Prison Capacity

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I welcome the Lord Chancellor and her team to their places on the Front Bench.

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), is expanding this scheme to include unfair indeterminate sentences not worth further consideration? That would provide an additional 2,700 potential early releases.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I welcome my hon. Friend back to her place. I am well aware of the issues around indeterminate sentences for public protection. I know that matter is of great interest to Members, as it was to me as a constituency Member of Parliament. I know this territory well. It would not be appropriate to make changes in relation to IPP prisoners, because there is a different order of public protection risk. I am determined to make more progress on IPP prisoners. As I say, we will build on the work done by the previous Government. We worked constructively with the previous Administration on sensible changes that could be made in the safest possible way for the public. Those changes were on the licence period and the action plan, which we will crack on with as a new Government. Any changes that we make to the regime for that type of sentence, which has been rightly abolished, must be done while balancing the public protection risk, which we would never take lightly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

We have increased prison officers’ salaries in the public sector by over 2% across the board. The public and private systems are separate, and both produce excellent outcomes in some circumstances for prisoners.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

In June, a 15-year-old and an older accomplice broke into my house to steal my car. Thankfully, Humberside police force was excellent. It found those two and made sure they were imprisoned and put on remand. However, that 15-year-old was released on tag but apparently has removed the tag and stolen two further vehicles, which have been crashed into community buildings and people’s homes. Can the Minister please explain to my community how the current system is working to protect them?

[Robert Buckland]

I listened to hon. Lady’s case with care and concern. I think it merits a further conversation, and I will have that with her.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

May I make some progress? With the greatest respect to my colleagues, I shall finish the point about what the new DAPO will mean. It will be issued by the police. It may, for example, require the perpetrator to leave the home of the victim for up to 48 hours, and the issue of that notice will then trigger a police application to a magistrates court for a longer-term DAPO to protect the victim.

Of course, it will not always be the case that a single incident necessitates the issuing of a notice. That being the case, the Bill also allows for a victim, the police or any other person, with the permission of the court, to apply for one of these orders, and it would also be open to a judge or magistrate to decide for themselves to make a DAPO as a corollary to existing proceedings in the criminal, civil or family court. So, this is a fully flexible instrument. It can be tailored by the court to meet the needs of the individual victim, and it would be for the courts then to determine its length, or indeed to decide that it should be open-ended until such time as a further order was made. Really importantly, the court will be able to attach not just restrictions but positive requirements. For example, an order could prohibit the perpetrator from contacting the victim, require that perpetrator to attend a behavioural change programme and compel them to wear an electronic tag to monitor compliance with an exclusion zone around the victim’s home. Crucially, breach of that order will be a criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I take the opportunity to welcome the tone that is being struck this afternoon. That is incredibly important.

On the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making about DAPOs, we already have a system whereby if a person is convicted of a domestic abuse crime, there is a possibility that there will be a light sentence; they could end up with a suspended sentence. That is what happened in the case of a constituent of mine—the perpetrator got a suspended sentence. Processes were put in place to ensure that the perpetrator did not repeatedly harass or contact the victim, but nevertheless that continued, and there was no action, despite those breaches of conditions, to re-arrest the perpetrator. So what confidence can victims have that the new process will be any better than the present one?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady has given a powerful illustration of the importance of this order, because it can be run alongside a criminal conviction. So even if there is a suspended sentence, as in the case that she cited, an order can be passed—a DAPO—that will have its own criminal consequences. It gives that extra strength, that extra purchase, not just to the authorities but to the victim, to know that there is a mechanism by which the perpetrator can be held to account if they breach the terms. With respect, I think this is an important additional element, but I bear what the hon. Lady says very much in mind.

I want to ensure that we get these new orders right, so we need to make the whole process as simple as possible for victims, and also for the police and others when navigating it. I want these new orders to be effective in changing abusive behaviour and protecting victims. We shall pilot these provisions, therefore, in a small number of areas before rolling them out nationally, so that issues of the sort that the hon. Lady and others have raised can be ironed out and dealt with, to make the provisions as effective as possible. The worst thing to do in these circumstances—we have all been here before as legislators—is to talk nobly and grandly about our intentions, pass the legislation and then find that nothing has changed. When we do so, all we have done is to raise victims’ expectations, only to cruelly let them down. We are all responsible for that, so let us get this right.

If we are to strengthen the protection afforded to victims, we need to employ more measures to keep them safe. So, in addition to the DAPOs, the Bill seeks to build on two other preventive tools: the domestic violence disclosure scheme, which we all know as Clare’s law; and the polygraph testing of high-harm perpetrators.

Clare’s law has been in operation for over five years and I can see many Members—myself included—who campaigned very hard as Back Benchers to get that moving and to make a difference. It has been a success. Just to remind the House, the scheme has two elements: the right to ask and the right to know.

The right to ask allows an individual—or a relevant third party, such as a family member—to ask the police to check whether a partner, or ex-partner, has had a violent or abusive past. If police records show that an individual might be at risk of domestic abuse from their partner or ex-partner, the police can consider the disclosure of relevant information.

Under the right to know, the police may proactively decide to disclose information to keep a potential victim safe. In the year to March 2018, there were over 5,500 disclosures under that scheme—a welcome and encouraging statistic. However, I am clear, and the police accept this, that Clare’s law does not always operate as well as it should, which is why the Bill puts the guidance underpinning the scheme on a statutory footing, and places a duty on police forces to have regard to that guidance. We believe that will help to raise awareness of the scheme, increase the number of disclosures and ensure greater consistency across England and Wales.

I acknowledge that, in contrast to the rest of the Bill, there has been a degree of scepticism about polygraph testing, including from the Joint Committee, but I can assure the House that it is not a panacea—it is not a gimmick; it is a genuine attempt better to protect victims. I will tell the House why. It has been used successfully in the management of sexual offenders for the past six years. In that context, it has been shown conclusively that polygraph examinations provide useful information—useful intelligence—including what is disclosed by the offender, to help those responsible for supervision better to manage the risk of reoffending.

Given that evidence, I suggest that we at least test whether there are similar benefits to be secured in the management of high-risk domestic abuse offenders. To that end, the Bill allows the National Probation Service to conduct a three-year pilot among that cohort and, if successful, to roll the scheme out.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill (First sitting)

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Q I am conscious of time. I wonder whether either of our other two witnesses has anything to add on the first question.

David Hodson: May I respond briefly to that last point? I would go even further than Nigel. Lawyers specifically go out of their way to make sure that the real heart of the reason why the relationship may have broken down is not in the allegations of unreasonable behaviour, to remove any cause for greater animosity and concern. As practising lawyers we go out of our way to pull back from the distress that these allegations would cause. So although, as Nigel says, it will always be true, we do not put down the real problems at the heart of the relationship, to avoid that.

If I can come to the Law Society’s position, we have throughout supported no-fault divorce and we have been keenly supportive of Resolution in all the steps it has taken. Nigel and I were actively involved in 1996 when that legislation went through. We are keen to support no-fault divorce and actively support the principle of this legislation. We actively support a period of notice as the way of dealing with it, rather than a period of separation, which can have artificial and discriminatory elements.

We have a number of concerns, however, about the structure of the Bill, including the way it is set out, and there are a number of flaws in the Bill. We want the legislation to go through and we want no-fault divorce, but we believe that the Bill should be amended in certain respects before it completes its passage through Parliament.

Aidan Jones: At Relate we believe that the outdated fault-based divorce system leads to animosity and causes conflict between parents, which we believe harms children. We think that it is better to have a system that supports co-parenting in future. We recently did a survey in which 64% of divorcees who responded said that placing blame for the divorce made the process worse for them. There are some quite stark quotes about how difficult that process was. For example: “things had been civil up until that point, very straightforward. Then, after divorce papers, it turned into a war and no one wants to accept blame or responsibility.” We strongly support the changes to the law, as set out.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Q Good morning, it is good to have you with us today. I wondered if you could expand on the changes that were proposed in the Family Law Act 1996, and explain why they have not come forward. What do you think has changed between 1996 and now that means that this legislation should be brought forward? I do not know who wants to answer first.

Nigel Shepherd: I am happy to do so. I think the 1996 Act was extremely complicated. This Bill has the beauty of simplicity, and for the right reason: it concentrates on the principal problem of the fault-based system. The 1996 Act introduced various things such as information meetings and different periods for different situations where there were children or a dispute about the divorce. I think it got wrapped up with those complications, so it was never implemented. It has taken a long time to get where we are today.

I also think that public attitudes have changed considerably. I think people are looking for autonomy and to say, “We are adults, and if one of us believes that the marriage is over, we should have a dignified, constructive way of ending it that focuses on the future, not the past.”

David Hodson: It went into Parliament a fairly good piece of legislation; the perception of many lawyers is that it came out vastly more complicated. It went in with a nine-month period of notice—the structure was the same—but it came out, as Nigel said, with a two or three-stage process. Eighteen months was almost the minimum; if there were children, that went up to 21 months. There was even a provision that it could be further.

The general perception was that it made it far more difficult; although there were media headlines about an easier divorce, everyone knew that it would make it far more difficult as it made it longer. To a certain extent, a longer divorce does not help the public, so there was not too much unhappiness that that particular model as it came out of Parliament did not go through. Why it never went through is a political matter, which perhaps is another matter. The length of the period was the primary problem with the legislation as it came out of Parliament—it was far too long.

[Melanie Onn]

Q Nigel, earlier in your evidence you mentioned that people cannot afford to wait two years. Can you explain that a little more? Afford it in what sense—financially or emotionally?

Nigel Shepherd: The position at the moment is that under the legislation for financial remedy, relief, maintenance or transfer of property, the court can make an order only when we have reached what is now the decree nisi stage, which will be the conditional order stage under the proposals. If you need to move on financially, you need to access the orders; even by agreement, the court cannot do that until there is a conditional order.

A two-year wait is a lifetime. Once people have reached the sad conclusion that their marriage is over, they are told that they can get on with some things but will have to come back in two years’ time and relive that, so when faced with the option of, “All you need to do is put down some mild allegations of behaviour, and we can get on with it,” that it the choice they make. That is why those percentages of fault-based grounds are so high. Even where people agree that it is a game they are playing to get through, it still increases conflict; you can still derail those negotiations and have an impact on the family.

[Melanie Onn]

Q I have one final question. David, you mentioned flaws in the legislation, and you have also talked about the need for some amendments. Is there a danger, as we go through this process, that we end up in the same situation as in 1996, where there are multiple amendments and we make what is currently quite a simple piece of legislation far more complex than it needs to be?

David Hodson: From the legal profession, we desperately hope not. We want a simple process. Despite what may be thought, family lawyers try to settle all our cases. We try to deal with the crucial elements—issues regarding children and finance—but divorce is not a matter on which lawyers would want to spend any amount of time. We want it to go through smoothly.

Will it change the parliamentary process? We hope not. I agree with Nigel: we think the spirit of the age has changed since 1996. Our perception is of a far greater willingness to accept no-fault divorce from those categories that might not previously have been supportive. The changes that certainly the Law Society would like are not substantial; they do not change the structure or concept of a period over notice. They just try to protect the interest, particularly of the so-called respondents—the sole petition where the person may not have fully been expecting a petition to come through.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Q Could you focus on children for a moment? What proportion of divorces involve children? How will the Bill promote their welfare?

Nigel Shepherd: I do not have the figures to hand, but I can certainly come back to you on that. Self-evidently, a very considerable number involve children under the age of 16. I am sure that is the case. Professor Liz Trinder may have the specific figures to hand. Clearly, children are at the heart of this process. As David said, as Resolution members and family lawyers doing the job properly we are trying all the time to help people focus on what really matters. The children are absolutely the first consideration in that. We know from the research that conflict is damaging to children. It is not necessarily divorce itself; it is the way you divorce. This Bill will help at the beginning to have a more constructive approach to that and help people focus on what matters.

David Hodson: It is curious. The reasons for a divorce do not reflect on children issues and they will not be dealt with in financial issues, and we do not deal with them. But it is the psychodynamic of the couple that every so often a client will say to one, three or four months under way, “I still resent the fact that I am the respondent. You do know that this is equally to blame,” and we say, “Yes, we do, but it won’t have any bearing on children or financing”. However many times we say it to our clients, there is a residual feeling in their mind: “How am I the respondent? I shouldn’t be. I may be partly to blame, but I’m not wholly to blame”. It is the black-and-white element that we have one petitioner and one respondent.

One of the things the legislation has to bring through is that we have to review how we call people in this process. It is the softer elements around the legislation that are as important as the harder elements. For example, let us not get rid of the idea of an applicant and a respondent; let us have “in the marriage of”, and let us name the parties. Even if one person applies for a divorce and the other one responds to it, let us call it a divorce between two people, without having a litigious element in the heading. I think Relate and others would also certainly want to support those softer elements, which are crucial to this process as Parliament and society look at amending this law.

Aidan Jones: From my perspective, the best I can do is quote one of our senior practice consultants, who says:

“The proposed legislation sends out a much healthier message for children. I have known plenty of couples over the years who have agreed together to separate, but one had to cite unreasonable behaviour and the other had to go along with it. This can cause issues. Blame is toxic and never helpful. A great deal of the work we do in the counselling room is around helping people to understand this and to take responsibility for their own actions. It is possible to have a healthy divorce. This legislation will make that easier to achieve”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Why would you make that assumption? Why would they not know about the consultation and why would they not respond? On what basis do you make that case?

Mandip Ghai: When we spoke to people on our advice line, they did not know about it. I am basing it on my experience of speaking to survivors on our telephone advice lines. The reality for those women who we hear on our advice lines and who are going through the divorce process is that they find having to state the behaviour particularly difficult. From our experience, removing the fault-based system would help them to get through the divorce process in a safer way.

[Melanie Onn]

Q Is there evidence that demonstrates clearly that no-fault divorces are any less damaging to children than divorces in general? Regardless of whether fault and blame are apportioned, it is still a traumatic event for families, and it involves changed circumstances. We do not have this provision here, but could you point us towards something from north of the border or overseas that suggests that it would definitely ease the anguish of families in that situation?

Professor Trinder: Just now I mentioned that 60% of divorces in England and Wales were based on fault. North of the border in Scotland it is 6% to 7%. Are we, south of the border, so much more badly behaved in marriages than the Scots? [Laughter.]Again, it’s a game. The system is gamed, and the law currently incentivises conflict, because the only way to get a divorce within a reasonable time is to make allegations of fault. It is more likely that 50% of divorces are about behaviour because you do not need an admission, as you do with adultery. In the surveys that we ran as part of our study, that was much more likely to cause difficulties in sorting out child arrangements and to mean contested financial proceedings. The point is that divorces are going to be incredibly stressful and, in many cases, conflictual. The problem is that the law adds needlessly to that conflict. The fault process is a routine and a legal charade that adds nothing. Through allegations and seeing behaviour in black and white, it can derail couples who are managing their divorce reasonably well. It can derail things in a way that adds nothing to the process, and is just a needless problem that does not need to be there.

[The Chair]

Q Do you have anything to add?

Mandip Ghai: I agree with that. Lots of research shows that it is harmful for children to live in a family in which there is domestic abuse, so anything that helps survivors of domestic abuse to separate and leave that situation would prevent any further harm to children, caused by witnessing domestic abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Courts]

Q How do their divorce rates compare with ours?

Professor Trinder: They are very similar. It is also worth noting that the divorce rate between England, Wales and Scotland is almost identical, yet we have 60% fault, while Scotland has 6% to 7%. Fault is not influencing the divorce rate at all. That makes sense because divorces are granted in England and Wales and, with the exception of Mrs Owens, fault is not a barrier at all.

[Melanie Onn]

Q Mrs Owens’ case brought this to prominence in recent years. How many other such cases have there been that I may have missed?

Professor Trinder: It is extremely unusual. About 2% of divorces in England and Wales intend to defend. Most of those cannot actually continue with that, and only about a dozen out of 100,000 cases go to a fully contested trial each year. Owens is the only case that we are aware of in the last two decades in which the decree has been refused. We also looked at defended cases and had a sample of 74, and none of those were upheld. It is worth noting that in those defended cases, most of them were not defences of the marriage. It was not somebody saying, “No, I don’t believe that my marriage has broken down.” Mostly, they were triggered by the law itself. People were objecting to the allegations of behaviour made against them, including what appear to be perpetrators who defended allegations of quite serious domestic abuse. Because the court tries to settle cases, rather than go to a fully contested hearing, what happened typically was that the particulars were stripped out, so the line went through references to very serious assaults and they were removed from the particulars.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q You heard the evidence from the previous panel about a barrier to divorce being the cost of the fee. Is that something you have any evidence for or opinion on?

Mandip Ghai: Yes, I would agree with that. Obviously, fee exemptions are available, but lots of people will not fall within the criteria to be exempt from the fee and will not be able to pay the £550. For survivors particularly, the option of sharing the fee with the respondent is not there, and even if she is able to get a costs order from the court to say that the respondent has to pay the court fee, usually he does not pay—

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill (Second sitting)

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, but I wonder who he thinks it serves in the long run to apportion such blame.

[Eddie Hughes]

I completely understand the hon. Lady’s point. That is why I am trying to set the context: my very personal view is that the system worked in my particular case, but I completely accept that it will be different for others, as we heard in our evidence session this morning.

My point is simply that we have all visited websites that have asked us to tick a box to agree to terms and conditions. It is highly doubtful whether any of us has ever read all the terms and conditions before ticking the box, because we know that we are entering into a contract that will be really easy to get out of. We have all done it—we have all pressed the button to enter into a contract really quickly, because we know that it is easy to get out of. I am scared about any move in that direction with regard to marriage, because my personal belief is that it is more important than that, as a contract and a spiritual union.

Anyway, I have some points and questions for the Minister about clause 1. The written and oral evidence submitted to the Committee by Mr Hodson raises several key points that really engage with the clause and that arguably highlight the need for amendments that I hope the Government will consider.

The 20-week reflection period is clearly of huge importance. The Bill is about removing fault from divorce, not about minimising the opportunity within the divorce process for couples to gain access to mediation and have a rethink. This may come as a surprise to some right hon. and hon. Members, but in some instances the first occasion on which a spouse finds out that their marriage is in difficulty is the commencement of divorce proceedings. That is the first opportunity they have, with that knowledge, to try to put things right. At a time when the annual cost of family breakdown to the Exchequer stands at £51 billion, according to the Relationships Foundation’s annual assessment, it is imperative that policy makers and legislators seize every opportunity provided by the 20-week reflection period to maximise the opportunities for mediation and reconciliation. Without any expression of commitment to the importance of marriage, the Bill will sound very hollow.

One key measure by which the success or failure of the removal of fault in the legislation will be judged will be the extent to which it creates a better environment within which couples can rethink and save their marriage. To this end, the 20-week reflection period defined in clause 1 is clearly of the utmost importance. At the moment, on the basis of the evidence submitted by Mr Hodson, it seems vulnerable on several points.

First, in a case in which one member of a couple initiates divorce proceedings, if the 20-week clock starts ticking from the moment that they initiate, as clause 1 currently proposes, the other spouse will on some occasions inevitably end up with less than a 20-week reflection period. That is clearly neither fair nor transparent. Will the Government amend the Bill so that it is clear that the 20-week clock will only start to tick from the moment it is clear that both members of the couple know about it?

Secondly, in order for the 20-week reflection period to work well, it is plainly important that a good part of the 20-week period, if not all of it, is made a litigation-free zone, so that the focus can be on mediation. That must extend to ancillary financial litigation. Will the Government amend the Bill so that at least most of the 20-week period, if not all of it, is made a litigation-free zone, including ancillary financial litigation?

Thirdly, will the Government consider changing the point in the process at which the partner seeking the divorce should lodge their statement of irretrievable breakdown? Having it at the start, as the Bill proposes, makes it extremely difficult for the other partner to respond constructively if the intention is for a period of reflection.

Finally, mindful of the importance of the 20-week period referred to in clause 1 for reconciliation and mediation, what new provisions will the Government make to ensure that all couples are offered effective reconciliation and mediation specifically during this period, in an effort to increase the numbers of divorce proceedings that are not concluded, thereby increasing the number of marriages saved?

Prisons and Probation

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), and I echo his remarks about the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who has an incredibly impressive knowledge of this subject—I suggest that she is a little wasted on the Back Benches.

I want to focus my remarks on the impact of prison on prisoners and their families, and to consider whether prisons are fulfilling the role that we expect of them. I am increasingly receiving communications from constituents who are in prison, or visits from their family members in my surgeries, who are deeply concerned about just how safe prisons are. I have met families with grave concerns about suicide risk, repeated incidents of self-harm, lack of attention to mental health conditions, and issues with education and family support.

Most recently I had a father and partner of a prisoner come to see me about a young man who is in prison. He has given himself the most appalling injuries, having forced into his arm a pen and two metal bars. That happened while he was in HMP Humber. His injuries were left untreated for so long that by the time he was moved to HMP Hull, which then took him to hospital for the rods to be removed, the hospital was completely unwilling to do that, because there was too great a risk in taking them out. He has been left in a physical condition that means he has repeated infections, fevers and risk of sepsis, because the prison failed to take action at the time.

There might be very little public sympathy for that young man, but society has accepted that prison is a remedy for criminal acts. We have also accepted that rehabilitation, as well as punishment and public safety, is the purpose of prison. While people are self-harming, they are in absolutely no position to be rehabilitated.

I have no doubt that prison officers struggle with monitoring appropriately all the individuals under their watch, due to staffing numbers, high turnover and high sickness levels. However, sadly, I have also had brought to my attention situations where, for whatever reason, officers are involved not in the safeguarding and management of prisoners, but either in ignoring their needs altogether, because they are quiet and compliant, or in assaults against inmates. Another constituent contacted me to tell me about the times he was assaulted by prison officers, who are in a position of authority and great trust. He claimed that he was seriously beaten on four separate occasions during the 14 months he was in HMP Humber. After he complained to the governor, he found that the CCTV of the incidents had gone missing. I have no way to prove whether that story is accurate, and I take with a pinch of salt some of the claims that are made, but how sure is the Secretary of State that incidents and complaints such as that are recorded? Prisoners are immediately less likely to be believed than those who are employed and in a position of trust. Are those instances investigated?

My office struggles to get any information out of prisons to fully and properly advise constituents and their families in a timely fashion, so what hope do those who are incarcerated have? It has the feeling of an impenetrable service and while we all might expect the walls of prisons to be suitably impenetrable, surely Members of Parliament should be able to get to the bottom of an issue and ascertain whether something has gone awry. How can CCTV footage simply have disappeared? It is a source of great frustration to this man, who was sentenced to three years and three months for joint enterprise in a robbery, that he has now been in prison for 11 years, because of indeterminate life-licence sentencing. He says that he cannot wait until the end of the year for another parole hearing, and will take his own life if this continues. I can imagine how he can get to that point—expecting to be in prison for three years but being there for 11. It seems that the primary reason for this—I have heard nothing to the contrary from the prison—is his mental health status, not his likelihood of reoffending.

The issue of indeterminate sentences is coming up more often. Of course I want to see the public protected, but I had another case in which mental health again has played a huge role in the prisoner’s circumstances. A 15-year-old boy was charged with an offence, then he was sectioned for a month. He was arrested after he came out of hospital and he sat on remand for a year. In 2013, he was sentenced to 220 days with a life licence. Six years later, he is still in custody. He has repeatedly self-harmed. I wrote to the previous Prisons Minister about this case, because of the ping-ponging between Rampton and Humbercare about who would take responsibility for his care. I could get nowhere with those organisations, and it took the Prisons Minister’s intervention to achieve a resolution. In all that time, his family have struggled to get any information out of the prison, and even to get access to their son. His withdrawal from any contact or communication led the prison to tell the family, “Well, he doesn’t want to see you.” The family has therefore had very little information, but now, thankfully, there has been some movement. It should not take intervention by Ministers for basic systems to be in place to reassure family members. When people are put in prison, they are not the only ones who suffer: their families do too, and they have done nothing wrong. Families often feel out of the loop and find it difficult to get any information. I do not know what it is like for colleagues, but my office has found it extremely difficult to get a good standard of response in a timely fashion from prisons.

My final point about probation is that at the weekend we saw many reports about how fly-tipping has increased enormously. Locally, dumping in alleyways is a huge issue for residents. Until August last year, our probation service had community payback activity that involved cleaning the alleys. That has now stopped because, apparently, it did not provide a feeling of worth for the individuals. It is private land and the council have no responsibilities over it, but tenants and landlords are not taking responsibility for it. That activity provided a useful public service, and I ask that it be reinstated as a rotational duty for community payback participants. While it may not seem to have any worth for them, it does for the wider community.

Bailiffs: Regulatory Reform

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on securing this important debate. I wish to raise a few cases that my constituents have brought to my attention, and I will focus on vulnerability, which has already been mentioned by some of my colleagues.

Constituents have contacted me in a state of real despair and great distress. One constituent has multiple health conditions, all of which qualify her to be considered vulnerable under the bailiff’s own policies and guidelines, but despite her advising the bailiff of that, her vulnerability was entirely ignored and the debt agency would not take it into consideration until my office intervened. At one stage of the interaction between my constituent and the bailiffs, rather than trying to assist or advise her constructively, she was advised that prison might be an option.

Another constituent has two young children and was pregnant with her third. She too would be considered vulnerable under the bailiff’s own policies. She regularly received threatening letters about the removal of her property and her possessions. She had so few possessions that she was regularly on the phone to my office, in tears, fearing that her children’s toys would be removed to settle some of those debts. The fact that the bailiff would not take into consideration any of the vulnerabilities detailed in its own policies until my office stepped in tells me that the current systems are not working. The extra stress placed on my constituent during her pregnancy made it even worse, and every letter sent and visit made accrued extra financial burden and added more to a debt that she already had no idea how to pay.

Another constituent was harassed by threats of the removal of belongings, and there were many visits and additional letters, ramping up those artificial charges. My office intervened and managed to put in place a reviewed payment plan, but unfortunately the bailiff entirely ignored that agreement, and the following day they turned up at my constituent’s home demanding payment. After an attempt to intimidate my constituent, we had to step in again, but when her health condition meant that she ended up in hospital and unfortunately missed a £10 payment, the bailiff was back at the door as soon as she was out of hospital, demanding payments at a much higher, unaffordable level, and saying that the debt had increased. That was not the case at all, and was completely false advice about the current situation. Fortunately, we were able to resolve the problem again, but this shows that the bailiffs’ code is falling short and self-policing is not working. Today, a clear case has been made for far better enforcement, although if that adds to the burdens of local authorities, the Government should not seek to take action without ensuring that additional resources are in place.

Future of Legal Aid

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing what has been an excellent debate.

I start by picking up on a couple of comments from the contributions so far, not least on the matter of self-representation and the fact that it leads to an increased potential for miscarriages of justice. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who has just left his place, mentioned the importance of the rule of law. Over the last couple of years, there has been an increasing reference to the rule of law in this country, as part of the debate on restoring our sovereignty; it is becoming much more important to people and is much higher up the agenda. It must be reflected in a strong and impactful justice system. Without it, we cannot continue to consider ourselves a bastion of extraordinary strength in our legal framework.

More and more in my constituency surgeries, I receive queries on matters such as immigration, although housing, welfare and family matters are also prevalent. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about the advice that is being given to people in quite complex circumstances. Very often, people arrive at my door having been given advice on Home Office procedure or relevant sections of Home Office codes and regulations by paralegals or so-called legal advisers, who are not solicitors. They have paid thousands for this erroneous advice. Those in my office, who are also not legally qualified, have to untangle the mess. Thanks to the expertise of our own Library and the resources that we have access to, we are able to point them in the right direction and give the right kind of support that they need.

There is much in this debate that I am sure the Minister is listening to very carefully. As has been mentioned, a number of advice briefings have been circulated ahead of this debate. I read the Mencap briefing, which really resonated, especially in terms of the reference that it made to low levels of legal literacy among the general population, and to the fact that there is very limited access even to basic advice, with people increasingly becoming more reliant on organisations that are unable to take on legal cases. They might be able to advise up to a certain point, but they are unable to take the matter forward and provide representation, with the result that people, without that background of knowledge and perhaps without the skills to take their case forward fully are left without a full level of support in their case.

[Mr Adrian Bailey in the Chair]

The Mencap briefing refers to the suggestion that the Government should address the problems with the supply of specialist solicitors. That is the reason why I wanted to participate in this debate and the reason for my concerns about the lack of availability of solicitors, particularly in areas like Grimsby, and around responsive criminal matters. The Library debate pack reminds us that, as we have heard already, there have been

“significant changes to criminal legal aid, particularly in relation to means testing of applicants and to rates of pay for solicitors and barristers undertaking criminal work.”

It notes that most of that has come through secondary legislation. That has made it even harder for solicitors to continue to run their practices.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) highlighted the issue of access to justice in towns, but in towns such as Grimsby, lots of solicitors have closed down their practices and moved to nearby cities, where they are more assured of getting additional work, or they have completely changed their area of speciality. The awful thing is that that fact, which I believe has come about because of the limitations around legal aid, is now being used as part of the evidential base in consultations on future local court viability.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point about the impact on firms of solicitors. I wonder whether she might be interested to know that evidence given to the Justice Committee suggested that when the Solicitors Regulation Authority took data from some 2,000 firms, 5% were at high risk of financial difficulty and 45% were at medium risk—so half were running some risk of financial difficulty. The prime mover in that was exposure to having more than half their fee income from criminal or family legal aid. It is forcing firms out of business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point, which surely must go towards the consideration of what kind of legal advice will be available around the country in the future if firms are at risk of closure because they cannot secure their anticipated income. It certainly cannot be much of a draw for those who are thinking about entering the legal profession and perhaps joining a local firm.

On Monday, a consultation was launched on listing arrangements in magistrates courts across the Humber and South Yorkshire. One issue that is highlighted in the consultation document is the changes that are coming about due to the low number of legal advisers available to cover the courts at the Grimsby site. I cannot help but think that the reason why so few legal advisers are available to cover that site is that we have seen so much closure as a result of limitations to legal aid. It almost feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy—that a decision has been made that impacts this, and is now driving yet another consultation on justice. It will have yet another impact on people’s overall access to justice, albeit in a slightly different area from the main subject of this debate.

To support that line of argument, the consultation includes a number of annexes and has various statistics to prove the necessity of the structural reform. The dates provided for these statistics run from 2017 to 2018 or from the beginning of January until the end of August 2018, none of which takes into account the number of cases and the support that was available before legal aid cuts had such an impact, reducing the number of solicitors available locally. I cannot help but think that there is an in-built bias in the consultation document, which already leads us down the route to saying that there is no requirement for the court system as it exists in that area.

The consultation document lists eight benefits while providing just two identifiable drawbacks:

“Defendants in custody who would otherwise have appeared at Barnsley, Doncaster, Beverley and Grimsby, may now need to be transported a greater distance to appear in court. This may also apply to their representatives, and others wishing to support those defendants. Producing defendants in custody at fewer sites will increase the pressure on custody facilities at those sites.”

The document fails to recognise the issue of Grimsby’s local geography—of where we are in the country. It talks about our being 33 miles from Hull, but that must be as the crow flies because it is certainly not that distance on any form of public transport. In reality, it is at least an hour’s drive for people to access those custody suites, bearing in mind the traffic in Hull and Sheffield, which are the two nearest courts that it is being suggested we will be directed to. Two hours on a bus or train to access those provisions really is not accessibility at all for people. Even if people are to drive and there are to be police officers escorting people under arrest to those sites, that will take away significant resources from police, who we would otherwise expect to be on our streets.

I have been contacted to say that exactly the same process happened in Scunthorpe, which is a 40-minute drive from Grimsby. Twelve months ago, Scunthorpe had a fully operational magistrates court with custody facilities. Just 12 months after those custody facilities were lost, the magistrates court was entirely closed. Such a process is not something that people in my area would be best served by. There does not seem to be any consideration of the additional pressures of such closures on other areas and the custody facilities at nearby suites. I think that there will be a significant limitation, in terms of cost and ability, of people’s attendance at those sites. It is likely that we will see a greater level of non-attendance. If we think about justice in its fullest meaning, and about access and support around the whole justice system, I cannot see how those two fit together in any way.

The frequently asked questions in the consultation document talk about queries on subsequent trials and mention that trials will be held at whichever sites are

“most convenient for defendants, victims and witnesses.”

I know the shadow Minister has visited my constituency, so she will be aware how precarious the public transport system is; it is incredibly difficult to get to. The FAQs conclude that the difficulties are

“likely to be few within the overall circumstances.”

I find it surprising that that kind of expediency can be given, and that it can be considered acceptable for even one person not to receive the same kind of access to justice facilities.

I want to finish with an email that a local defence solicitor sent me to make me aware of these issues. He wrote:

“A local matter has arisen which may be of interest to you which will affect the whole community. A consultation (8 weeks) has been issued by HM Courts Service proposing that from April next year all Grimsby prisoners/people from Grimsby in custody go to Hull Magistrates Court to be dealt with and not Grimsby. Grimsby will no longer deal with custody cases. Local people from Grimsby will have their cases dealt with by Magistrates in Hull who have no connection to our area. This is exactly what happened in Scunthorpe a short time ago, their custody work was moved here to Grimsby and within 12 months the Court was closed altogether. All agencies in the local Criminal Justice believe the move is the first step to close Grimsby Magistrates Court and are opposed to the proposals. We are to fight against this but as with the fate of many Courts we fear we may be fighting a losing battle...Any support from you would be greatly appreciated...This”—

decision—

“will destroy local justice for local people.”

I hope the Minister will bear that in mind in her closing comments.

Domestic Abuse Victims and Family Courts

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech, and I congratulate her on securing the debate. Does she agree that that loophole in the system makes those—usually women—who have been victims of domestic violence victims twice over, not only in the attacks that they have sustained but in a court setting?

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely. It is, fundamentally, revictimisation and—if the Minister cares to browse the Equality Act 2010—illegal. There is a very real case for a public sector equality duty on the basis of gender to be made against existing practice in the family court. If such practice does not change soon, that is absolutely the route that people such as me will take, because our public sector is not meeting that duty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely. The Minister will no doubt respond by saying that the Government have made changes to legal aid in civil and family court cases involving domestic abuse, but every single day I am notified of at least one case of domestic abuse victims not being able to access legal aid in the family court. I am writing lots and lots of letters to the Legal Aid Agency to remind it of its duty to victims of domestic abuse and of the ruling on how long someone has to be free from violence or abuse. That limit was changed from two years to five years by the Government, but that was thanks once again to campaigners taking them to court—the Government did not make that change out of the kindness of their heart.

[Melanie Onn]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Has there been any analysis of the long-term mental health impact on victims of cross-examination by their perpetrators? The justice system is facilitating and enabling such cross-examination.

[Jess Phillips]

I certainly do not know of any. I will mention the recent study by Queen Mary University of London, in partnership with Women’s Aid, of how people are treated in the family courts. I am not aware of any Government reviews of the effect of litigants in person and, more broadly, of people being cross-examined by people who abused them, but I would certainly like to see one. If our courts and the Department are happy for that to go on, it is only right that they review whether it should continue.

Queen Mary University of London found that 24% of domestic violence victims who had gone through the family court system had been cross-examined by their perpetrator—someone who may have raped them, kept them prisoner or made them look on while they abused their children. We have the “achieving best evidence” standards in this country. I am not sure I can remember the bit in those standards that says the best way to get evidence in a justice environment is to allow someone who is utterly terrifying and has abused the victim to question them. I am not sure that we currently meet any sort of standard for achieving best evidence.

James Munby made it clear that the hands of family courts are tied—they simply cannot stop that cross-examination. Legislation is not in place to allow them to stop it. I know the Government want to stop it, too, and I am glad they heard our calls about that. I suggest that they do it. When the right honourable—I am not sure whether he is right honourable, and I am certainly not sure whether he is right or honourable—Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) embarrassed them on upskirting, a Government Bill was suddenly introduced to address that. It has been widely publicised that the House will sit for two days next week. I would gladly come back then to see through a piece of legislation that has been passed once already—it has already gone through rigorous scrutiny by the Clerks and the House. I would gladly pop down on a train from Birmingham to stop the cross-examination of victims of domestic abuse by their abusers.

The second area that everyone who has been in touch with me has given a lot of attention is practice direction 12J and new practice direction 3AA. I believe practice direction 12J was reaffirmed for magistrates courts and our family court system because, frankly, it was not being followed. For those who are not as geeky as I am about the old practice directions in the family court system, practice direction 12J basically undoes the idea that someone who has been abusive has a right to see their children. That is not an automatic right, especially in cases where there is domestic abuse. Practice direction 12J gives that steer to people making such judgments. I handled hundreds of cases involving domestic abuse, and I cannot say I ever noticed that practice direction being used. I have great faith in the Magistrates Association, and I believe from what it wrote to me this week that that direction has been affirmed.

I wonder whether the Minister will join me in stressing the importance of this very simple message: “If you beat, coerce, humiliate and abuse your children’s mother, you waive your right to be their father until the moment the non-abusive parent decides otherwise.” I am not saying for one second that no one who commits domestic abuse should be able to see their children, but they should not have a right to demand to see them where the non-abusive parent does not wish those children—and the children do not wish—to be put in that situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I agree entirely. The plain and simple fact is that currently it does not protect them. The family court system fails victims of domestic abuse more often than it succeeds. I say that with absolute confidence.

[Melanie Onn]

What does my hon. Friend consider the ramifications of that failure to be for those victims? Does she think a lack of confidence in the judicial system, and particularly in the family courts system, could give rise to people staying in a domestic violence situation, thereby prolonging their situation and perhaps causing greater damage to their health?

[Jess Phillips]

There are lots of case studies in the papers in front of me where the consequence of a lack of trust or of a lack of safe and free access to our justice system is that women return. Women are now convinced that they will not win in a family courts setting. I would stay with somebody who beat me black and blue every day if it meant that I got to watch over my children and did not have to leave them alone with him. If someone has a violent partner and the choice is, “Leave them with this man, who you know is violent, or take the beating on behalf of your children,” we would struggle to find a single parent in the land who would do anything other than return.

The worst ramifications are, of course, that we are leaving people in violent homes. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge has handled one of the worst cases of failings in the family courts—the case of her constituent Claire Throssell, who is a personal hero to many of us in this House, and my hon. Friend will talk about that later. The ramifications are the deaths of women and the deaths of children. That can no longer go on.

I cannot understand why the special measures issue has not been sorted yet. It is not that hard to sort out. Every single court in the land has a robing room for the judges. How about putting the victims in there? I think the judges could put their robes on in the corridor. We manage it—I put my coat on just earlier. I have a fancy job, but I do not need a special room.

On the issue of special measures in courts, James Munby has said:

“In too many courts the only available special measure is a screen or curtains round the witness box. What, for example, about the safe waiting rooms for which the APPG has…called?”

I feel that he is personally talking to me in this quote. He goes on to say:

“The video links in too many family courts are a disgrace—prone to the link failing and with desperately poor sound and picture quality… The problem, of course, is one of resources, and responsibility lies, as I have said, with HMCTS and, ultimately with ministers.”

Those are the words of the outgoing president of the family division. Special measures are something we should invest in, and we should do so immediately. I welcome whatever the Minister can say today about any schemes currently in place to improve the situation, because 61% of the women surveyed by Women’s Aid and Queen Mary University of London were offered no special measures at all in the family courts.

Another issue that was raised was specialist support and advocacy for women going through the family justice system. I believe schemes are under way to pilot that issue up in the Northumberland area, where the brilliant Dame Vera Baird is the police and crime commissioner. There will be lots and lots of evidence of the value of the independent domestic violence adviser role in the criminal court and in community-based domestic violence services. With independent sexual violence advisers, the arguments are long ago won: having these advisers maintains victims within the process and means that they understand the process and can continue to try to get their rapists convicted.

There is no Government scheme or nationally recognised network for women facing civil issues through the civil courts, and I might argue that there is a far greater need there, not only because of the issue of litigants in person, but because—in an era when we have no representation for a lot of these women and many do not have any legal aid—having a system of advocacy in our family courts so that victims can understand exactly where they are meant to sit and what they are meant to present is something the Government should look at funding. Independent domestic violence advisers were launched under the last Labour Government, with match funding from local authorities and the Home Office, and I recommend that the Ministry of Justice creates a similar scheme, in partnership with the Home Office, for the family courts system. Certainly, every single one of the organisations that wrote to me called for that.

The next issue that everybody raised, which we have already touched on, is legal aid. Legal aid is currently available to victims of domestic abuse going through the family courts system, but that is still on a means-tested basis. There are all sorts of reasons why that system continues to fail victims of domestic abuse, meaning that they cannot access legal aid. The Law Society, which has written jointly with Women’s Aid to the Secretary of State for Justice, has called for a review into all the things I am talking about, but it and the Magistrates Association wanted me to stress today that the capital element of means-testing for legal aid is massively disadvantaging women.

Yes, a woman may well have been left after her ex-partner has put her through the wringer and no doubt left his name on her property, and it has probably taken her two or three years to get it off. She has already been through all that process, and she has managed to maintain a home where she and her children live, and that home now means she cannot access legal aid. I am not talking about the people who buy houses around Westminster; these are people living in my constituency, where it is about £120,000 for a three-bed semi, with one car on the drive. They are not rich people, and their capital means nothing in terms of their ability to pay. We cannot for a second suggest that they should be selling their house to protect their children from a violent perpetrator, yet, seemingly, we do suggest that.

Everybody has called for an end to the capital means test, which in many circumstances means that the equity in someone’s home should be used to fund legal costs. Of course, that is a double-edged sword, because if I were to use the equity in my home, I would then lose my home and would be much less financially secure—and when a woman is not so financially secure and has a precarious housing situation, it will be about 15 minutes before a social worker is saying to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service that she should not be looking after her children, and we will end up in exactly the same situation we were in at the beginning. We are exacerbating things.

I am here to tell hon. Members from personal experience that, currently, victims of domestic abuse in the family courts system are, more often than not, unable to access legal aid. That has to change. The problem in the family courts with perpetrators, which I highlighted at the beginning, has been caused by this Government’s policy on legal aid—let us not use these things to twist the knife.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Melanie Onn Excerpts

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

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union urged us to vote for the Bill, and said:

“Providing certainty and stability in the lead up to our withdrawal is a key priority. Businesses and individuals need reassurance that there will be no unexpected changes to our laws after exit day and that is exactly what the repeal Bill provides.”

If the Government really wished to provide certainty they would guarantee in the Bill that there would not be any reductions in workers’ rights post Brexit. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have gone to great lengths to reassure us that people will not see any reductions in their rights at work under this Government, but the White Paper covers only two of the three main ways in which rights could be reduced after Brexit. The third is by leaving those rights in secondary legislation, coupled with the powers that the Government have sought to grant themselves in the Bill, which would allow any Government in future to water down basic privileges that people enjoy at work today. The only assurance we are being offered that that will not happen is the words of the Secretary of State asking us to trust him and his Government. I am afraid that it just is not good enough to ask us to place our faith blindly in the Government. The point has already been made in this debate that even if we were inclined to trust him based on his record, those around him continue to fail to convince us that they would carry through their lightly given assurances.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), in his excellent speech on Thursday, quoted the Foreign Secretary, the International Trade Secretary and the International Development Secretary, who have all made their true intentions known on this issue. He could have added to that list the Transport Secretary, who said in 2014 that he wants to “slay health and safety culture”, or even the Prime Minister, who said that the Labour Government’s adoption of the social chapter showed their weakness in standing up to trade unions. According to the Prime Minister, the only reason a Government would ensure that part-time workers are treated the same as full-time workers, ensure that no one is made to work more than a maximum of 48 hours a week, or secure leave for pregnant women, is if a trade union made them do it.

I cannot in good conscience support the Government’s Bill, which I fundamentally believe fails to protect the scrutiny role of Parliament, and therefore puts the rights and interests of working people at even greater risk. I genuinely hope that Ministers will consider carefully and take on board the well thought out objections to the Bill from those on the Government Benches. However, I cannot share those Members’ optimism that the Government are listening all that closely.