Prison Safety

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill]

That is entirely correct. Heavens, one would have thought we had learned that lesson from the failures of the old Victorian silent and solitary system. Rehabilitation can only ever work when people are out of their cells and in workshops and education classes. Unless they do that, they will not get anywhere, and the regime has to be safe for the officers to get them out of their cells. That is why we have to tackle this problem at root.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huq]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady is right. I am probably so old in politics that I can remember a constituency configured that way in the past. She is quite right—it comes back to this same circle.

People who say that the only answer is more and more imprisonment and more and more lockdown perhaps ought to go into prisons more. There are an awful lot of people—even people who, frankly, deserve to be in there for some time—who are none the less interested in engaging in purposeful activity. That makes them less inclined to behave in a way that threatens safety and gets them involved in gangs or other forms of violence. It is a win-win at every level. Whatever the level of the sentence, providing such activity is a good and, basically, a morally right thing to do. However, we cannot put prison officers or instructors into environments where it is not safe for people to be out of their cells to get that education and personal activity. That is why getting the regime safe is critical to everything.

[Richard Arkless]

I add my voice to those of others on the sterling work that the hon. Gentleman has done in leading the Justice Committee since my election in May last year.

I reiterate the point about the vicious cycle that the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) touched on. The lack of resources means that prisoners are locked in their cells for 23 hours a day and cannot get purposeful activity—there are not enough prison officers to construct it. The lack of purposeful activity then means they are predisposed to violence and to not being rehabilitated through the system. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a vicious cycle. The key, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) said, is to grasp the nettle by either reducing the prison population or resourcing prisons properly, so that prisoners come out into society rehabilitated.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I am grateful for his support for all our work on the Justice Committee, because although justice and prison matters are devolved to Scotland, we can learn lessons from each other about how things work across the whole of the United Kingdom. We do have to break that vicious circle. Resource is important, and to be fair, when our report was published, the Government did put in extra resource, which is welcome and to be commended. We are now saying that we have to see the detail of how we can monitor the use of that resource, so that it is used to the very best advantage. That is the most important thing that we need to be saying as we go forward.

I know many Members wish to speak, so I will conclude. I am glad that there is going to be a prison safety and reform plan in the autumn, and I gather that legislation is likely to be brought forward. I understand that the shape of it is not always possible to commit to greatly in advance, but it is really important that we maintain the pledge made in the Queen’s Speech that prison reform would be a key part of the Government’s agenda. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind. I am not going to press him now to say what the shape of the legislation will be, but he could give us commitments to provide more details following the Government response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I think that it is the first time I have done so, but hopefully it will not be the last. I have something of a dual role in today’s proceedings, in that I am a member of the Justice Committee, but I am also the Front-Bench Member summing up for the Scottish National party. I shall take the latter of those roles first because, inevitably, such has been the detail in today’s contributions, much of what I was originally going to say may have been superseded. I will go through some of those speeches before I make any points on matters that may have been missing from the debate.

Ms Vaz, you were not in the Chair when the debate was kicked off by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee. He captured the mood of the Committee and the report succinctly when he said that it was time to be blunt. The situation is “terrible”—to use the word chosen not by him but by the former Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst also touched on the fact that, to put it even more bluntly, things are at crisis stage. The report clearly indicates that and the Chair has clearly said it. I only hope that the message sinks in with the Government.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) gave an extremely eloquent address and provided a useful snapshot of evidence showing how much and how rapidly the situation has deteriorated. He put forward an excellent case to demonstrate that, as most people have said, the Government’s reply was thin at best. He encapsulated the frustration: on one hand the new Secretary of State says that safety in prisons and prison reform is her No. 1 priority; on the other the Government response to the report appears extremely thin, which casts doubt on her assertion about priorities.

I listened with interest, as I always do, to the speech given by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in his typically robust and charismatically dissenting style. I must stress that I would like to distance myself from much of what he said. I am not sure that a holiday home in Shipley is for me, given some of his comments; but of course I assume that his constituents want the best for everyone, as I do. I do not think that we solve any problems by locking people up if, otherwise, they have a chance of rehabilitation. I accept the point that 69% of people who go to prison on short sentences reoffend, but I cannot understand the logic of saying that 100% of people with community sentences go to prison. Not all of them do. Of the people on short sentences, 100% had had community sentences; but that does not mean that 100% of those who served community sentences ended up on short prison sentences. I make that distinction, but I stand to be corrected if I have picked it up incorrectly.

I of course would distance myself from the views of the hon. Member for Shipley on foreign aid and on short sentences. I ask the Minister seriously to consider the example we have set in Scotland, by reducing short sentences as much as possible and recognising that placing someone in jail for the relevant types of offences dramatically reduces their life chances thereafter, with respect to re-employment and other prospects. Those things might be open to them if they had not been incarcerated, but once they have it seems difficult to pedal back. However, I dissent with respect, as always. I was both extremely perturbed and pleased, in the same breath, to have an email from the hon. Member for Shipley yesterday evening saying “I agree with Richard on all counts.” I thank him for his constructive approach.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who is not on the Justice Committee, nevertheless has, I understand, a keen interest in the matters in question, on account of the prison in his constituency. I was interested to hear him make a point that we had not focused on in particular detail—the importance of good governance. The hon. Gentleman was right to raise that. It is an important part of the picture.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who has left the Chamber for more pressing constituency boundary issues, was right to say that the spotlight has never shone so brightly on the prison estate as it does now. She has a wealth of experience in dealing with stakeholders from the prison estate, and when she says something in such clear words, people should prick up their ears and listen. She made a poignant point: to say that reducing prison numbers is being soft on criminals gets things upside down. It shows the opposite. If we could manage the prison population and turn prisons into rehabilitative centres we would be giving more protection to wider society; because we would reduce the prospect of criminals leaving prison and reoffending. That is very important.

The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) gave us an excellent perspective on the continuation of themes from one Justice Committee to the next. I was not fortunate enough to be a member of the previous Committee, and I gained perspective from hearing that the current issues are not arising for the first time. There has been continuity of concern and it is excellent that we had the hon. Gentleman’s experience in the debate.

The former Minister, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), was right to express, as most of us, embarrassingly, failed to do, his appreciation for the public service given by prison officers. I completely agree. He said that he was sad when he spoke to them, and I completely concur. We visited HMP Wandsworth a number of months ago, and when I saw the ashen-faced appearance of the prison officers, I was sad—very sad. They want to do a good job, rehabilitate prisoners and do good in society, but they simply do not have the resource support. The reason why people are being locked up for 22 and 23 hours is that there are not the staff to provide support so that they can be let out to do purposeful activity. Unless we break that vicious cycle, as the Committee Chair discussed, we will, in the colloquial phrase, be banging our heads on a brick wall.

To turn to the remarks that I had planned, I wanted to give a statistical analysis of the situation. I know that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that statistics do not necessarily add anything to the overview; and the right hon. Member for Delyn was very succinct in giving a snapshot of the statistics. However, I beg to differ; I think they are important, because they are the evidence that demonstrates the extent of the problem, which needs to be stated clearly. I will deal with three categories. For deaths in custody, in the 12 months to March 2015 there were 79 self-inflicted deaths in custody. In the 12 months to June 2016 there were 105. In a two-year period there was a jump from 79 to 105; that is no spike. It is a systemic failing.

For assaults, in the 12 months to December 2014 there were a grand total of just over 16,000 assaults in the prison estate. Just over 2,000 were serious. Jumping forward less than two years, in the 12 months to March 2016 the number was up from 16,000 to more than 22,000 assaults in the prison estate, of which 3,000 were serious. Again, I submit that that is not a spike but that it indicates a systemic failing.

In the third category, self-harm, there were 25,000 incidents in the 12 months to December 2014. In the 12 months to March 2016, there were almost 35,000 incidents. Again, that is not indicative of a spike, but is evidence of a systematic failing, and it is not only the Justice Committee that says so. I am very new to the Justice Committee and Committee procedure, but I am a lawyer and have listened to evidence in court cases of who is right and who is wrong. Never have I been involved in a process where the evidence is so catastrophically one-sided. In my view—I stand to be corrected—we did not hear any evidence of the positive outcomes of what the prison estate achieves for our criminals and for wider society. It was an avalanche; everybody seems to agree. After the report was published, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons’ annual report stated in its main conclusions that, as I have just demonstrated,

“There were continuing high and rising levels of self-inflicted deaths…Violence had once again increased in almost every men’s prison reported on. Support for the victims of bullying and violence was generally weak, and resulted in long periods of isolation for many prisoners.”

As we have heard, new synthetic drugs have also become an increasing problem.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the figures are out of control. There is a proposal in the Committee report to which I would like to draw hon. Members’ attention. That is the nature and frequency of the statistics that the Committee receives, which allow us to assess the situation and react accordingly to the developing challenges. We requested quarterly statistics on a range of outcomes and the Government proposed six-monthly statistics. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made clear, this is not some kind of statistical pedantry—it is to coincide information with other statistical releases, so it can be properly collated. At the moment, the statistics are bad, but they might even be worse—we do not know. If the Justice Committee could get the information in a more co-ordinated, consistent and frequent manner, it would allow us to do the work that we are here for—scrutinising the Ministry of Justice—so that it can then, in turn, make sure the problems in the prison estate are fixed. With that, I conclude my remarks and welcome the views of the shadow Front-Bench spokesperson and the Minister on this important issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady makes absolutely the right point. We want prisoners to have time out of their cells to engage in work, education and training. I want us to have a mature debate, so let us not try to say that staffing is the only response to the challenges in our prisons. I have acknowledged that it must be part of our response, but we need a comprehensive response.

[Richard Arkless]

I must admit to being concerned by the phrase “part of”. Of course staffing is part of the problem, but that could mean that it is 1% or 99% of the problem. The key thing is how big a part of the problem staff numbers are, and I think the Justice Committee would agree that it is the critical part. People cannot be rehabilitated, because staff are not available to conduct that rehabilitation. The Minister can give prisons all the new education powers, but if there are no staff to teach people, that simply will not happen. Will the Minister reassure us that he considers staffing to be critical, not just part of the problem?

[Mr Gyimah]

We in the Ministry of Justice must ensure that we are in a position to deliver the orders of the courts. That means ensuring that there are not only sufficient prison places but adequate staffing. Of course, we cannot run a prison system without adequate staffing, but we face complex challenges and threats in our prison system and there is no simple answer.

Policing and Crime Bill

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

I have a lot of time for the Minister, as he knows, but such people are listening to this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) is not in her place, but if the victims of contaminated blood are listening to this debate, they will immediately recognise what I am saying. If the victims of organophosphates—sheep dip—poisoning are listening today, they will understand what I am saying. If the people waiting for the announcement about the battle of Orgreave investigation are listening, they will understand what I am saying. There are so many people who have not been given justice by the system, and that just is not right. It really is not right, and that is why I keep saying that we must make Hillsborough a moment of change when we can tip the scales in favour of ordinary families and away from the establishment.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

In an attempt to act as a peace broker, given that the positions of both sides have been made perfectly clear, may I ask whether the shadow Home Secretary will accept a commitment to proceed with Leveson 2 after the investigations have taken place and whether, if that is acceptable, the Minister could make such a commitment today?

[Andy Burnham]

That is a good point. It would be good enough if we got a cast-iron commitment. Ministers have reintroduced a doubt—in media briefings, they have said, “Oh, it probably won’t go ahead now”—and have muddied the waters. If they clarified that tonight, that would be good enough. If they said, “It will go ahead after the proper time has elapsed, given the criminal proceedings that are still outstanding”, that would be fine and everyone would understand it. If they gave that commitment tonight, there would be no need for a vote because we would have done our job, but if they cannot give such a commitment, that would be revealing in itself. If the Minister cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and give such a clear commitment, or rather reaffirm it to the people to whom Ministers have already made it, that would be revealing in itself and we would be right to force a vote in those circumstances. In that case, people will not be strung along and left hoping that there will be a Leveson 2 one day; we will have forced the issue so that Ministers are held to account for their promise. That is what we are doing tonight. Ministers have the chance to do the right thing: to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, “Yes, we will do it. We will honour what we said.” If they do not do so, we will ask Members of decency and integrity on both sides of the House to stand with us and to go through the Lobby with us tonight to hold Ministers to account for the promise they made.

Finally, let me turn to our new clause 63 on parity. The new clause seeks to establish the principle of parity of legal funding for bereaved families at inquests involving the police. In introducing it, I want to say that it is very important that people do not see Hillsborough as a one-off belonging to a bygone era. To be honest, many bereaved families still face a very similar experience when they go to an inquest. They often find themselves pitched into an adversarial and aggressive courtroom when they are still raw with grief. They are unable to match the spending of the police or the public sector in what they spend on their own legal representation. Those families find their lives picked apart. They are made to look like they are perpetrators, not victims. That is a very common experience. Many people who suffer it do not have the huge support that the Hillsborough families had. They are ordinary families battling away on their own, with no one else coming to support them. That is why the principle of parity is so tremendously important.

--- Later in debate ---

The problem in respect of sections 60 and 60AA, one that will be removed by our new clause, is that prior authorisation is needed. It may well be that as a matter of practice that is ignored. If it is ignored by the police, that suggests to me that they are probably behaving unlawfully when they give themselves authority afterwards, writing it down in a notebook. That is not what the scheme behind the current legislation requires. We need to bring this debate to a close now and ensure that the police are given the powers that the public believe they should have in order to prevent this disgusting behaviour from continuing.

[Richard Arkless]

I rise to speak for the Scottish National party principally in order to place on the record our unending admiration for the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and other Members on both sides of the Chamber who have fought this righteous fight for so many years and for so many people who have been lied to and been subject to the most horrendous cover-up. I echo pretty much all the words the right hon. Gentleman said at the Dispatch Box earlier.

Football is very important to people in Scotland, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand; every weekend we send more people to football games per head of population than anywhere else in the UK does. Everybody in Scotland can understand the fear of their loved ones not returning from watching what is just a game of football; we had the Ibrox disaster in 1971 and there is still a scar deep in the Scottish consciousness. We are completely committed in principle to helping the right hon. Gentleman with whatever he needs to try to get justice for those people. Unfortunately, the police system in Scotland is devolved so we are perhaps not able to offer any support this evening, other than in principle, but I would like to place that on the record, and wish him and his colleagues all the best in the fight for justice.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I wish to speak to new clauses 26, 29, 42 and 43, all of which stand in my name. I will try to be brief. First, I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), for all the time she has taken over the past few weeks to discuss my concerns with me. I also wish to thank the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims, who has made himself available to me, and the Home Secretary. As hon. Members will know, there is significant concern about the interaction between policing and mental health services, and I wish to turn my attention to that issue.

New clause 26 would place an obligation on chief constables to ensure that their police officers were properly trained in diversity and equality in relation to mental health issues, and specifically issues that relate to ethnic minorities. I have worked closely with Black Mental Health UK over the past five years, and it has raised concerns directly with the Home Office and Members for a number of years. I want to read out a paragraph from its briefing. It states:

“The joint Home Office and Department of Health review of sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 acknowledged that ‘in particular Black African Caribbean men—are disproportionately over-represented in S136 detentions compared to the general population’ and that ‘Black African Caribbean men in particular reported that the use of force was more likely to be used against them by the police.’”

These are legitimate and real concerns, they have been subject to academic research and they need to be addressed.

Nearly three years ago, the Home Secretary co-hosted a fantastic conference at the QEII Centre with Black Mental Health UK, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims spoke at it. Great strides are being made, but we need to ensure that further progress happens in the months and years ahead. New clause 26 would therefore require chief police officers to make an annual report to the Home Secretary on what progress has been made in relation to diversity and equality training. I will not push it to a vote tonight, as I have had assurances from Ministers that the matter will be looked at seriously.

Human Rights Framework: Scotland

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future framework for human rights in Scotland.

The framework for human rights in Scotland is reaching a critical point, and determining its future has therefore become an issue that my colleagues and I have been attempting to bring before the Attorney General and the Secretary of State for Justice for quite some time. We believe that any future framework currently rests on a constitutional precipice, one that requires more substance from the Government than we have received up to now. I personally stated my concerns to the Attorney General and the Secretary of State on numerous occasions and in many forms—written questions, oral questions and through my duties on the Select Committee on Justice. My colleagues and I are yet to receive answers containing any kind of substance. For that reason, I am delighted to secure this Westminster Hall debate.

Our position, and the crux of this debate, is predicated on a sound legal assertion that human rights are devolved to Scotland, and not something on which this place can legislate for Scotland. The legal basis for that assertion is the Scotland Act 1998, which is in effect the Scottish Parliament’s constitution. We argue that it is as close to a written constitution as Scotland can acquire at present.

I will take this opportunity to explain exactly why, in legal terms, we believe that human rights are devolved to Scotland. Before I do that, I ask the Minister in his response to save us from the message repeated ad nauseam that he believes in human rights but that he just has a problem with their interpretation by the European Courts. We understand that point. I do not seek a debate on the rights and wrongs of human rights constituted here or in Europe; I want a debate surrounding the legalities of any action this Government could take on human rights and how that affects Scotland. If he fails to give those answers in clear terms, I will write to allow him an opportunity to consider his response further so that the issue of human rights in Scotland can be clarified and this damaging uncertainty on our citizens’ protection can end.

I will outline the legal basis for my argument. The Scotland Act does not specify which powers are devolved to Scotland; that is simply not how our constitutional settlement works. Schedule 5 to the Act actually lists the powers reserved to the Westminster Parliament, with the rest—de facto—being devolved to Scotland. So, for any matter to be reserved to the UK, it must—simply must—be listed within schedule 5 to the Act.

I certainly hope that the Minster is aware that human rights are not listed in any form within schedule 5 to the Act, meaning that they are—as a matter of fact and of constitutional law—devolved in their entirety to Scotland. I also assume that he is acutely aware that any attempt by this place to legislate on schedule 5 will require—again, as a matter of constitutional law—the explicit consent of the Scottish Parliament, through a legislative consent motion under the Sewel convention, and that convention has arguably been strengthened by the Scotland Bill that is making its way through this place.

Consequently, my next request of the Minister is this: can he please confirm, in clear terms, whether the UK Government agree with this analysis? It is essential that we put this matter to bed, once and for all, so that we all understand that human rights are indeed devolved to Scotland.

The UK Government have various proposals—mooted proposals—on the table. One of those is the potential withdrawal from the European convention on human rights. The rights contained within the ECHR are enshrined in the Scotland Act, in section 57, meaning that the Scottish Parliament cannot do anything contrary to convention rights contained within the ECHR, essentially enshrining those rights in the Scotland Act. Section 57 of the Act combines with schedule 5 to the Act to mean that no UK Government can remove section 57, meaning that the ECHR—even if the UK removes itself from its effect—will always apply to devolved issues in Scotland.

So my next question to the Minister is this: do he and the UK Government accept that even if they withdraw from the ECHR, they cannot remove section 57 from the Scotland Act, meaning that the ECHR will continue to have an effect on devolved matters?

I am very proud of the UK’s role in the creation of the ECHR and we should never forget the reason it was established in the first place—to prevent the atrocities of 1914-18 and 1939-45 from ever happening again. In my view, we fragment the ECHR at our peril; it sets out minimum standards. So I often ponder why we would even moot removing ourselves from those standards, unless—in effect—we wanted to dilute them.

The repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 has often been mooted by the Government. Schedule 4 to the Scotland Act contains a list of Acts that the Scottish Parliament is deemed not capable of repealing or amending. It includes, most obviously and in my opinion regrettably, the Act of Union. The Human Rights Act 1998 is also listed in schedule 4 to the Scotland Act, and as a measure of comfort—or, indeed, otherwise—to the Government, I can assure the Minister that Scotland will continue to comply with schedule 4, as she has absolutely no plans to repeal the Human Rights Act or indeed the Act of Union. We understand that it would be ultra vires to do so.

If we combine schedule 4 to the Scotland Act with schedule 5, it is clear that the UK Government cannot repeal the Human Rights Act from effect in Scotland. If the UK Government did so, they would require a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament, and I do not think that any Scottish Government of any party of any colour would agree to that. Nevertheless, if the Human Rights Act is considered capable of being repealed in Scotland by Westminster, the Scottish Parliament could easily legislate to enact our own Human Rights Act, which I stress would not be a desirable outcome, as we could not insist that any new Act passed in Holyrood could cover reserved matters. The Human Rights Act provides important protection to Scottish citizens in relation to the laws passed on reserved matters in this place.

It is also worth pointing out that the Human Rights Act merely ensures that the convention rights are applied by the UK courts. Perhaps that is why it attracted cross-party support in the 1990s; it was hardly controversial then, and in my view it remains uncontroversial in Scotland.

This Government have not only mooted repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the ECHR but they have made clear their ambition for a British Bill of Rights. Although I accept that nothing of that kind has been published yet, a British Bill of Rights was a manifesto pledge and we expect it to come to the Floor of the House at some point during this Parliament. So my next question to the Minister is this, and it is a question that my party has asked many times since May: will any proposed British Bill of Rights apply to Scotland? The name would suggest that it would be intended to cover Scotland. However, our position—founded on schedule 5 to the Scotland Act—is that, as a matter of constitutional law, the UK Government cannot impose a British Bill of Rights on Scotland without a legislative consent motion under the Sewel convention, which we believe would be withheld.

Hopefully I have made it clear that, in our view, human rights are devolved to Scotland. Of course, the Scottish Parliament could legislate for a Scottish Bill of Rights, but it has absolutely no plans to do so. As yet, we have no idea what a British Bill of Rights would contain, but no one can seriously believe that this UK Government would take the opportunity within that process to strengthen our citizens’ protections.

The protections of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act are hugely important to our citizens: the right to life; the right not to be enslaved; the right to liberty and security of the person; the right to a fair trial; and the right to marry, to name but a few. As Lord Bingham memorably said in 2009:

“Which of these rights…would we wish to discard? Are any of them trivial, superfluous, unnecessary?”

We say that none of them are. We view the convention not as a ceiling but as a baseline—a minimum. We should be building on these rights and not diluting them. Indeed, Scotland can go further if she so wishes.

Repeal of, or withdrawal from, the ECHR would not strike a blow to lawyers, criminals or ambulance chasers; it would strike a blow to the poor, the vulnerable and the dispossessed. Scotland wants to increase our citizens’ protections. We want to put human rights at the heart of our domestic policy, as we pledged to do in our national action plan on human rights, which the Scottish National party Government launched a couple of years ago. For example, our dementia strategy in Scotland is based on agreed rights for patients, including the right to have access to treatment, and the right to have dignity and respect. We see this process as the way forward—strengthening our citizens’ rights, because we are here as lawmakers essentially to protect the citizens who put us here.

My view is that we would look rather insular to our partners in the wider world if we repealed or withdrew from the ECHR. When most countries in Europe have adopted the ECHR, what message would it send out to the world if we withdrew from it or repealed it, and diluted our citizens’ protections? It would be a sad day indeed for the UK’s reputation abroad.

I look forward to the sovereign people of Scotland coming together to draft a written constitution for Scotland, enshrining these rights forever in a future independent Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

That was a debate that we enjoyed in the 1990s—I say “enjoyed”, but I use the word in the loosest possible sense—in the days of the constitutional convention. It was the underpinning of the claim of right that led to the Scottish Parliament being founded. There is a fairly long pedigree of jurisprudence in Scots law. Dredging my memory of the days of constitutional law, I go back to the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate, where that view was well-founded, albeit in obiter dictum.

The opportunity is there for something more to be done with human rights and a new Bill of Rights that would build on the Act that we currently enjoy. I hope the Minister would be open to that. More important and more fundamental to me than the Human Rights Act is that this country should remain a party to the European convention on human rights. If the worst predictions of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West were to come true and the Human Rights Act were repealed, that would not deprive us of the convention rights; it would just make them that much more inaccessible. It would take us back to the situation we had before the 1998 Act, when citizens could access their convention rights, but it ultimately required going all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. That would be a genuine retrograde step.

To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, that would also put us in rather poor company. In fact, leaving the convention on human rights would leave the United Kingdom sitting—I hope rather uncomfortably—with Belarus.

[Richard Arkless]

The right hon. Gentleman is putting a typically articulate view. What is his view on the potential legalities and problems that the UK Government might have in either an imposition of the British Bill of Rights, repeal of the Human Rights Act, or withdrawal from the ECHR? That is what I would like the debate to focus on.

[Mr Carmichael]

To take each point in turn, the imposition of a British Bill of Rights would require an Act of Parliament. If that were to extend and build on convention rights, and if it were not in contravention or conflict with convention rights, I would see no difficulty with that. If we were to seek to withdraw from the convention, that would bring with it enormous problems. It would bring the political problems that I have already touched on and would put us in the company of nations that, frankly, I do not want to find myself with. Beyond that, it would put us in breach of treaty obligations, because the convention rights are built into the Good Friday agreement, which, above all else, is a treaty between ourselves and Ireland. It would also throw our own constitutional structure into disarray, because the Human Rights Act is hardwired into the devolution settlement in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Again, this is one of those things that was probably not given consideration when the Conservatives set up their commission 10 years ago. That probably explains the fact that this seems to have landed in a pile of things in the Ministry labelled “a bit too difficult to deal with; we’ll maybe look at it next month”.

[Richard Arkless]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. He makes the position clear from a UK point of view, but I am interested in his view on whether a potential imposition of a British Bill of Rights would require a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament and whether, in his view, that consent is likely to be given by any party of any colour or any Government in Scotland?

[Mr Carmichael]

We would have to see what the terms of the Bill were before deciding whether it required legislative consent. There are a lot of social and economic rights where the Bill would of course cut across devolved areas and would need a legislative consent motion. Employment rights, for example, are clearly reserved. We would need to see what the terms were. Like all such changes—if I can expand the thought for a second—these things are based on building consensus before introducing a Bill, so that everybody knows exactly what it will cover. I am talking about my fantasy Bill of Rights and the things I would like to have in it, which are not reflected much in a great deal of what we have heard from the thinking of the Government. However, I am ever the optimist, so we do not know what we might we get from them.

If we were to get a Bill of Rights that built on the convention rights, did not interfere with them and left us still a party to the European convention, I think that would be well received in Scotland. I would be disappointed to think that, just because such a Bill had been initiated here in Westminster, it would not be accepted by people in Scotland. The protection of human rights has been reserved broadly since the days of devolution, and people in Scotland would still respect that, having voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.

I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. The last time we went round this course in Westminster Hall, he assured us that we would be hearing more. We have not heard quite as much as I had hoped we would; we have heard just as much as I thought we might. We shall wait to hear what he has to say. I hope that at some point we will get the answers to how the Government are going to get out of the hole they have been digging for themselves, in terms of the constitutional difficulties that any repeal of the Human Rights Act would bring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady. We have given answers to all those questions before.

[Richard Arkless]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. It is usually customary to let the Minister respond to the question being asked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless]

The Minister says that the issues have been dealt with before. The question is simple: do the Government believe that human rights are reserved or devolved? He says that they have given the answer before. Where and when? We have never heard it.

[Joanna Cherry]

Tell us.

[Richard Arkless]

Tell us!

[Mr Raab]

We have made it clear that the Human Rights Act can be revised only by the UK Government, but the implementation of many human rights issues is devolved. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland neatly summed up the position on the Sewel convention and legislative consent motions. Scotland cannot responsibly take a decision on such things until it has its package. In relation to the European convention on human rights, which the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway also asked about, I do not know how many times I have said it in the House, but our current plans do not involve our withdrawal from the convention. If the hon. Gentleman has been in for Justice Question Time once over the past six months, he will have heard me say that.

In fact, the Scotland Bill, which is currently completing its passage in the other place, serves as a reminder of the Scottish Parliament’s role in deciding the right balance for Scottish people in Scotland. To take just one example, when competence for the franchise in local and Scottish parliamentary elections is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it will be for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to determine whether the current ban on convicted prisoners voting ought to remain, as in the rest of the UK. The SNP has made it clear that it did not want the franchise extended to prisoners for the Scottish referendum. Nicola Sturgeon made that clear in May 2013.

Police Funding Formula

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

I am delighted to see you in your place, Mr Speaker. May I assure you that this has been a very, very long afternoon? Since I was elected nine months ago, I seem to have come to debates with time limits of three, four or five minutes, and it was always my ambition to take part in an open and wide debate, but that opinion was unfortunately formed before my experience this afternoon.

Let me start by echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) I too want to mention something that has been missed in many of the submissions across the House today. Our police, on both sides of the border, in every borough, county and region, do the most incredible job. We owe our safety and the fact that we can walk out of our front door and feel safe to the men and women in our police services, as well as other staff. Politics aside, we should all recognise that.

Mr Speaker, you will no doubt be aware that policing in Scotland is devolved, so many of the substantive arguments that have been heard across the Chamber during this very long afternoon have not had direct application to Scotland. I do not want to ponder many of them, but Scotland is affected by the level of Westminster spending and therefore the potential Barnett consequentials that Scotland will receive, or otherwise, to run the police force we want to run. It is remarkable, given the cuts that Scotland has faced, that we have given and maintained a commitment to 1,000 extra police officers on our streets since 2007, in stark contrast to the almost 20,000 police officers that have been lost across the UK. If I have one message to those on both sides of the House, it is that whatever funding formula they come up with and whatever departmental spending they agree over the next four years, the focus should be on increasing and maintaining the number of frontline police officers, which would obviously allow us to continue to do the work that we are doing.

Despite my cynicism about what went on in the past three hours, there have been some memorable speeches, none more so than that from the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, who gave a succinct, detailed and clear summary of the police funding position. I was very grateful for the clarity with which he delivered that speech.

I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for Hansard. I do not think that they will have their work cut out for them this evening finalising the draft of today’s proceedings. I was also very interested to hear him tell his Government and the House that the police funding formula as constituted does not seem to be working for the people of Dorset or the officers who work there.

The atmosphere in the Chamber was lifted briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). I invite interventions and corroborate her comments on the VAT position in Scotland. It seems to me, and it will seem to the Scottish people, that Scotland being treated fairly gets this Chamber greatly exercised. That will not be lost on the people of Scotland.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) did the strangest thing. He made an intervention, which was answered, and then raised a point of order, so the Government could intervene on my hon. Friend.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

What nonsense.

[Richard Arkless]

I know that in Scotland the distinction between blue and red is becoming increasingly blurred, but that was ridiculous.

Last week we had a debate in the Chamber on the police, and there was a difference of opinion between the two sides. The debate was predicated on the words of the Chancellor in the autumn spending review on 25 November:

“there will be no cuts in the police budget at all. There will be real-terms protection for police funding.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]

The Opposition say that that was not true and that there was a real-terms reduction. The Government say that there is a real-terms reduction of 1.4%, but that will be offset by the ability of local authorities to raise the council tax precept portion that can go towards police funding. It seems to me that it is not this place that is protecting the real-terms allocation for police funding, but the poor council tax payers across England and Wales who are doing so.

From a Scottish point of view, unless I have got this dramatically wrong, we in Scotland will not get Barnett consequentials from an increase in council tax spending. Perhaps the situation was not made as clear by the Chancellor on 25 November as it ought to have been. In terms of democracy, millions of people watch the autumn statement. The public and Members of this House should be able to rely on every word that comes out of the Chancellor’s mouth at the Dispatch Box. Clearly, whether by omission or by misunderstanding, it has turned out that his words were not 100% accurate. That is plain wrong.

I have nothing further to add—I know that the Policing Minister will be absolutely devastated at that assertion—other than to request that whatever the House agrees in relation to police funding, it should please be protected it in real terms. Cybercrime, terrorism and a new range of challenges make that essential. Scotland will then have more money to spend on police. It will keep our streets and our children safe, and that is one of the core responsibilities of all Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I have broad shoulders, but they are not broad enough to take on the whole Treasury. However, the Treasury’s influence is only that it is a flat cash terms agreement for four years, not one year. That is the agreement we have. All the chiefs and PCCs know it. They did not know—they do now.

It would be wrong if I did not mention Scotland, not least because we heard a very interesting contribution from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and another one. I did not allow myself to get involved in the spat between the Labour party and the Scottish National party. All I can say is that I thought the SNP position was—I am almost lost for words—ridiculous. That is being polite. Suppose someone goes to their bank manager and asks for a loan of £10,000, £100,000 or even £1 million and he agrees it after looking at the business plan. If, as they walk out after presenting their business plan, they say to the bank manager who is giving them the money, “By the way, I want another 20%,” he will laugh. I laughed when I first read that that is exactly what the Scottish National party has done.

[Richard Arkless]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I will take an intervention in a minute, but we must try to understand that, if SNP Members put a business plan for a joint force in Scotland together and submit it, and accept that they are not going to get the 20%, how can they come to this House and bellyache?

[Richard Arkless]

I would make two points. First, when that person walks out of that bank and finds out that every single competitor on the street has better terms, it starts to rankle and they protest about it. Secondly, when we included that in our business plan, we made our protestations clear. We told the Government that we did not think it was right. We reserved the right to campaign on it for ever and a day. That is what we will do. The fact that it is agreed and in the plan does not make it right.

[Mike Penning]

If someone signs a contract and has an agreement, they are tied into it. At the end of the day—[Interruption.] They can protest as much as they want, but at the end of the day, they signed a contract that said, “No VAT”. They are now in that position where there is no VAT. [Interruption.] I am not going to give way.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I apologise most sincerely for my oversight, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will make sure it does not happen again.

Conservative Members will have women from the WASPI campaign coming to their surgeries. Let us look at what some of the woman affected have said about their real- life experiences of these changes. Here is one example:

“My husband and I got married in 1974, he is 12 years older than me. I like to think we planned life in the right way. The pension law has put all our plans out the window. I had been planning all my available options, when my husband retired, and in 2011, I requested my state pension forecast. It stated that if I deferred till 2020 I should receive a £14,621 lump sum. I thought this may allow me the option to work two days and still enjoy my family, but thanks to the changes I will no longer receive this. Also, I hadn’t anticipated that my age might make me a prime candidate for redundancy. Losing my job in 2014, was a massive blow. The government may have changed the law, but it turns out many industries don’t want 60+ women. They are effectively retiring us, and forcing us to use our lifetime savings on daily living costs, as no one wants to hire us!”

There are so many points to dwell on there, but most importantly, it speaks of the crushing of so many hopes and dreams.

It is also the case that many women are being forced to work on beyond their expected retirement date, and this brings its own challenges in terms of the availability of suitable employment, and many are sadly experiencing ill health. What has been the response of the Government? It is that other benefits are available. What a response! You have worked hard, paid your dues to society, met your side of the bargain in paying national insurance and expected to receive a pension, yet this callous, heartless Government are ripping that contract up and telling folk to claim benefits. Is that really the answer? You can get means-tested benefits, which will cost the Exchequer, but you are being denied what is rightfully yours. Welcome to “Osborne’s Britain”—callous, cold and undignified.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

Is not the crux of the issue that we see a clear breach of contract? If this were a private pension company that unilaterally changed the pension conditions of 2.6 million ladies in this country, this House would quite rightly be up in arms. Those ladies want only to have that contract mitigated fairly. Surely the Government should listen to the 2.6 million ladies in this country, and act now.

[Ian Blackford]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. We were talking earlier about the Financial Conduct Authority and consumer protection, yet here are consumers being ripped off by their own Government, who are ripping up entitlements to the state pension. Conservative Members should be up in arms over this; they should defend the rights of their constituents.

Let me provide just one other example, as I am conscious of the time. Here it is:

“My husband will be 78 by the time I can retire. I had been looking forward to slowing down at 60 and enjoying putting my family, husband, children and grandchildren at the centre of my life. In Cameron’s speech on why families matter in 2014 he stated that he wanted to do ‘everything possible to help support and strengthen family life in Britain today’. Had I been available for my grandchildren, my daughter and her husband would not have had to pay £1700 a month for her two children to go to nursery, putting them in debt. They are both teachers and could not manage their mortgage on one salary. As you can see the changes to the state pension have not supported or strengthened our family, the changes have left us in a state of disarray”—

all thanks to this Conservative Government. That is the reality.

As I sum up—[Interruption.] Well, I could quite happily go on! What are Conservative MPs going to say to women who are going to have to wait six years longer than anticipated for their pension? This is a breach of trust between the Government and the women who have earned the right to a pension. We should recall the advice from the Turner report that such measures should be brought in over a 15-year period to mitigate the impact of any such changes.

We have heard about the failure of communication, which it could be argued means that the start of the 15-year process should be the beginning of the changes in 2010. That means there will effectively be a retirement age of 63 for women as of April this year. The Government could, for example, look at smoothing the increase in pensionable age for women to 2025. The Government should do the right thing and immediately introduce mitigation. Now is the time to act; if not, we will be coming back to this place and fighting for the women who deserve our protection.

Access to Justice: Wales

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairpersonship this afternoon, Mrs Moon. I thank the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing a very important debate. It has been amplified by the number of Welsh Members who have attended this afternoon to put their point across very passionately. It is further amplified by the lack of the 11 Tory MPs who occupy certain sections of Wales. The only thing more surprising is that Wales still has 11 Tory MPs; I hope the people of Wales will deal with that at the next general election.

Scotland is fortunate; we have had a separate legal system since the Act of Union. It was enshrined in the Act, so during the last 300-odd years we have been able to design certain elements of our justice system differently to suit the needs of the people of Scotland. Many of the complaints raised this afternoon would be fixed to a great extent by devolution of justice to Wales. I urge Welsh Members to think about that as a serious concept. Justice decisions made closer to the people that they affect would inevitably be better decisions.

The Government have created several bars to access to justice over the past few years. We have seen criminal court charges, which, thankfully, they have agreed to end. We do not have them in Scotland. Employment tribunal fees have been imposed on employment tribunal cases, as we have heard. We have committed to abolish those in Scotland as soon as the matter is devolved. The slashing of the legal aid budget has impacted on access to justice. We are not immune from such cuts in Scotland, but we feel we have been able to manage resources better so that they do not have the impact that they have had in Wales.

I have been very impressed by some of the submissions that we have heard, particularly from the hon. Member for Swansea East. She gave a passionate speech about the real effects on ordinary people. That is always the story with austerity, which impacts on the most vulnerable in our society first. The Government’s austerity agenda impacts on access to justice in Wales. That is undeniable.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made another fantastically passionate speech and coined the phrase “one size fits all”. It goes back to the whole devolution prospect. I do not believe as a matter of principle that a one-size-fits-all approach across the UK is sensible for all the Celtic nations. He is absolutely correct when he says that access to justice is driven by the Treasury. The Ministry of Justice has not come up with a grand plan to increase justice provision, yet reduce costs. The Justice Secretary has rolled over in negotiations with the Treasury, whereas other Departments have not done so.

Given the pressure on time, I will conclude my remarks. I support the proposal that Wales should have more decisions taken by the Welsh Parliament, closer to the Welsh people, to make better decisions for the people of Wales.

Employment Tribunal Fees

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that point, which I will come to later. Speaking from personal experience as a lawyer before I entered this place, I have a number of examples of such situations, and that cannot be right in a fair and just society. Returning to the Justice Committee, it received evidence from Citizens Advice, which published a report called “Fairer Fees” in January 2015. It stated that 82% of its clients said that the fees deterred them from bringing an employment tribunal claim.

All the Government talk at the introduction of the fee regime was about weeding out vexatious claims. As I will go on to demonstrate, there has been no convincing evidence put forward that this system has done anything to reduce such claims, in stark contrast to the significant body of evidence suggesting that people with genuine complaints have not been able to pursue their rights as a result of the fee system. It may be that part of the Government rationale is that those who use the system should contribute to it, in which case far more equitable solutions can be found. It may be that despite everything else, it is and always was part of the Government’s plan to reduce the number of claims being made, in which case they have succeeded.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this very important debate. Does he agree that one of the reasons given in the Beecroft report, which initiated the imposition of tribunal fees, was the desire to make business more efficient, and that the very notion that people being prevented from having access to justice within the workplace would increase productivity and make a business more efficient is completely misguided?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The suggestion that workplace rights and treating people with respect and decency is somehow an impediment to a business running well is the stuff of nonsense. Having a stable and well-motivated workforce actually helps to improve productivity. The Beecroft report is really where all this is coming from. There is a view that employment rights are somehow an impediment to the good operation of business. If someone has the misfortune of having worked somewhere for less than two years, they effectively have no employment rights, so that has been got through almost by the back door.

Let me return to the reduction in the number of claims. Undoubtedly, that has been stark, and if that is the Government’s intention, it has been successful, but it is unfair, crude and a denial of basic justice. The Citizens Advice report stated that 47% of its clients who were potential type B claimants—those bringing unfair dismissal or discrimination claims—said that they would have to save all their discretionary income for six months in order to be able to proceed with a type B claim. And those are the lucky ones—many who have lost their job have no discretionary income. Keeping a roof over their head and putting food on the table will always take priority over pursuing a claim for which the outcome is uncertain and which will not be resolved for months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

Like my colleagues, I can confirm that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. Special thanks to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for securing what I, like his colleagues, consider to be an extremely important debate.

I rise as a member of the Scottish National party to put the SNP’s case, and I want to start by putting the issue in a Scottish context. The issues of employment law and employment tribunal fees are reserved to the Westminster Parliament. There is an expectation that clause 37 of the Scotland Bill will devolve the financial arrangements and management of employment law tribunals to Scotland. The Scottish Government have a clear policy of abolishing the fees as soon as we have the power to do so. To quote the Scottish programme for government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) did, that will be done

“when we are clear on how the transfer of powers and responsibilities will work.”

The devolution of any part of the administrative justice sphere in Scotland is done through a separate Order in Council. We are yet to see whether the Government will sign off the relevant Order in Council and whether it will include the right to adjust employment tribunals, but we are working on the basis that that is what will happen.

Why does Scotland have an interest in this issue? We could argue that, if these issues are devolved, it will be for Scotland to decide whether to abolish fees. Of course, that disregards the funding arrangements between the UK and Scotland. If fees are abolished in the rest of the UK, Scotland’s funding mechanism will be increased by the extra amount the Scottish Government will have to spend in future years on employment law tribunal fees. While we have a commitment to abolish fees, therefore, unless the fiscal arrangements are correct, Scotland will have to find the money to do so from the remainder of its budget—which we are willing, at this juncture, to do, because that is clearly the moral thing to do.

As I said earlier, the imposition of employment law tribunal fees follows from the Beecroft report. The premise on which it was based was high-handed. The report stated that business must be allowed to grow and to be more efficient, but that employment law impedes that. That statement is very contentious. As I said in my intervention, simply stripping a firm of its cost liabilities and potential need to spend money does not, in itself, make that business more efficient. I would argue that if a business treats its staff correctly, the staff will treat the clients correctly, and that will make the business more productive and efficient. The premise on which the imposition of the fees was based is therefore flawed at best. This is all being done to save the £82 million or so a year that was spent on employment tribunal cases.

The upshot is that someone with a simple claim for being refused time off, or for a breach of working time regulations, faces a £160 issue fee and a £230 hearing fee. For a more serious case of discrimination for wrongful dismissal, there is a £250 issue fee and a whopping £950 hearing fee. God forbid that anyone would ever need to go to appeal, as the combined cost is £1,600 on top of what has been paid for the previous hearing. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this will be a material deterrent to claimants bringing their cases.

Every litigator worth their salt—I speak with some credibility as I used to be a litigator—understands acutely that quite often the way to win a case is not to win a substantive argument, but to pile cost pressure on the other side. This is the Government trying to use a litigious tactic to pile cost pressure on claimants who, ordinarily, just want their grievances heard. It is a disgraceful course of action. The result in Scotland has been a 92% reduction in redundancy claims, an 81% reduction in sex discrimination claims, and a 90% reduction in claims for breaches of working time regulations.

Legally, through free access to employment law tribunals, we went as far as we could in making rights that protect workers absolute; now, they are not absolute. The right to not be unfairly dismissed, to be free from sex discrimination, and to be consulted on redundancy is no longer absolute. I asked the Minister what kind of message this sent out. It sends out a message that it is okay to abuse workers because, essentially, they have no course of redress, and that it is okay for the rest of the workers in that organisation to feel that their fellow workers have been marginalised. That has a direct impact on their productivity levels, wellbeing, morale and, ultimately, the financial success of the organisation for which they work. With these changes, it appears that the lower someone is on the income scale, the more inaccessible justice becomes.

I will pick up on points made by previous speakers. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was right to highlight that tribunals do not just award compensation. They can provide a statement of fact—of terms and conditions that give vulnerable workers clarity about their position in a company. He is also right that there has been substantial evidence to the Justice Committee—which, as a member of that Committee, I have heard—highlighting how much of a deterrent the fees are. He is right to point out that some employers will not even consider the claim until the issue fee is paid. That is piling even more cost pressure on to the vulnerable workers and works in favour of the employer. It tips the balance away from justice and towards employers for no good reason, as far as I can see.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West rightly made the point that workers have been priced out of justice. The changes disproportionately affect women, minorities and those at the lower end of the income scale. He is also right to point out that there is wide support in Scottish civic society for the Scottish Government’s policy of abolition.

The hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) made some excellent points very well. She is right to say that the policy completely makes a mockery of the Conservative party’s claims to be the party of working people, and it is not evidence-based. As with much of the legislative agenda that I have witnessed since becoming a Member in this House, particularly the Trade Union Bill, this seems to be an ideological attack with no evidence base whatever. That follows a consistent theme in the legislation that I have seen come before Parliament since joining the House in May.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) also mentioned the wealth creators. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the genuine wealth creators in this country are low-paid, long-hours workers—many of them women—who are helping to keep the economic wheels turning, yet they are the ones under attack?

[Richard Arkless]

I completely agree with that. Any business that sees its staff as disposable units of production is headed for disaster. I go back to what I said: if businesses treat their staff properly, the staff treat customers properly. If customers are treated properly, the business will be successful. If a business is successful, there is a dividend for shareholders, which, no doubt, is the motivation of the Conservative party.

In conclusion, I urge the Minister to persuade the Government, when he takes this information back to them, that their review should conclude what the Scottish Government, Scottish civic society and Opposition party Members conclude: that they should abolish these draconian fees without delay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Richard Arkless]

rose—

[Mr Vara]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West.

[Mr Vara]

I am certainly not casting doubt on research. If the hon. Gentleman recalls, I said that I was not going to discuss specific issues and specific types of case. It is important to take things in the context of how the debate has been going so far. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston spoke in broad-brush terms about the fees coming in and the total number of reductions.

[Richard Arkless]

I politely ask the Minister, when he takes the information from this debate back to the Government and his colleagues, to point out to them that although there may arguably have been a small decline or a trend before the imposition of fees, since then the numbers have fallen off the edge of a cliff. The trend has not continued.

[Mr Vara]

I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says. As I have said, we are undertaking a review at present.

Other policy reforms, including changes to employment law, which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston referred to, are also likely to have had some impact on the figures. It is clear, therefore, that a wider range of factors needs to be taken into account if we are to have a proper assessment of the true impact that fees have had, and that needs to be considered in the round. That is why we are doing a review, and that is what the review will seek to evaluate. If, after the review has reported, the Government believe that there are compelling arguments for changes to the fees structure or to the operation of the fee remissions scheme, we will, of course, bring forward proposals for a consultation, to which Members may wish to contribute.

We recognise that fees are never popular, but in the current financial climate we have a duty to consider all possible ways of ensuring that the courts and tribunals are adequately funded, so that access to justice is protected in the long term. Let me be absolutely clear, however, that at every step we have ensured that the most vulnerable are protected through the fee remissions scheme, so that the burden falls on those who can afford to pay. The conclusions of the review will provide us with a clearer picture of how fees have affected the way people seek to resolve their disputes.

Turning to some of the issues that were raised by colleagues in the debate, there was a charge that the fees were a sustained attack on working people. [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] I do not accept that for one moment. I refer to something that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said in his speech—I will more or less quote him—which was along the lines of, “If you are still working, taking your employer to a tribunal is the last thing you want to do.”

That is exactly why an ACAS proposal and early conciliation is a lot better than going to the tribunal. I like to think that the proposal for ACAS fits in nicely in the context of that interpretation of his sentence. The conciliation system is free. Colleagues talk about considering the working man but it seems that, by proposing to scrap or not recognise the free early conciliation system, they are showing that they would prefer a system where lawyers are instead paid by the people whom they speak about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I take on board what the hon. Lady says, and I will certainly look into the matter further. On the remissions system, I have already said we are looking to see how it can be made more user-friendly, and we will continue to look at it. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston also quoted Lord Justice Underhill in the case in which Unison had been involved. I gently point out to him that both the cases brought by Unison to seek judicial review were rejected by the Court of Appeal. Unison is seeking permission to appeal from the Supreme Court, but let me put it on the record that we will object robustly if the appeal process is granted.

[Richard Arkless]

The Minister is being extremely generous with his time; Opposition Members appreciate that. As part of the brief that he gives back to his colleagues—I am afraid I have had a memory freeze. I will come back to my point. I apologise.

[Mr Vara]

We still have about three and a half minutes, so I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman again if necessary.

On the issue of women and pregnancy discrimination, let me make it absolutely clear that it is unacceptable that women, pregnant or not—indeed, anyone—should be discriminated against when there are laws against it. We have strict laws and the Government take the matter very seriously, as do all Members of all parties. The reviews that have been referred to will certainly be taken into account by my Department’s review into the employment tribunals.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke of the Scottish aspect. I can assure him that my officials are in contact with Scottish officials to ensure that, pursuant to the Smith Commission, there is a smooth transfer in the running of the tribunals. I hope I have managed to persuade colleagues that the matter is not simply about preventing vexatious claims; it is much broader than that and is intended to ensure that where there is a need to reach a settlement with an employer, it is done in an environment that is less stressful than the court environment. Given the financial climate in which we operate, it is right that those who use the court service should in some way contribute to it.

I will conclude by congratulating the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston on securing this debate. It is absolutely clear from the 90 minutes or so that we have had that it commands a huge amount of interest from colleagues. I am grateful to him for giving his colleagues an opportunity to air their views, and for allowing me to take on board their comments and views and put on the record the Government’s view.

Corporate Economic Crime

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure for me, too, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) for introducing the debate. I also thank the hon. Members for Neath (Christina Rees), for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) for their thoughtful and insightful contributions.

The debate is predicated on the widely held public view that the bankers seem to have got away with it over the last five, six or seven years. Whether that is correct or not, it is certainly the widely held public perception. The urgings from the Opposition and the Conservatives’ manifesto pledge seemed to indicate that they were inclined to address that widely held view. I welcome that, and it is right that the issue is addressed. As we have heard from Opposition Members, corporate economic crime has increased over the last few years, and there is a question about whether both the means and the inclination and the will to tackle it exist.

I speak on behalf of the Scottish National party, of course, and section 7 of the Bribery Act applies only to England and Wales, not to Scotland. Most of the prosecutions that could be brought by the Serious Fraud Office or another entity relate to subjects—financial crime and financial regulation—that are reserved functions. However, Scotland has a long and well established criminal court system, which could bring charges for individual crimes to bear on individual directors, but as we have heard, those tools may not be up to the job. The SNP would be very interested, to say the least, in Government proposals on this point, but we recognise that there are difficulties. We, too, live in a jurisdiction where the prevalent public perception is that the bankers have got away with it. My constituents, like people across Scotland, are demanding that something be done.

I should declare a slight interest as a former practising lawyer, qualified on both sides of the border. Having come to this debate fairly recently, one difficulty I would point to is the difference between holding a company, as opposed to an individual, criminally liable. I am not saying that we could not get around that problem in law, but it strikes me, as a legally qualified person, that there are difficulties involved in bringing an entity into the realms of criminal liability. However, if the Government come up with proposals to get round that, I would certainly look at them.

The message to the Government from the SNP and Scotland is that if they do consider giving Scotland more tools to address these reserved issues, they should carefully consider the provisions that already exist in Scots law and make sure that the principles of Scots law are not set aside. It is in that spirit of co-operation that I come to the debate, and I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. We welcome moves to tackle this issue, but we are cautious about how they can be achieved.

When it comes to how the bankers have apparently got away with it, the message I hear from my constituents and from people across Scotland is really about actions and consequences. Over the last five to eight years, many ordinary people have, they would argue, suffered enormous consequences as a result of the actions of others. The public’s view in Scotland—I suppose this is replicated across the rest of the UK—is that there are people in the financial services industry who are earning huge sums and have suffered no consequences as a result of their actions or the actions of the company they are employed by. On the face of it, that needs to be addressed. We in Scotland are very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about what seems to be a substantial tide of opinion. Of course, we recognise that there are difficulties, which need to be addressed in any proposals.

[Stephen Pound]

The hon. Gentleman brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to the matter, which is welcome. In the context of what he was saying about perceptions, is he aware that in the summer BIS consulted the business community about whether to water down Labour’s Bribery Act guidance to businesses? That surely sends completely the wrong signal to business. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when there is consultation on whether even a measure as modest yet effective as the Bribery Act 2010 is potentially dilutable—if there is such a word—it sends an appalling signal?

[Richard Arkless]

Yes, wholeheartedly. The public perception is real and tangible, and in my view it is entirely based in fact. The Government’s reluctance to continue on the road, and the suggestion that the 2010 Act, which does not apply to Scotland, might even be watered down, sends entirely the wrong message. If we can convince the public that we are serious about the issue, the trust in financial services that has evaporated in the past five to 10 years can, I hope, be restored. The reason Parliament thought it right to bail out the banks was their intrinsic role in the economy, and that has not changed; however, the public need to have confidence in the financial services sector. For the time being, they do not have such confidence, and I will be interested to see what the Government will propose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I will not give way again at this point, but perhaps I will shortly.

The hon. Lady referred to the manifesto commitment, which specifically cites tax evasion. I will go on to say a little about that. I thought that one of the best points in her original speech was about the intelligence gap. That feeds the point that I have been making that we should not confuse the difficulties or challenges that we have in enforcing, which is what the intelligence gap is all about, with the breadth of the criminal base that we have on the statute books. That is a very important distinction, which she made rather well.

The bottom line is that there is no point in legislating for the sake of it. The hit and hope approach does not do any good; in fact, it feeds public mistrust. Frankly, we saw far too much of that under the Labour Government. I want to know that when we legislate we are putting in place a model, a criminal offence on the statute book, that will deliver prosecutions, convictions and the wider deterrent effect that we all want.

[Richard Arkless]

The Minister uses the vivid phrase “hit and hope” and has given three reasons why the Government will not pursue the position in their manifesto. I ask this very simple question: were those three reasons not prevalent before the manifesto was written?

[Mr Raab]

We are taking forward the manifesto commitment. We have an ongoing consultation on tax evasion and, if the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will come on to it. The other point made in the manifesto commitment is about the need to punish and deter. That is not just about legislation; it is about the enforcement regime. Over the years, hon. Members have been far too willing just to nod legislation through without thinking properly about how it will be enforced in a targeted and effective way.

Having said all that, I can give examples of very good outcomes, including in the high-end serious and complex cases dealt with by the Serious Fraud Office, which emerge from within the existing legislation and even pre-Bribery Act in some instances. There are other outcomes aside from criminal prosecutions. Deferred prosecution agreements are a further and significant tool. Civil recovery orders are an option.

The SFO cases involving prosecution or substantial civil recovery orders for a corporate have included the cases of AMEC, BAE, Innospec and Macmillan. Fines and civil recovery orders for more than £40 million were issued in SFO cases between 2008 and 2012. Nearly £30 million was paid by BAE to the people of Tanzania, following a settlement with the SFO and the US Department of Justice. More recently, last year, the SFO completed the Innospec and Smith & Ouzman prosecutions, both of which resulted in the conviction of the corporate as well as senior officials in relation to foreign bribery. And the SFO had its first prosecutions under the Bribery Act—they were associated with a biofuel fraud—albeit not under section 7.

The director of the SFO has said that there are current cases that may prove suitable for prosecutions under section 7 of the Bribery Act. Hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot go into too much detail on things that are subject to either a pending prosecutorial decision or investigation. The Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have had important successes, too, and some have also been very high-profile.

On tax avoidance, HMRC is responsible for policing the tax and excise laws. It has a range of tools and powers to secure compliance, including the power to conduct criminal investigations in appropriate cases in line with HMRC’s criminal investigation policy. Since 2010, HMRC has increased the number of criminal investigations leading to prosecution by 500%. That is a very clear example of where we have managed not only to have the legislation in place but to deliver a quantum leap in successful law enforcement. I am sure hon. Members from all parts of the House agree that that is what we should be aiming for.

Marketed tax evasion schemes have been one strand of priority work for HMRC during this period, and the CPS has brought a number of complex prosecutions against individuals. There are a number of high-profile examples, including Vantis and cases relating to the film industry. I have acknowledged the suggestions that have been made about extending the remit of section 7. Although Ministers have decided to halt that work for the time being, the criminal law is always monitored and if any clear and well evidenced difficulties come to light on which we can take targeted action, we will, of course, do so.

A proposed new offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion, whether onshore or offshore, was the subject of public consultation by HMRC between July and October this year. The consultation closed on 8 October, and the Government are considering the responses. That clearly falls within the area of the manifesto commitment that Opposition Members have enjoyed citing. That work is ongoing.

Deferred prosecution agreements, which became available on 24 February 2014, are one of the critical law enforcement tools that the Government have brought into being. To date, no DPAs have been concluded, but I am aware that a number of cases in the pipeline may yield DPAs. Under a DPA, a prosecutor charges a company with a criminal offence, but proceedings are automatically suspended. The regime has been designed carefully and we consulted on all its aspects. There are important safeguards in place, which is why we need to be a bit careful about the rather gung-ho suggestion that we should follow the American approach lock, stock and barrel. If we did so, concerns would be raised by Members on both sides of the House about the lack of safeguards in place.

Police Procurement (Motor Vehicles)

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) for securing this important debate, for his excellent speech and for his passion about the principle of buying British. I have some degree of sympathy for that principle.

Policing in Scotland is a devolved matter, but there is now a single police force in Scotland, which procures police vehicles through the Home Office contract. As far as I am aware, the Scottish Police Authority is part of the consortium of 22 or 23 police authorities that procure cars through the Home Office contract.

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position in the House. Actually, it is not the Home Office contract, but a contract with West Yorkshire, which is the central procurement team for the forces. He is absolutely right that Police Scotland is involved in the procurement process, but this is not a Home Office issue. It is done through the constabularies themselves, and West Yorkshire leads.

[Richard Arkless]

Nevertheless, the hon. Member for City of Chester made some excellent points. Before I heard them, I intended to outline the procurement process in Scotland and the savings that the single police is making within it. However, given what the hon. Gentleman said, I am not sure the debate would be served by that analysis.

I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that I will approach the Scottish Police Authority and ask it about this issue. I will ask whether it is aware of the contract potentially being given to Peugeot and get its view on the matter. I will also liaise with the Scottish Government and talk to the hon. Gentleman about the results of that, so we can take that forward. I do not have the information he has about whether the contract will go to Peugeot, but if it is going to, I share his concerns.

I cannot add a great deal to what the hon. Gentleman said, other than to agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I think the procurement process is best served by a consortium for procuring vehicles, so we can take advantages of economies of scale and get more bang for our buck. We could make demands on price, and we could make things cheaper and more cost-effective for the UK taxpayer.

I will leave it at that. I give the hon. Member for City of Chester my firm commitment that I will contact the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Government, and liaise directly with him on this issue to see what we can come up with to take it forward.

[Keith Vaz]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

I thank the Minister for that intervention and the interest he is taking in this issue. I am extremely grateful to the other right hon. and hon. Members who participated in the debate. The Minister mentioned future contracts; I can tell him and others present that with, I am sure, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), I will be taking a very close interest in that process—hopefully from the start of the process this time.

[Richard Arkless]

Before we embark on that process, will the hon. Gentleman and, perhaps, the Minister commit to looking at the other side of the coin? I am not saying whether or not this is the case, but do our European partners procure items, such as vehicles, for their public services from the UK? Would it not be wise to investigate that possibility before coming to a decision?

[Christian Matheson]

It is absolutely the case that—I think that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) referred to this fact—the supply chain in the United Kingdom does supply to businesses across Europe. I say to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless): go to France and find a police car that is not a Peugeot, a Citroën or a Renault, and go to Germany and find one that is not made by a German manufacturer. This problem appears to be peculiar to the United Kingdom.

In conclusion, I thank you, Mr Brady, and other hon. Members again. The UK automotive industry is very successful and is always looking to the next model, but it is never quite as secure as it appears and needs support from the Government to maintain its success. I shall maintain my vigilance on the contracts in the coming months.

Question put and agreed to

Resolved,

That this House has considered police procurement of motor vehicles.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

Of course the Department takes any assault on a prison officer incredibly seriously. It is essential that prison officers feel that the full weight of the state is behind them as they fulfil their duties. When there are serious assaults on prison staff, the perpetrators will be prosecuted unless there is an extremely good reason for not doing so.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

Given those figures, it might be pertinent to ask whether the Minister’s Department is a living wage employer.

[Caroline Dinenage]

We certainly are, as far as I understand it, and I am looking at that moving forward.