appalling consequences of the Government’s irresponsible decision to close 86 courts and tribunals across England and Wales, as well as their total failure to understand the geography of Wales.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

No surprise there.

[Mrs Moon]

Indeed, no surprise.

Realistically in south Wales, one has to move north or south to the M4 before travelling east or west. Before reaching the M4, there are very few chances of moving east or west, so the movement of these courts will cause huge problems for people’s capacity to reach the new venues.

[Mrs Moon]

My hon. Friend makes the most valid of points. Yet again, the Government have failed to recognise the needs of the poor and the disadvantaged, particularly those who are victims or witnesses of crime, and their capacity to access the justice system.

By car, the journey from Bridgend to Cardiff can take an hour. Parking is a nightmare at many times of the day and is very expensive. Port Talbot justice centre is just under 15 miles away, but, depending on where someone lives in my constituency, it can take a minimum of 30 minutes to get there by car. For people on low incomes, who disproportionately depend on court and tribunal services, access to these sites will take longer and be more expensive. Car ownership in poor communities in Wales is particularly low: two thirds of those on working-age benefits do not have daily access to a car. I hope the Minister is listening to this. The majority of people travelling from Bridgend to Cardiff or Port Talbot to access legal services will therefore depend on expensive public transport links, but the timetables are a nightmare, especially if someone has to be in court by 9 o’clock or 10 o’clock and has childcare or caring commitments or a disability or if—God forbid—they miss the bus.

[Mary Creagh]

Or the bus doesn’t turn up.

[Mrs Moon]

Or, indeed, if the bus doesn’t turn up.

The bus journey from rural areas in my constituency to Cardiff is indirect and can take over two hours, and that is before getting to the bus station in Cardiff, which is a considerable distance from the court. The need to travel such long distances on a regular basis will disrupt the work of local police, as well as of probation, rehabilitation and child protection officers. It will also inconvenience the many local groups that offer services to people involved in the court system, including witnesses. We ought to be thinking far more carefully about protecting and supporting witnesses accessing courts. It is one thing to say, “Well, I don’t mind inconveniencing defendants”—even though these are people who still have not been found guilty—but what about people attending court to support the criminal justice service? We have to make it easy for people to come forward as witnesses, not introduce an additional burden into their daily lives.

It will be expensive and administratively burdensome to transport defendants from custody in the brand-new, state-of-the-art police station at Bridewell in Bridgend. The police there will be spending hours transporting people up and down the M4, when they could have accessed the local court in Bridgend. Parc prison in Bridgend will have to transport prisoners up and down the M4, instead of taking the 10-minute journey into the centre of Bridgend. The transport costs will be ridiculous. The Ministry of Justice is transporting the costs from its own budget to another budget.

The integrity of the British justice system is at stake here. It has evolved over the centuries and has remained remarkably sensitive to the distinctive formulations and priorities of local communities. The close proximity of the magistrates system to people’s daily lives is at the root of the legitimacy and authority of the system. No attempt seems to have been made to ascertain whether the magistrates in Bridgend will continue to serve in their posts when closures go ahead. I have to tell the Minister that local magistrates contacted me to say that they do not think they will be able to carry on—because of health, work commitments and family issues. The additional travelling time and the additional commitment in hours of work is going to make it impossible for many of them to continue. I think that is a huge loss to the local community’s sense of engagement with the criminal justice system and the civil justice system. The quality of justice as administered and implemented in local communities is also threatened by the decision, because the additional caseloads at both Bridgend and Caerphilly will push Cardiff court’s capacity to the limit. The closure could lead to a heavy reliance on electronic communication.

I know some people view electronic communications as the way forward, but I would have to say again that they do not live in Wales. For people living in the Welsh valleys, broadband communication is a nightmare. I live on the coast in Porthcawl, and my Skype communication is frequently not good throughout the day; with 180° of sea in front of us, broadband communication is not at its best. These technologies are untested, unreliable and their use in court challenges the important principle of our justice system—the right to a fair trial and the right to face our accusers. Clear communication is integral to the smooth and upright administration of justice, and there is no substitute for face-to-face dialogue. Where it is desired, it should be the first option available to individuals entering court.

The Law Society of England and Wales has registered serious concerns about the use of video-link technology in magistrates court trials. Magistrates have voiced the concern that it will be difficult for the judge to maintain order in the court if defendants and witnesses are not present in person. There are also doubts about whether the broadband connection in Bridgend is of sufficient quality to sustain a video link. As I have said, the region suffers from notoriously poor broadband connectivity.

I fear that for some of my constituents, the cheapest and simplest option will be to plead guilty rather than face the difficulties of navigating the complexities of the local transport and electronic communication systems and the destruction to their daily lives and to their family lives and commitments. When witnessing a crime, many people will say, “I don’t know whether I want to come forward as a witness when it is going to mean additional time and cost burdens to me.”

The courts alone do not deliver justice. Orbiting courts are networks of organisations that provide integrated probation, rehabilitation and victim support services. Before the trial opens, they do the hard work of preparing people who are unfamiliar with the courts system to stand as witnesses or defendants. After the case has closed, they help to translate, implement rulings and monitor their impact within the community. The key to their success is local knowledge and the close working relationship they have with other service providers. Removing courts from communities will fragment and weaken these complex and closely knit networks, with serious implications for the quality of local justice and the cohesion and safety of local communities.

I have grave concerns about the serious impact of closure on my local solicitor firms. Many are based in my constituency because of the Bridgend law courts and the whole network of courts in Bridgend, and I fear that many will close, further reducing access to legal advice for many people living across my constituency. The town will lose many high-paid and skilled jobs, and the courts bring people from the surrounding area into the town. The closure will affect the retail and service sectors of the local economy and contribute to the degeneration of the town centre.

In short, the relocation of the court services and the subsequent breakdown in Bridgend’s legal infrastructure will destabilise the community and undermine local confidence in the justice system for a generation. The court closure decision reflects the priorities of a Department isolated in Westminster that fails to take into account the geographic and the social mix of Wales. With so little understanding of how local communities work, public trust in our legal and political institutions will be further eroded. I urge the Minister to reverse the decision on Bridgend. I am sure it is not too late. I hope he has been listening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow such thoughtful speeches from everyone, including the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) on securing this debate.

Wakefield magistrates court is one of the 86 Courts and Tribunals Service hearing centres affected by this latest round of closures. That figure represents nearly one fifth of the total court estate and a cut of 20% to our access to local justice. Wakefield’s court is a vital community resource that provides access to justice for people in Wakefield, and its closure will undermine that access.

The closure is part of a series of changes to the justice system since 2010 which have been, shall we say, a little more stop-start. We have certainly seen a series of changes in the past month. The Justice Secretary has scrapped restrictions on the number of books that prisoners can have. He has also scrapped court charges of up to £1,200 for defendants who plead guilty. I welcome his latest U-turn to reverse the imposition of legal aid contracts in January, which would have harmed access to legal aid in my constituency and across the country. However, he did that only after 99 legal challenges and a judicial review. I shall say a bit more about legal aid later.

In September last year I launched a public petition opposing the closure of Wakefield court, and it has been signed by hundreds of people. The court closure is the latest threat to Wakefield city centre, because it comes alongside the announcement by the Post Office that Wakefield post office should be run as a franchise. That will affect the whole city centre, because if it closes and goes into W.H. Smith or one of our shopping centres, shoppers will no longer be drawn to the high street. That will have a huge knock-on effect on the city centre economy, as will the fact that we will no longer have police officers, council officers and lawyers from the court going into the city centre at lunchtime to buy a delicious sandwich from one of the many pasty, pie and sandwich shops that we are proud to have there.

There is cross-party concern about these closures. It is important that justice is not only done and seen to be done but that it is seen to be done locally. The closures will also result in more failed cases, as victims and witnesses will have to travel long distances to get to court. That will also waste police time, because officers will have to travel further to those courts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said, this is just passing on cuts. In this case, the cuts will be outsourced to the police service, because it is the police who will have to spend time travelling from Wakefield to Leeds accompanying defendants or to give evidence. In the case of the family courts, it will be council officers’ time that will be spent in that way. This is not a cost-neutral solution. If we are looking at whole-government accounting, it would be useful for the Justice Committee to carry out a whole-cost inquiry into this matter, to determine the whole-cost implications. It is unacceptable to make a cut in one place that has to be absorbed by other parts of the system.

Local justice will not be seen to be done if Wakefield court closes, because the local press will not turn up to report cases being heard in courts many miles away. This will have a real impact on the excellent work being done by the journalists on the Wakefield Express, who go along to the court diligently each week to report on what is happening locally. A local solicitor has told me that the consequences of the closure could be catastrophic for some of Wakefield’s law firms. Solicitors will go where the work is, and firms that do not have offices in Leeds have talked about the possibility of moving out of Wakefield. That would be yet another big on-cost to our city centre. Those firms cannot afford to be in a city where there is no court, because they cannot afford to pay regular expenses for their lawyers to travel to Leeds.

The Government cut funding for our justice system by £2.1 billion in the last Parliament, with a further £900 million of cuts to come by the end of this Parliament. Despite those cuts, Wakefield magistrates court has been performing to a high standard. The Government said in their own consultation document that the building was “well used” and, according to the Law Society, Wakefield court is a “busy court” operating at a higher capacity than the England and Wales average. For the year to date, our conviction rate for cases in Wakefield district and magistrates court is 87%, compared with the national target of 85%. It also has a very low overall attrition rate of just 10%, compared with the national attrition rate target of 15%. This is particularly important in regard to protecting the vulnerable.

A couple of weeks ago I met Mabs Hussain, the new district commander of Wakefield police. He is rightly proud of the work that Wakefield police are doing to achieve a very high conviction rate for domestic violence. That has certainly changed for the better since I was elected as the MP for Wakefield 10 years ago. I can remember asking for a specialist domestic violence court for Wakefield and being told by a court official, almost with a pat on my hand, that I did not really understand domestic violence and that the trouble with such allegations was that he would find the parties involved sitting holding hands outside the court. It is always nice to be told what I do and do not understand by court officials. I left him in no doubt about my understanding and suggested that he perhaps needed to understand a little more about domestic violence and abuse cases. We have worked hard on this, and the council has worked hard on its Safe at Home project for victims of domestic violence. We have a conviction rate of 81% compared with a national target of 75%, along with a very low attrition rate. Commander Hussain is rightly concerned about what the court closure would mean in this regard. Wakefield also has a very low average for the number of days from first hearing to trial: 65 days compared with 103 days nationally.

This is the second round of court closures in Wakefield since 2010. We had the closure of Pontefract magistrates court in 2013, and the work of that court and its staff have now transferred to Wakefield. The latest closure will mean that all parties—victims, defendants, witnesses and solicitors—will need to travel into Leeds, which will significantly increase their travel times. The Minister has said that 95% of citizens will still be able to reach their court by car, but we have already heard that the courts deal with the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. According to the Law Society, 47% of Wakefield court users will have to travel for more than an hour in each direction to reach a court by public transport. That will reduce access to justice.

I am concerned about the impact of longer, more expensive journeys on victims, witnesses, defendants and magistrates. Those living in Horbury and Ossett, or in villages such as Netherton or Middlestown, will have difficulty getting to Leeds by public transport on the sporadic bus services. What about the people who live in the old pit villages such as Hemsworth, Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford? They either go directly to Leeds or have to come into Wakefield on the irregular bus services, which often do not turn up, and change on to a train and then travel by foot, putting them at greater risk of bumping into the people whom they may be appearing against in court. I can tell the House from personal experience that that is not a comfortable place for a victim to be in. People on low incomes are also unable to claim back the travel expenses incurred when attending court. Some will never have been to Leeds in their lives, or perhaps only a few times. Such people do not have access to Google Maps on their smartphones and can easily get lost, and we heard earlier about the case of the man in his 80s who had to appear in court against his neighbour.

I want to give a concrete example from when I witnessed antisocial behaviour outside some school gates in Wakefield. I said to the lady that it happened to that I had seen it, she reported it to the police, and the case against this aggressive individual came up during the general election campaign. It was scheduled to be heard at 10 am, so I gave up my morning’s canvassing in the interest of local justice and seeing justice done. I sat in the victims room with the complainant, her husband and her neighbour, who had turned up in support—people often need one or two other people to support them. The defendant turned up with his solicitor and was then advised to plead guilty.

Until someone becomes a victim, it is hard to realise how important it is that witnesses and victims turn up. If they do not, the case will not proceed and the defendant gets away. That was brought home to me 20 years ago when I was the victim of assault. I stopped a large, rampaging group of girls who were kicking a young woman on a zebra crossing in north London and who went on to assault a tube worker and then me. It was only when I turned up at court that I realised how important it was that the victims were in that room that day when those girls pleaded guilty to the charge of affray. Nobody knows that until bad things happen to them, but it is important.

If people from my constituency have to drop their children at school at 8.50 am or 9 am, wait for the bus that comes at 9.15 am, get off the bus at quarter to 10, get a 10 am train into Leeds, arrive into Leeds at 10.15 am and walk to the court, it is probably 10.30 am and, if the case is listed for 10 am, it has already failed. This is really important for people in Wakefield. If the change has to happen, Wakefield cases should be listed in the afternoon to enable people to attend. The childcare issue, particularly for victims of domestic violence, cannot be overstated. Young people, victims of domestic abuse and all those who rely on public transport will be grievously affected. The Government are erecting hurdles for witnesses to overcome and that should not be the role of the justice system.

Legal professionals in Wakefield have told me how good our local court is at delivering local justice. There are concerns, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, about magistrates having no local knowledge or understanding—people who do not know about life and local circumstances in Wakefield and the surrounding villages. We will lose local decisions on local justice matters. The Government talk the talk about devolving power to communities, but their every action takes power away from local communities.

We have heard some creative examples of where court hearings could be held, but I am insistent that victims should feel comfortable and protected when they walk into court. Wakefield Council has a court chamber, and we have a county court building as well, where Bill Nighy did some filming a couple of months ago, which was an exciting day for our city—it certainly was for me. Such buildings could be used in specific cases.

On access to justice, the Lord Chief Justice stated two weeks ago:

“Our system of justice has become unaffordable to most”.

The Law Society describes access to justice as being

“on the verge of a crisis”.

Funding for civil cases has fallen by 62% since civil legal aid was cut. The closures will only serve to worsen that trend.

On the legal aid changes, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), is well aware of the case of Bobby and Christi Shepherd from my constituency, who died from carbon monoxide poisoning while on holiday in Corfu. Their parents, Neil Shepherd and Sharon Wood, were refused legal aid at first because lawyers are not usually required at inquests. I am eternally grateful to the Minister, who was able to work with us and the Legal Aid Agency to get the decision overturned after we petitioned the Prime Minister and secured a meeting with him.

There is another similar case. Zane Gbangbola died at his home in Chertsey during the floods in February 2014 and his father, Kye Gbangbola, was left paralysed from the waist down after a cardiac arrest. The parents believe that Zane may have been killed by cyanide gas that leaked from a former landfill site through the floodwater. Kye and his wife, Nicole Lawler, were told by the Legal Aid Agency that their request for legal aid had been rejected on the grounds that Zane’s inquest did not concern the public interest. I have discussed the matter with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) and hope that the Legal Aid Agency will review the funding as a matter of the utmost urgency. I hope that the Minister will personally intervene once again so that the family can get justice and will not have to present their own case and examine witnesses, the father doing so from his wheelchair, at the inquest.

The Minister has suggested that those too far away to attend court could appear via video link. Wakefield court already has up-to-date technological facilities, including its own prison-to-court video service, which is important because the constituency has two prisons: Wakefield prison, which houses high-risk offenders, and New Hall women’s prison.

In evidence to the Public Accounts Committee last week, Natalie Ceeney, chief executive of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, said that she had negotiated with the Treasury during the spending review to ensure that proceeds from the sale of any court building can be reinvested in modernisation. However, the Ministry of Justice has yet to dispose of 15 closed courts from its 2010 closure programme, at a cost to the taxpayer of at least £40,000 a month to secure and maintain, with figures not available for three sites. The old Pontefract magistrates court has fallen into rack and ruin in the town centre, and I do not want the same to happen in Wakefield. We already have a derelict Crown court building, which the council had to compulsorily purchase and will have to spend money on to prevent it from falling down. Although the savings are made nationally, local people pick up the cost through antisocial behaviour and ensuring that derelict buildings are secure and properly maintained.

From the Secretary of State for Justice, we have had changes to legal aid, prison reform, which is welcome, and he has U-turned on a range of issues, but there have also been mistakes that have cost money. The legal aid contract is an example of an intervention in the market that threw an entire system up in the air, causing huge upset and concern for people and their livelihoods, only for it to be withdrawn at the last minute. What have been the costs to local solicitors and law firms across the country from bidding for contracts and winning them or not winning them? The Minister would do well to listen before making another costly and damaging error.

Wakefield is a city with great people and great transport connections from north to south, but not from east to west—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, who is making some very important points, and the House appreciates that, but I hope that she will soon be drawing her remarks to a close, because a significant number of other people are waiting to speak.

[Mary Creagh]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall conclude my remarks by saying that justice is supposed to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, and there is a grave risk that these proposals will do the reverse.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

1. What his plans are for the budget for the probation service in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has for the funding of the probation service in 2010-11.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

For 2010-11, the budget for the probation trusts will be £850 million. Budgets for 2011-12 are not yet set, and will be done through the spending review process to take place later this year.

[Mr Blunt]

It would be very nice if the country was in an economic position that allowed me to deliver such a categorical assurance to the hon. Gentleman but, as he knows perfectly well, I am afraid that I cannot do so. He also knows that part of the Ministry of Justice’s contribution to the £6 billion target was a £20 million reduction in the probation service’s budget. However, that budget had been added to by £26 million in mid-year by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who is now the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Mary Creagh]

Wakefield is home to two prisons: New Hall young offenders institution and women’s prison, and, of course, Wakefield prison, which houses some of the country’s most dangerous and prolific offenders. West Yorkshire probation service, and Wakefield in particular, do a tremendous job of keeping local people safe and monitoring those who are released from those prisons, who are some of the most difficult individuals in the country. Does the Minister agree that public protection is the No. 1 priority for the probation service and that any future funding arrangements must not put that at risk?

[Mr Blunt]

Of course public protection is an absolute priority. We inherited good MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements—from the previous Administration to deal with the sort of offenders who are released from Wakefield. It is right that probation services and all other agencies that are involved in MAPPA are closely engaged in delivering public protection with regard to such offenders.