Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

As I mentioned, the Prime Minister has made it clear that she is seeking to ensure that the measures that underlay them, and the co-operation within them, will continue as far as possible post Brexit.

I should mention, because the hon. and learned Lady often asks about liaison with the Scottish Government, that I spoke to my counterpart, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on 29 November, and he reiterated to me how pleased he was with our engagement at official level on the negotiations with the EU.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Government have created a Brexit crisis through their rotten deal, which is abhorred by both sides of the House. While the Prime Minister runs scared of democracy and delays the meaningful vote, Cabinet responsibility has broken down, with Ministers pitching their own plan B or even plotting leadership bids. Planning for future judicial collaboration with Europe is suffering as a result. The Justice Committee says the Government are providing “little detail or certainty” about future judicial co-operation. The Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee warns of a “worrying level of complacency”. When will the Secretary of State pay as much attention to dealing with this problem as he does to problems in his own party?

[Lucy Frazer]

My Department is making a lot of efforts to ensure we have the right deal. We have received £17 million for EU Brexit preparations. We have over 110 full-time employees, including newly recruited employees, working across deal and no deal. I would say, as the Lord Chancellor said in his FT article at the weekend, that the Conservative party is ensuring the future of our country, whereas the leader of the Labour party is just trying to make political points to ensure a general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard that we are doing a review of legal aid, which will be published early in the new year. I was interested to read the recent Scottish Government report on legal aid, which implements a number of the things that we are already doing, including using technology to help our court processes.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The current Prime Minister unleashed the Home Office’s hostile environment against migrants, and the Windrush scandal shows just how easily people can fall foul of this Government’s complex and cruel immigration rules. It is even tougher for those who have to navigate this hostile environment without legal advice, yet access to legal aid-funded immigration advice has fallen by 68% under the Tories, from 120,000 cases in 2010 to 39,000 cases this year. So do the Government regret scrapping such publicly funded legal advice that can save people from unfair decisions and deportations, and if so, will they reinstate it?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman has not made that offer. The Opposition have made an offer in relation to welfare, but not, I note, in relation to immigration. Let me remind him that people can already get legal advice for asylum and non-asylum cases, and for cases involving detention, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, domestic violence and trafficking. I want to make it clear to the House and to everyone who is listening that people are often not claiming legal aid because they do not believe they are entitled to it, because the Opposition and some others suggest that it is not available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

It is of course for magistrates to make decisions and they do have the right to overturn recommendations. However, as my hon. Friend says, when making those decisions, they should be in possession of the full facts from the youth offending teams, the police and the CPS. She is right to highlight the importance of information sharing and sharing that information in good time. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), and I continue to work on that.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Government’s ideological experiment of privatising probation has been a calamitous failure. It was such a flawed idea that even this Government have had to cancel the current private contracts, which were costing the public more and more money while leaving them less and less safe. Yet the Government are set to re-tender those contracts back to the private sector. Interserve is currently the largest probation provider, supervising 40,000 offenders, yet it is now in rescue talks, trying not to become the next Carillion. So will the Justice Secretary commit today to ensuring that Interserve is not awarded any of the new private probation contracts?

[Mr Gauke]

We will award the contracts to those best placed to carry them out. I have to say that the hon. Gentleman’s hostility to the private sector, in all its forms, in all contexts, is not a sensible or pragmatic approach to trying to ensure that we get best value for money for the taxpayer while making improvements to reducing reoffending.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

Family reunion is an important issue, and I have met a number of Members to discuss that Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at legal aid broadly and will set out the consequences of our review by the end of the year.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Of all the cuts to justice, the slashing of legal advice for sick and disabled people who are unfairly denied their benefits is one of the cruellest. We now have a shameful situation whereby people are first denied the financial support to which they are entitled and then must struggle through a difficult appeal without legal advice. This situation is bad enough already, but it will be even tougher under universal credit. Under the Conservatives, legal advice for welfare benefits cases has been cut by 99%. Is the Minister ashamed that sick and disabled people are paying the price for this Government’s ideological cuts agenda, or was that the deliberate intention?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am not aware of any representations from the Labour party in relation to any provisions that it would make on legal aid funding. This is an important area involving people who are vulnerable and need help. Prior to LASPO, people did not get help at the representation stage of welfare cases—only at the advice stage. We are making a number of changes to make the tribunal process that people go through much simpler and more straightforward.

[Richard Burgon]

Let us be clear: legal advice was given to 91,000 people in the year before this Government’s reforms to legal aid. How many was it last year? It was 478 people, not 91,000. Can the Minister honestly tell the House that the need for legal advice has reduced by such a degree, or should we instead conclude that—just as with employment tribunal fees, housing advice, employment advice and immigration advice—the cuts to legal advice for the sick and disabled are really about targeting the weak so that they can enrich the powerful?

[Lucy Frazer]

As I mentioned earlier, we spend £100 million on legal help and we are improving the tribunals service to enable people to access and liaise with judges to improve their process through the court system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

I am pleased to say that, at the most recent Budget—I do not wish to get involved in the next Budget and the spending review, on which I am confident—we got a great deal of investment into the prison estate, which makes a huge difference. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of the future budget, but watch this space and see how our negotiation goes.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Privatised provision of maintenance at HMP Liverpool was to blame for a lot of the appalling conditions there. Despite that, the Government plan to run two new prisons for private profit. I do not expect the Government to agree with me that the privatisation of justice is wrong, but surely we can get a consensus that companies engaging in fraudulent activity should not be able to profit from the public purse. Will the Secretary of State today commit to G4S and Serco not being allowed to run those two new privately run prisons while they remain under a Serious Fraud Office investigation for ripping off the Ministry of Justice?

[Rory Stewart]

There is of course one important point here, which is that we need to make very sure that the people we work with are reliable and trustworthy. I absolutely agree on that. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that G4S is running some good prisons in places such as Parc and Liverpool. We need to get the balance right between making sure that these are reliable providers and making sure that they protect the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) knows this yet, but I do know that he will shortly introduce an Adjournment debate on this matter. His views, and the views of others—which, in many cases, are different—will therefore be heard at rather greater length before very long.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister told her party conference that austerity was over, and the Chancellor said that austerity was finally coming to an end, but it seems that they did not have the Ministry of Justice in mind. The Treasury’s own figures—I have them here—show that justice budgets will be slashed by £300 million next year, and that is on top of hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts this year. Those cuts risk pushing justice from repeated crises to breaking point. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as the Treasury says, justice budgts will indeed be cut by £300 million next year, and that these brutal cuts show that we cannot rely on the Conservatives to end austerity, injustice or anything else?

[Mr Gauke]

In the recent Budget, the Chancellor announced an extra £52 million for the MOJ to be spent in the course of this year. The figures to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are in the 2015 spending review. At the time of the 2017 general election, when the Labour party proposed spending that would increase Government debt by a trillion pounds, there was nothing there for the MOJ. Let us remember that next time the hon. Gentleman stands up and rants about spending on the MOJ.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Richard Burgon Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is regrettable that we are here for the Third Reading of yet another Conservative Bill that unleashes a Tory attack on the rights of victims and undermines access to justice. When the record of this Conservative Government is written—probably sooner rather than later, if the media reports are to be believed—the way in which they have entrenched a two-tier justice system will be writ large on the political epitaph of the Prime Minister and this Government. The cruelty of the Conservatives’ cuts to legal aid will be one example of that. Their wilful policy of making it harder for people to take on dodgy landlords or to challenge a flawed benefits decision or cruel immigration decision will be another, at a time when people need that kind of support more than ever. The Conservatives’ record on employment tribunal fees will also be something that we in this country will look back on shame. It is not only unlawful, as the Supreme Court decided, but immoral.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon]

I will not.

The Government’s intent was clear for all to see. They are making it harder for workers to take on unscrupulous bosses—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) wishes to speak for the insurance industry, he can do so. Step up!

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was not going to speak for the insurance companies. I was going to ask whether he welcomed the fact that the Bill will lower the price of insurance for consumers. Does he not welcome that?

[Richard Burgon]

There is absolutely no guarantee of that happening as a result of the Bill. That is not its real purpose. It actually undermines access to justice. As I said on Second Reading, this is yet another attack by the Government on our justice system and on the vulnerable. It is an attack that will, in practice, enrich the Conservatives’ friends in the insurance industry—[Interruption.] As we can hear, Conservative Members do not like that allegation, and they did not like it when I made it on Second Reading. Maybe it touches a nerve. The Government had a chance to disprove it by their actions, by backing amendments that would have ensured that the Bill would not simply line the pockets of the insurers, but they did not do that.

In their media briefing, the Government claim that the Bill is about cutting the number of fraudulent whiplash claims. Of course, no one would disagree with doing that, and had the Government taken measures that did that in reality and simply stopped there, they would undoubtedly have built a broad consensus and the Bill would have been uncontentious. They did not do that, however. Instead, they pressed on with measures that will penalise the many. That, alongside their dire record on access to justice, is why we still believe that these reforms are a smokescreen. I know that there are many Conservative Members who pride themselves on defending our justice system, on upholding the rule of law and on promoting access to justice. Today is the day for those Members to show that they put their commitment to those important principles above narrow party interest by rejecting the unjust proposals.

The Bill started in the Lords, where it faced substantial opposition, not only from Labour Members or Members representing other political parties, but pre-eminent legal experts, including former Lord Chief Justices, who expressed their concerns about the Bill’s impact on access to justice and the independence of the judiciary. The Government only narrowly defeated amendments—similar to those we have discussed today—that would have fundamentally altered the Bill for the better. Since then, they have not taken the opportunity to listen, not even to those pre-eminent legal experts. They have not tried to negotiate or to remove the barriers to justice that define the Bill. For those reasons and others that I will set out, Labour Members will vote against it.

Before addressing the Bill’s provisions, I wish to place on record other elements of the package of reforms that are intended to be passed through statutory instruments. Through that route, the Government want to increase the small claims limit from £1,000 to £2,000 in all cases and from £1,000 to £5,000 in road traffic accident cases. That will make it much harder for workers to get compensation for workplace injuries, and for genuinely injured people to get a fair settlement. A significantly greater number of claims will be dealt with through the small claims procedure, whereby no legal costs are usually awarded, even in successful claims.

When legal fees are not covered, tens of thousands of working people will simply be priced out of obtaining legal assistance, resulting in many pulling, dropping or not pursuing their cases. Of course, others, determined to secure justice, will fight on, but by representing themselves, at a massive disadvantage. An insurance company will be served by a legal expert fighting their case. The victim will be left to try to navigate a complicated legal procedure, placing greater pressure on our already overstrained courts. Some will choose to pay their legal fees out of their compensation, but then, in practice, they will be compensated less than a court found appropriate. As always, the wealthy will be able to afford the best legal advice and the rest will have to suffer.

Justice for the many, not the few is mere rhetoric for the Government. In reality, it is justice for the few, not the many. Is that why the Government are trying to sneak measures through the back door rather than putting them in the Bill so that they could be debated and amended? That is a cowardly attack on workers’ rights, pushed through without real debate or scrutiny. That just about sums the Government up.

I want to give some real-life examples of people affected by the reforms because far too often their voices are not heard in this place.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently say to the shadow Secretary of State, who has come on later than he might have expected to speak—the Minister was within his rights to speak for an unusually long time for Third Reading—that the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) indicated to me several hours ago that she wished to contribute on Third Reading. It would be most unfortunate if there were not an opportunity for Back-Bench Members to speak. I am not blaming the hon. Gentleman, but I ask him whether he might take account of the interest on both sides of the House.

[Richard Burgon]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Those people include a driver, working to take disabled people to and from a day centre, who, because he had not been properly trained, fell off the vehicle while assisting a wheelchair user and suffered a back injury. They include a cleaner in a hospital who, while mopping the floor, went to pick up some papers and pricked her finger on an unsafely discarded needle. She suffered a psychological and physical injury. Just imagine the fear she must have felt as she waited for the test results. Those are examples of cases that have been sent to my office, and of real people who would be penalised by the new system. Those are the people whose voices the Government are content to drown out with their rhetoric that labels people fraudsters and says that they are on the make when they are anything but.

When we consider the Bill, we should not forget that there was a 90% drop-off in employment tribunal claims when employments tribunal fees came into effect. Something similar could happen again with personal injury cases, with genuine victims priced out of justice and deterred from pursuing a claim for an injury that was not their fault.

It is not only Labour who oppose this Conservative attack on access to justice. The Justice Committee has explained that

“increasing the small claims limit for personal injury creates significant access to justice concerns.”

We agree with the Justice Committee and the recommendation of the Lord Justice Jackson review that the small claims limit should be increased in line with inflation, which would mean a rise to £1,500, not the £2,000 currently proposed. We have repeatedly tabled amendments to the Bill, and it is a shame that the Government have not listened. We have also made clear our position on tariffs, and it is a shame that the Government have not responded in a meaningful way to those amendments.

I am conscious that Mr Speaker has asked that I shortly draw my remarks to a conclusion, but I urge every Member of this House to look at the chart produced by the House of Commons Library at page 30 of the briefing and ask themselves whether this is just. What does the chart show? It shows that compensation for an injury lasting up to six months will fall to a fixed £470, down from the current average of £2,150—down by three quarters. Compensation for an injury lasting 10 to 12 months will be £1,250, down from the current average of £3,100—down 60%. Compensation for an injury lasting 16 to 18 months will be £2,790, down from £3,950—down by 30%. Is that what the Conservatives mean by justice?

Injured people who have done nothing wrong are losing out and being placed at a huge disadvantage. If Conservative Members do not want to take Labour’s word for it, they should at least think very carefully about what was said in the House of Lords. The point has already been made that this Bill undermines the independence of the judiciary with the tariff system. We have commented on the definition of whiplash and on the fact that the Government are making out that fraud is taking place on an industrial scale. Do something about cold calling from claims management companies; do not target injured people.

Why not exempt children? People outside this place will not believe that the Government did not concede on our common-sense amendment and have refused to budge on the discount rate.

The central purpose of the Bill is to tip the scales of justice against injured people and in favour of insurance companies’ profits. The Conservatives have shown that this is about lining the pockets of insurance companies by refusing to vote for Labour’s considered amendments, which would have protected vulnerable people and safeguarded fair treatment for victims. This attack on justice is not the first by this Government since 2010—after legal aid and employment tribunal fees—and I fear it will not be the last Tory attack on access to justice.

The wider measures that the Conservatives plan to introduce alongside the Bill will leave tens of thousands of people unable to enforce their legal rights. The Bill may well turn out to be the thin end of the wedge for yet more restrictions on justice in all personal injury cases. If it passes, it will be celebrated as a great victory by the insurance companies in whose interests it has been conceived and drafted, and it will be ordinary people, whose rights are gradually chipped away, who pay the price. That is why Labour will be voting against Third Reading tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Indeed, and as my hon. Friend knows there is a new law that does precisely that. We were very happy to support the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on that front. We are increasing legislative ability, and we want to make sure that we work closely with the police to ensure that prosecutions are brought. It is the case, as I have mentioned, that we are giving prison officers a new tool, with access to PAVA.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The prisons Minister theatrically announced to the press this summer that he would resign if the 10 prisons he had identified did not improve on his watch. I have been looking at the prisons that he chose. It turns out that, of the 10 prisons he identified, only three are in the bottom category of the four prison performance categories. It gets still stranger when we see that there are 15 prisons in that worst performing category. I am sure that the Minister is sincere in his desire to improve prison standards, so instead of cherry-picking prisons for a media stunt, will he agree today that if all the 15 worst performing prisons identified by his own Ministry do not improve on his watch, he will quit?

[Mr Gauke]

The prisons Minister has set out a plan for 10 prisons that we are going to focus on. If the hon. Gentleman wants an explanation as to why we have chosen those specific 10 prisons, I am happy to meet him, and I know the prisons Minister would be happy to meet him. This is an area where we believe it is necessary to take action, and we have a plan to reduce violence in those prisons. If it works, we can look to extend it elsewhere. The fact is that we are gripping this issue. We are putting measures in place to address it, and we will deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

As I represent a rural constituency, I completely understand my right hon. Friend’s point. The Government have recently consulted on the powers available to local authorities to deal with such problems and we are now looking at how we might strengthen the powers of local authorities and landowners.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister told her party conference that austerity is over, but if that were true, everyone in the justice sector would be breathing a huge sigh of relief. Tory cuts have unleashed an unprecedented crisis in our prisons and wider justice system. Justice faces the deepest cuts of any Department, totalling 40%, with £800 million in cuts between April 2018 and 2020 alone. Those cuts risk pushing justice from deep crisis into full-blown emergency, so will the Secretary of State confirm that that £800 million of cuts will not go ahead? If not, will he agree with me that the Prime Minister’s words were nothing more than yet another Tory con trick?

[Mr Gauke]

What I can confirm is that we are continuing to recruit more prison officers and to invest in court reform. As the hon. Gentleman mentions party conferences, I have to point out to him that as the shadow Lord Chancellor, when somebody suggested an illegal general strike, the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Well, he denied that he joined in a standing ovation, but he did say that he stood up and clapped.

[Richard Burgon]

To bring things back down to earth, the people who clean and tidy the Secretary of State’s office—perhaps even when he is in it—have been demanding a real living wage of £10 an hour. Those Ministry of Justice cleaners are sick and tired of being treated like dirt, and his security guards, who keep the Ministry of Justice safe, are in the same boat. I wrote to the Secretary of State demanding that he sort this out, but he used outsourcing as his excuse for inaction. Instead of repeating his excuses to me today, will he address the Ministry of Justice staff watching us today and tell them why he thinks that they are not worth £10 an hour?

[Mr Gauke]

We are the Government who introduced the national living wage, which increased in April by 4.4%. We were able to do that because we are running a strong economy. That would not happen if the hon. Gentleman got his hands on this country.

Bedford Prison

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

We are definitely putting in more investment, and we need to put in more investment. That is why we are spending £40 million on additional improvements in the existing infrastructure, and that is why we will spend well over £1 billion on building new prisons, but the urgent problem we face will not be addressed overnight by new prisons. These prisons will take serious time to build, and the problem will have to be addressed on the landings and outside the cells by legislative measures such as the Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda, by body-worn cameras, by CCTV, by training and, above all, by management and support for staff.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The chief inspector of prisons has spoken of the continual and unchecked decline in standards at the prison over the past nine years. He also said that, at times, it felt like the prisoners were in control. This is the prison with the highest rate of assaults in the country. Some 77% of prison officers at HMP Bedford have less than one year’s service.

That is the reality, so I am disappointed that, in his seven minutes, the Minister said a lot but avoided the specific question at hand on HMP Bedford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) for his tireless work on exposing the failings at the prison. As we have heard, this is the fourth jail in just 12 months to be issued an urgent notification. Formally, the Minister has to publish a plan of action for the prison within 28 days, but we need answers today.

The Government’s recent solution to the widespread failure at HMP Birmingham was to increase prison staff and reduce prisoner numbers there. Will the Minister commit today to a similar increase in staff and reduction in prisoner numbers at Bedford? There was a riot at Bedford in November 2016. What have the Government done since to improve the situation, bearing in mind what the chief inspector of prisons has said?

Whose fault is it that in the latest annual performance figures, HMP Bedford is still labelled as a prison of serious concern? It remains one of the most overcrowded prisons in the country—40% over capacity. What has the Minister done, and what have the Government done, to tackle overcrowding there since the 2016 riot?

More widely, what plans do the Government have to end overcrowding across the prison estate, given that over half of prisons are overcrowded? The proportion, by the way—people on the Government Benches will not like to hear this—is even higher in private prisons. Finally, if more staff and fewer prisoners was the answer to HMP Birmingham’s problems, will the Minister commit today to an emergency plan, with new Treasury funds, to end overcrowding and end understaffing across the prison estate?

[Rory Stewart]

Essentially, the hon. Gentleman posed three questions. The first is whether we recognised the problems in Bedford following the 2016 riot. We certainly did. The riot in 2016 was very disturbing, and since then we put the prison into special measures. So we absolutely agree with the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), and by the shadow Secretary of State, and indeed by the inspector. That is why we put Bedford prison into special measures; that is why we anticipated this inspection report.

The second question was, how many of these urgent notifications are coming? Fundamentally, as I laid out at the beginning of my speech, this is a problem that exists in many of our local prisons. It is not an issue that specifically exists in cat D prisons, or in the high security estate, or particularly in the female estate. This is an issue in prisons such as Bedford, Exeter, Nottingham and Liverpool, and, as we discovered, Birmingham.

What is the solution? The shadow Secretary of State asks whether the question is a private/public question. It is not an ideological question. Two of the best local prisons currently in the country, Forest Bank and Thameside, are private prisons. Bedford is, of course, a public prison. He asked whether we would look at the ratio between prison officers and prisoners, and rightly pointed out that in Birmingham, as in other prisons, when we face these kinds of problems, often we temporarily reduce prisoner numbers and bring in additional prison officers. I can undertake that that is something we will be examining during the 28 days we have; we will prepare a plan and come forward with an answer for the chief inspector. It is a very reasonable proposal, and it is one we will consider very carefully.

HMP Birmingham

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on his Government’s plans for HMP Birmingham.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

I would like to begin by paying tribute to the work of the chief inspector, in particular in relation to Birmingham, and indeed his entire inspection team.

The situation in HMP Birmingham was simply unacceptable. It was shocking in terms of the levels of violence, in terms of the response to those levels of violence, in terms of the drugs, and in terms of basic decency. The situation in Birmingham has of course been of considerable concern for some time; for that reason I visited personally in the week before the inspector issued the report. The Secretary of State for Justice, the Lord Chancellor, also made a personal visit to Birmingham, and the chief executive of the Prison Service also visited Birmingham.

The reason for this is that over the last few weeks and months we have been increasingly concerned about G4S’s inability to turn around the situation. The steps we took were initially to issue a notice to improve, followed by a second notice to improve. I then held meetings with G4S in London at which it replaced its governor—who had been in place for 18 months—and brought in a new governor. It then brought in a new team; we came up with a new action plan and a new team was brought in by the Ministry to work alongside it.

Notwithstanding all the steps that Birmingham and G4S took over those months, the conclusion that we reluctantly reached in the week before the inspector published his urgent notification was that G4S would not be able on its own to turn around the significant problems of Birmingham. Therefore the decision was made to take the unprecedented step of the Government stepping in and taking over control. That means in effect three things. First, we have brought in a highly experienced governor from the public sector, Mr Paul Newton, who has taken over as the governor of the prison. Secondly, we have reduced the number of prisoners in Birmingham prison by 300, which has allowed us to take key cells out of operation and renovate them. Thirdly, we have brought in an additional 32 highly experienced public sector prison staff in order to support the team on the ground.

All of this will be done with no cost to the taxpayer, and I want to take this opportunity also to say that, notwithstanding the very significant problems at Birmingham, there are dedicated, serious professional staff on the ground who have been facing a very difficult situation. There have been real challenges around drugs and leadership. We are confident that, with Paul Newton and the new team and the reduction in numbers, we can stabilise that prison, address the drugs and the violence, and turn it around and restore the confidence to the team.

I anticipate that this could rapidly become a debate over the merits or otherwise of privatisation, and I am expecting that the shadow Secretary of State will almost certainly go in that direction. For what it is worth, we on this side of the House do not believe that this is primarily an ideological battle. The situation in Birmingham has been serious for some time. It was a Labour Secretary of State for Justice who initially decided to proceed with the privatisation of Birmingham in 2010, although it was a Conservative Secretary of State who finally let the contract. The company concerned, G4S, has clearly significantly failed in Birmingham, but at the same time, as hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) can confirm, it is running an impressive prison in Parc and at Altcourse in Liverpool, which is performing well particularly in education and work, while Parc is doing well on family services. The BBC has just produced a very positive report on its performance at Oakwood as well.

So this is not primarily about the difference between the public and the private sectors. Sadly, there have been significant challenges also within the public sector, at Nottingham prison, at Liverpool and at Exeter most recently. Indeed the chief inspector of prisons himself underlined that this is not primarily about public against private, but is about basic issues primarily around drugs, violence and management. We will be focusing on those three things above all through this step-in, and, as I have said, at no cost to the taxpayer.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his reply. It is clear from the damning report on HMP Birmingham, as well as from the failings in the probation system, that the costly privatisation experiment in our justice system should be ended. Costs aside, one of the great failings of privatisation is that we in this House struggle to hold mega-corporations such as G4S to account. They use the cloak of commercial confidentiality until it is all too late, and then they need rescuing by the state. Despite that, I hope that we will get some straight answers to straight questions today.

Will the Ministry of Justice be imposing a financial penalty on G4S for its failures at HMP Birmingham? What additional funding will be provided to HMP Birmingham to remedy the current failings? Will any public funding be used to do that? If so, will this come from the current MOJ budget? Thirty additional officers are to be sent to Birmingham Prison. Will the Minister commit to giving all other failing prisons—including public prisons—the same percentage increase in staffing above current levels?

Why did the Government decide that HMP Birmingham would not be permanently returned to the public sector? Will the Minister today commit to an independent commission to look at the merits of doing so before handing the prison back to G4S? Will the Government now halt their plans to build new private prisons? If not, will the Minister at least rule out G4S bidding for them? And will the Government now commit to a wider independent review of the involvement of private companies in the justice system?

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for Justice for his questions. They are serious questions, and this was a serious failing in that prison. I shall try to answer them one by one. The financial cost to G4S of us stepping in will be very considerable. G4S already estimates that it is losing on this contract. It is to a great extent paid according to the number of prison places. Specifically, therefore, the removal of 300 prisoners from that prison will impose a direct financial penalty on G4S, which will be covered by G4S itself. I can also confirm that the entire cost of this step-in will be covered not by the taxpayer but by G4S, because we will withhold the payment we would normally make in line with the contract with G4S to cover those costs.

The shadow Secretary of State also asked whether we would put exactly 32 officers into the other challenged prisons. We are not in a position to specify the exact numbers, but the broad approach that we would take to Birmingham is the same as the approach that we would take to the other public sector prisons. That approach involves focusing first on the inflow of drugs into those prisons, through the use of intelligence disruption for organised criminal groups as well as through the use of scanners. We are putting nearly £6 million-worth of investment into drug interdiction and scanners.

Secondly, our approach involves focusing on basic decency, and nearly £30 million-worth of extra investment is going into living conditions in our prisons. Thirdly, there is a focus on education, and the Secretary of State’s education and employment strategy is central to this, giving prisoners purposeful activity within the prison walls and ensuring that they get jobs on release, thereby reducing reoffending and protecting the public.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly of all, we are focusing on supporting our hard-working prison officers with the right training in leadership and management skills. They are doing an incredibly tough job outside prison doors. They are facing unprecedented levels of challenges with the new psychoactive substances coming in, and we really need to support them. We are doing that through the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) which will double the sentences for people who assault prison officers and other emergency workers. We are also doing it through additional training for prison officers before they go on the wings and supporting them through training as they continue.

The shadow Secretary of State asked about an independent commission. Respectfully, I would argue that we already understand very well what happened at Birmingham Prison, without the need for an additional independent report. The independent monitoring board has produced a full report on Birmingham Prison. The chief inspector of prisons has also produced a full report, and we have looked closely at Birmingham Prison over the past few weeks and months. Unfortunately, the story at Birmingham Prison is a relatively familiar one. It is about drugs, about violence and about management and training. There is no great secret there. The question of G4S bidding for future prison contracts is a hypothetical one, and no such contracts will be let for a number of years. However, we will of course, in accordance with all our rules, look seriously at the past record and performance of the companies involved, including G4S, before considering it for a tender.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Richard Burgon Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Today we are discussing yet another attack from this Government on our justice system: yet another attack on the vulnerable that, perhaps not coincidentally, will enrich the Conservatives’ friends in the insurance industry. The Civil Liability Bill is presented by the Government in its press spin as being about cutting back on fraudulent whiplash claims—and, of course, who could disagree with doing that? But given this Government’s record in justice, I am sure that Ministers will understand why we do not take their assertions at face value, and why we fear that these reforms may in fact be a smokescreen—because under the Conservatives our civil justice system has been undermined all too often, with basic rights rolled back, creating a two-tier justice system.

Take, for example, the Conservatives’ unlawful employment tribunal fees, which made it harder for workers to take on unscrupulous bosses. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled them unlawful, but only thanks to the dogged campaigning of trade unions and others. Or take the Conservatives’ cuts to legal aid, which make it harder for people to take on dodgy landlords, or to challenge a flawed benefits decision that leaves people out of pocket and relying on food banks. We fear that this set of justice reforms will also undermine people’s basic rights.

This Bill attracted widespread opposition in the House of Lords, with the Government only narrowly defeating amendments that would have substantially altered the Bill for the better. But to do so the Government had to ignore pre-eminent legal experts.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I recognise that the Opposition’s job is to oppose, but would the hon. Gentleman not concede that in the past decade the number of claims in this area has gone up by 40%, whereas cars have become safer and accidents have decreased by 31%? Surely, therefore, does it not make sense that this exploitation comes to an end to benefit his constituents, as policyholders, as well as mine?

[Richard Burgon]

I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about when he says that this “exploitation” has to end. In fact, the trend is that whiplash claims are going down. We have heard the Secretary of State himself say, “Of course, many claims are genuine.” Even the way that that is said implies that somehow people are on the make. Most claims are genuine. [Interruption.] I do not see what is so amusing about that. There is not a compensation culture in this county, whatever the Government’s friends in the insurance industry might be telling them.

When I mentioned pre-eminent legal experts, I was including former Lord Chief Justices who expressed their concerns about the Bill’s impact on access to justice and on the independence of the judiciary. So Labour Members are clear that this Bill, in its current form, cannot be supported. Unless it is very substantially amended in Committee, we will vote against it on Third Reading. We hope that the Government will take seriously the amendments that we are tabling this week, which build on the points raised by many colleagues in the Lords.

Before I talk about our opposition to many of the measures included in the Bill, I want to draw Members’ attention to the associated statutory instruments. This Bill, as we have heard, is a part of a wider package of reforms—a package that will make it harder for workers to get compensation for workplace injuries, and harder for genuinely injured road users to get compensation. Through statutory instrument, the Government are seeking to increase—

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Hundreds of thousands of workers could be denied access to justice for genuine comprehensive claims. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers estimates that up to 350,000 workers could be denied access because of these measures.

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. USDAW and other organisations are right to say that hundreds of thousands of people could be negatively impacted.

Through statutory instrument, the Government seek to increase the small claims limit from £1,000 to £2,000 in all cases and from £1,000 to £5,000 in road traffic accident cases. We are very concerned about what that means in practice. A significant number of claims henceforth will be dealt with through the small claims track procedure, where even in a successful claim, no legal costs are usually awarded.

Without legal fees being covered, tens of thousands of working people will simply be priced out of obtaining legal assistance. Many will drop their cases altogether. Others will fight on but do so representing themselves, not only making their pursuit of justice more difficult, but placing serious pressures on the courts. Others will pay their own legal fees out of their compensation, which in effect means a cut in their compensation levels. Of course, other workers will conclude that when their route to justice through a court or tribunal is removed, they have no alternative but to resort to industrial action to achieve redress.

[Chris Philp]

Is it not a well-established principle both in this country and overseas, in jurisdictions such as France, that for very straightforward, simple matters—these very minor injuries are generally straightforward and simple—having a fast-track process without the involvement of expensive lawyers is a reasonable and legitimate approach?

[Richard Burgon]

We need to ask ourselves what “minor injuries” and “small amounts of money” mean. What is being referred to as a “minor injury” may last up to two years. I do not think that that is a minor injury. What is being referred to as “small amounts of money” is actually, in practice, a lot of money for working people who are struggling to make ends meet.

There was a 90% drop-off in employment tribunal claims when employment tribunal fees were introduced. We fear something similar in personal injury cases, with genuine victims priced out of justice and deterred from pursuing a claim for an injury that was not their fault.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that for cyclists who have accidents, their bicycle may be their means of getting to work, and therefore that is not minor, petty or small? We should take that into account when looking at what we call “minor injuries”.

[Richard Burgon]

I certainly agree with that point, which I will come to later. People also need to consider the psychological effects of some of these injuries.

I must make some progress. I want to talk about the type of people who will be affected by these reforms, and I will now give some real-life examples.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way before he does that?

[Richard Burgon]

I will not give way when I want to talk about real-life examples. We need to hear from the people who will be affected by these reforms. Once I have given them a voice, I will give the hon. Gentleman his chance to speak. These people include a warehouse operative who suffered a head injury when a heavy metal bolt fell from a roller shutter door and struck him on the head, and a caretaker in a council who was pushing rubbish bags down a chute when he was injured by a needle that had pierced through one of the bags. He suffered a physical and, indeed, psychological injury; just imagine all that worry as he was waiting for the tests. Those are real cases that have been sent to my office and that would be penalised by the new system. We cannot have those voices being drowned out by the rhetoric that calls people fraudsters and says they are on the make when they are anything but.

[Mr Bacon]

I am sure many of us agree that genuine cases need to be treated appropriately, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a problem with a growing compensation culture?

[Richard Burgon]

The evidence does not bear that out. Proven fraudulent whiplash claims amount to 0.25%. To hear some Conservative MPs, we would think that the majority of whiplash claims were fraudulent, when only 0.25% have been shown to be. It is not justice if the honest vast majority are penalised because of a tiny dishonest minority. That is no way to reform things or make the law.

[Vicky Ford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Burgon]

I have to make some progress, I am afraid.

The Government have said that they will drop vulnerable road users from their reforms. They should indeed do so, but they should also concede that the inclusion of people injured at work is equally unjustified.

It is not only we who oppose these measures. The Justice Committee concluded that

“increasing the small claims limit for personal injury creates significant access to justice concerns.”

[Gareth Thomas]

Is not one real problem with the increase in the small claims limit the fact that a vast imbalance of resources is imposed between the insurance company on the one hand and the individual making a claim on the other? The individual making a claim will not have their legal costs paid for and will not be able to have an expert lawyer on their side as a result in most cases, while the insurance industry will be able to have expert, skilled lawyers on their side, fighting their corner.

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. This goes completely against the principle of equality of arms.

We agree with the Justice Committee and the recommendation of the Jackson review that there should be an increase in the small claims limit only in line with inflation. That would mean a rise to £1,500, not the £2,000 currently proposed. If the Government were to propose a £1,500 limit today or to accept Labour’s amendment that we will propose in Committee, that would help to build a much broader consensus around this currently divisive legislation.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in employment cases, it is not just about an inequality of arms, but the fact that a worker has to take on both their employer and their insurance company? It is very difficult for a vulnerable worker who has been injured to look their employer in the eye one on one and take them on. That is why they need legal support.

[Richard Burgon]

That is a very important point indeed. All too often, the human experiences of the individuals who have been injured or discriminated against at work are forgotten. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that perspective to bear.

[Vicky Ford]

I agree that people who are injured should receive fair compensation, but when 47p of every pound paid out is going to lawyers, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that unless we reform this, we risk finding that young drivers and vulnerable people cannot get affordable insurance?

[Richard Burgon]

Right across the justice sector, the real targets of the Conservatives’ reforms have not been lawyers, but ordinary people. That is the reality.

I will move on to the measures that the Government have included in the Bill. We are very concerned by the tariff system, which would fix the amount of compensation in so-called minor whiplash claims. I will come on to the fraudulent claims later and the measures—or lack of measures—to tackle that in the Bill. However, the reality is that even if the Government’s case about the scale of that problem were correct—I note that the Commons Library says clearly that it is “not universally accepted”—the way the Government are seeking to resolve this would still be wrong. The Government’s main proposal to tackle fraud is to penalise genuine whiplash victims. The proposed new levels of compensation under the tariff system are significantly lower than current average compensation payments. Surely that is unfair.

For example, compensation for an injury lasting up to six months would fall to a fixed £470, down from a current average of £l,750. For an injury lasting 10 to 12 months, compensation would be £1,250, down from a current average of £3,100. For an injury lasting 16 to 18 months, it is £2,790, down from £3,950. Those are considerable drops in compensation for injured people. This will make a real difference to working people and their families in the worst possible way. It is a crude and cruel policy that penalises genuine victims. Who really stands to gain? It will be insurers who will be excused from paying full compensation, even where negligence has occurred.

There was widespread discontent among legal experts in the Lords regarding this tariff approach. Lord Woolf, former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, said:

“it results in injustice and it is known to result in injustice. Indeed, no one can deny that it results in injustice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1620.]

Lord Judge, another former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, said:

“We cannot have dishonesty informing the way in which those who have suffered genuine injuries are dealt with. That is simply not justice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1600.]

In a very powerful intervention, Baroness Berridge said:

“I have met many a claimant for whom the difference in damages now proposed by the introduction of the tariff…is a significant matter for many peoples incomes up and down this country. I cannot have it portrayed that this might not make a great deal of difference to many ordinary people in the country…in this Bill, the intended consequence…will be to affect that group of people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1611.]

Baroness Berridge is of course a Conservative party peer.

One key point in our opposition is the slashing of compensation for genuine claimants. Another is that it will be the Lord Chancellor setting tariff levels, which risk becoming a political football or, rather, being reduced ever further by the powerful insurance industry lobby. Tariffs are a rather blunt instrument; people should simply get the correct compensation for the specific injuries they have suffered. As former Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf says, establishing the correct level of damages is

“a highly complex process of a judicial nature”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1593.]—,

and damages might vary from case to case, making the fixed tariff inappropriate. We will therefore propose amendments to delete the power for the Lord Chancellor to set the tariff.

If the Government are set on going ahead with tariffs, the judiciary should be involved in setting them. The Judicial College currently issues guidelines with levels of damages for different injuries. Lord Woolf stated:

“they have been hugely important in the resolution of personal injury claims.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1594-95.]

I hope that those across this House who profess to defend the independence of the judiciary would agree that tariffs should be determined by the Judicial College and not by political actors, of whatever political persuasion. We will be pursuing amendments to that effect.

That is not an end to the powers that the Lord Chancellor is accumulating. This Bill even allows him to define whiplash. Surely, it would be more appropriate for the definition to be set by medical experts rather than politicians, especially when an incorrect definition could mean people with injuries much more serious than whiplash having them classified as such.

The Government’s justification for genuine claimants suffering substantial reductions in damages is reducing the incidence of fraudulent claims. The Government give the impression that it is an uncontested point that fraud is at the levels that the insurers claim, but that is contested. That is not to say that there are not fraudulent cases—of course a small minority of cases are fraudulent—but we need to properly understand the problem if we are going to have genuine solutions.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The Law Society considers that fraudulent claims should be addressed by targeting the fraudsters and that the vast majority of honest claimants should not have to put up with the changes proposed in the Bill.

[Richard Burgon]

That is absolutely right; it is a powerful moral argument. It is immoral to make the honest vast majority pay—literally—for the fraudulent activities of a tiny minority. The Justice Committee explained:

“we are troubled by the absence of reliable data on fraudulent claims and we find surprising the wide definition of suspected fraud”.

Looking at premiums, the insurance industry’s own estimates show that the amount paid out on whiplash claims fell by 17% between 2007 and 2016. What happened to premiums in this time, while the amount paid out on whiplash claims fell by 17%? They actually rose by 71%.

There is therefore little in this Bill, aside from penalising genuine victims, to deter fraud or to prevent the nature of any fraud from changing to circumvent the new measures.

Compulsory medical reports are a good idea, but there is little to limit insurance companies settling too quickly on low claims that they may view with suspicion but pay out on anyway because it is cheaper to settle than to contest them. There is little on controlling unscrupulous claims management companies. Beyond warm words from the insurance companies themselves, there is also no mechanism yet to guarantee that lower insurance premiums will result. The Secretary of State said that something is on its way in relation to that, but we will reserve judgment until we see what concrete measures the Government actually propose.

We will therefore propose amendments that toughen up these measures but do not penalise genuine victims. One amendment would reduce the period for which the tariff applies to one year, not two. It is much less likely that fraudulent cases will be those lasting for the longest time. Two years of suffering is surely too long to be deemed a minor injury. Given that there is no evidence that workers such as ambulance drivers or HGV drivers who suffer whiplash during their employment are behind any fraud whatever, will the Minister find a way to exclude those workers from this legislation?

Finally, where someone has suffered an injury that will leave them with many years, or a lifetime, of disability, they need to be certain that the lump sum compensation award they get has been properly worked out so that it does not run out. The discount rate is key to this calculation. Victims should always get 100% of the compensation they are entitled to. Getting that right means that someone whose mobility is restricted after a serious accident will have enough money over their lifetime to fund the extra costs that reduced mobility will entail. Getting it wrong would leave seriously injured people getting less compensation than they are entitled to, with potentially hugely damaging consequences for their quality of life. That is why we will closely scrutinise the Government’s proposals to change how the discount rate is set, so it is determined not by the powerful insurance lobby but in the interests of society as a whole. That is why we will table amendments to strengthen the safeguards in the Bill and ensure that all victims get 100% of the compensation they are entitled to.

To conclude, the Government have an opportunity—an opportunity to do the right thing and to show that this is not just another attack on access to justice. They can do that by backing amendments to remove the barriers to justice that are all too prevalent in the Bill. If they fail to do so, we are clear that we will vote against the Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

First, I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his work on that review, which is well known to this House and beyond. It is an excellent review, with an excellent report, which was one of the first documents I read upon my appointment. I considered all its 35 recommendations carefully and I am absolutely delighted to agree to meet him.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The last inspection report on Oakhill said that there is no evidence that the 80 children held there are adequately cared for. Oakhill is managed by G4S. I have been asking parliamentary questions about whether G4S is meeting its contractual obligations there and the answers are revealing:

“The Contract for Oakhill STC is between the Secretary of State for Justice and STC Milton Keynes Ltd (the Contractor), of which G4S is their Operating Sub-Contractor. We therefore do not have information on the proportion of contractual obligations that G4S has met.”

Does the Minister agree that that is yet more proof that outsourcing and privatisation should be ended in our prison system?

[Edward Argar]

It is a pleasure to answer the shadow Secretary of State from the Dispatch Box. He highlights an extremely important issue. I believe there is a role for the public, private, and voluntary and philanthropic sectors in our justice system. He highlights the issues at Oakhill. Ofsted’s findings in the inspection report on Oakhill at the end of last year are unacceptable, and we took urgent action to address the concerns raised. We are robustly monitoring performance against the contract, and I am clear that all options remain on the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are of course recruiting more prison officers. Enjoying one’s work is not just about pay, and the reward strategy in prisons is about officers working closely with their prison governors to ensure that they have an opportunity to develop in work and get the most out of their work.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I regularly ask parliamentary questions about staffing levels and conditions at the private probation companies. The answers from the Department are shocking. None of the community rehabilitation company contracts specifies that CRCs must maintain staffing numbers at a particular level. When Ministers bailed out the private probation companies last year with another £342 million, they did not bother to make staffing levels a contractual obligation. Why not? Does the Department not care about accountability? Or is it because, in the Secretary of State’s privatised probation service, profits always come first?

[Lucy Frazer]

We believe it is important that systems work and that outcomes are effective. The contracts focus on ensuring that the right outcomes are achieved, not on the number of people who work under them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important role of restorative justice. The Ministry of Justice supports the provision of victim-focused restorative justice as one of a range of measures to help victims to cope with and recover from crime. A recent evaluation showed that 85% of victims who participated in restorative justice said they were satisfied with the experience, which can, of course, bring benefits to the community as well.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

In my first two questions today, I focused on the widespread failings of privatisation in our justice system. I have written to the Secretary of State about the close relationship that his Department has with outsourcing giant Serco, a relationship that is ever closer given that his new Minister was once its spin doctor-in-chief. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House today that he has reorganised responsibilities in his Department, so that his new Minister in charge of youth justice will not be involved in any way in any of the young offender institutions that Serco manages?

[Mr Gauke]

There has been no reorganisation of responsibilities. There is no conflict of interest here at all. The suggestion that because somebody has worked in the private sector for such a company, there is a conflict of interest is not accurate. The hon. Gentleman’s hostility to the private sector, in this sector and across the piece, is symptomatic of why the Labour party should be kept as far away from the Government Benches as possible.

Privately Financed Prisons

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Justice Secretary to make a statement on the Government’s plans for more privately financed prisons.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

Yesterday, I attended the Justice Committee hearing on prison populations and confirmed that, in line with the 2016 White Paper and the 2017 manifesto, we remain committed to delivering 10,000 new prison places in order to replace the places in prisons that at the moment often have old, unsuitable and expensive accommodation.

During the Committee testimony, I confirmed two things. The first was that we will be proceeding at Wellingborough with a public capital financed prison, with work to begin at the end of this year or the beginning of next, subject to the usual tests of affordability and planning. I also confirmed that at the Glen Parva site we will be continuing with the current demolition and proceeding, again subject to the normal tests of affordability and planning, to a competition for a private finance initiative construction of the Glen Parva prison. We will then continue to push ahead with the four subsequent prisons, bringing us to the total of 10,000 places.

We are also investing £16 million in further investments in repairs in the existing estate. All of this is absolutely essential because, as the shadow Lord Chancellor is very aware, much of our estate remains old, expensive and unsuitable for prisoners, and we must move to regenerate it.

[Richard Burgon]

Yesterday, the prisons Minister announced a new private prison at Glen Parva. Previously, the Government had announced a £1.3 billion plan to build 10,000 new prison places. Despite repeated questioning from Labour, the Government had provided only obfuscation as to how these places would be paid for—now we know why. I hope that my list of questions will finally be answered today.

The Ministry of Justice has been cut more than any other Department—it has been cut by 40%, or £4 billion per year. The flipside of cuts is a greater dependence on privatisation and outsourcing, and when it comes to our prisons it is the public who pay the price. Carillion’s collapse affected half the prison estate, where it was contracted to do basic prison maintenance. Yesterday, the prisons Minister revealed that the contract was “completely unsustainable”, costing the public millions of pounds more each year, yet now we have more private contracts on the way. There are therefore questions to answer.

How many other new prisons are the Government considering building under PFI? What is the estimated additional cost to the public ministry of building prisons under PFI? Will the new prisons have their maintenance work outsourced? Does the Minister still definitely intend to sell off Victorian prisons that do nothing to reduce reoffending? If not, does that mean less income and more privatisation in our prisons estate? Will he allow any of the companies being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office for overcharging the MOJ—Serco and G4S—to bid to run the new prisons? Will the new residential women’s centre announced by the Government today be financed by the private sector? Finally, will the new Justice Minister, who once worked in a senior role at Serco, which has £3.6 billion worth of MOJ contracts, be involved in the tendering process for any more of these private prisons?

[Rory Stewart]

The shadow Lord Chancellor asked a number of important questions. Let me go through the answer on the six prisons where the 10,000 places are. At the first prison, Wellingborough, the construction will be funded by public capital. The second prison, Glen Parva, will be funded through PFI. We are exploring a range of other funding arrangements, including private finance, for the remaining four prisons but we have yet to achieve a resolution on that.

On the question of who we would like to bid, of course we will be looking for legal, reliable bidders, but I wish to emphasise that the key here is about getting quality and diversity into the estate. We do not want to be overly ideological about this. We believe in a mixed estate. There are some excellent public sector prisons. I had the privilege of visiting Dartmoor prison recently, where prison officers within the public sector estate are delivering excellent services and getting very good inspection reports. At the same time, Serco is running a difficult, challenging prison at Thameside, which has 1,600 places, and is innovating. It is bringing in new technology, it is bringing computers into cells and it has had a real impact on violence and on drugs.

At Liverpool’s Altcourse prison, G4S is running a prison where there are fantastic employment facilities and workshops in operation. The inspectors have clarified that in Liverpool the private sector, drawing on the same population size, is outperforming the public sector. This is not a question of a binary choice between the private and the public sectors; it is a question of a diversity of suppliers, who can often learn a great deal from each other.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Lady has made an important point. The Government have done a significant amount in relation to domestic violence, understanding that it often involves not just physical abuse but, as the hon. Lady says, coercive control. We have also changed many of the guidelines relating to domestic violence so that people who have experienced such abuse can obtain legal aid more easily. I hope that that resolves some of the problems that the hon. Lady has identified.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Government’s cuts in legal aid have caused widespread damage to access to justice. The Information Commissioner has now taken serious action against the Ministry of Justice, owing to its refusal to publish in full the findings of its own research, which reveal judges’ deep concerns about the damage that is being caused. Would not the Government have spent their time better in trying to fix the broken justice system, rather than engaging in crass attempts to cover up embarrassing research findings showing the failures of their legal aid policies?

[Lucy Frazer]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are currently engaged in an extensive review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. We have met with over 50 organisations or individuals so far this year. I am aware that a complaint has been made to the Information Commissioner’s Office, and my Department is working closely with the ICO on this matter.

[Richard Burgon]

The truth is that our legal aid and wider justice system is in crisis—a crisis created by this Government’s reckless cuts agenda—and the Government seem to be trying to bury the truth about the legal aid crisis. The research I referred to that was hidden away said that the judges

“believe unrepresented defendant numbers have increased and this is disproportionately reducing the efficiency of the courts.”

So will the Government today come clean and explain to this House why such evidence from judges about the scale of the damage the Government’s cuts are causing to access to justice was removed from the published report?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman will know that 99% of people who claim legal aid in the Crown courts are granted it. He will also know that in the report he identified, although there are some unrepresented defendants, most people surveyed said that did not make a difference to outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lee]

My hon. Friend asks a telling question, as ever. Yes, I am persuaded on the question of maturity, and this is something that the system currently reflects. We have youth offender institutions for those aged up to 18, and for those aged 18 to 21. Beyond 21, offenders enter the adult estate. Yes, we need to adopt a more holistic approach to the management of young people. That is why, since I have been in post, I have had meetings with Education Ministers, with Health Ministers and with Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I continue to pursue this actively.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Youth offending teams have a crucial role to play in preventing our young people from becoming offenders or victims of crime, but the Ministry of Justice has halved the funding for those teams since 2010. We have now found out that they are facing another real-terms cut this year, despite the spate of knife and gun attacks. Does the Minister believe that the Government’s cuts to youth offending budgets leave us more safe or less safe?

[Dr Lee]

The youth offending team budgets are the same in cash terms this year as they were last year. The issue of ghastly knife crime to which the hon. Gentleman refers is clearly serious and, sadly, it is occupying the news headlines almost on a daily basis. Our approach to this is not just about youth offending teams; there is also a broader issue with regard to serious violence. We need to address the motivation of young people to use those knives. Going back to the previous question, dealing with this will require a cross-Government approach.