Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I would point out that this was in the Conservative party manifesto and we secured a majority at the general election. As I said, I will be in touch with the Scottish Justice Minister; I look forward to talking to him about this subject.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to her new role. It is good to see a Leeds person at each Dispatch Box. I understand that, like me, she comes from good, left-wing Leeds stock, and I look forward to our exchanges.

At the Secretary of State’s swearing-in ceremony, she quoted with approval the late Lord Bingham. On the Human Rights Act, Lord Bingham said in 2009:

“Which of these rights, I ask, would we wish to discard?”

He went on to say:

“There may be those who would like to live in a country where these rights are not protected, but I am not of their number.”

To give the Secretary of State another chance, because she failed to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), which of these rights does she wish to discard?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. It is great to have somebody who is also from Leeds facing me, although I learned the error of my ways after growing up in a left-wing household in that great city.

[Elizabeth Truss]

All I can say is that I believe that everyone is capable of reform, even those on the Opposition Benches. I have not yet given up hope on the shadow Secretary of State for Justice.

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to enhance human rights in this country. We have led the world in human rights since Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights that was published in Wales in 1689, and we will continue to do so.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the Secretary of State for that response, but let me say this:

“We were very clear that we will replace the Human Rights Act, which isn’t working for British people, with a British Bill of Rights that gives the ultimate power to citizens in this country.”

Those were the words of the Secretary of State on the “Today” programme in May 2015. Given that, and in the light of the answer that she has just given, can she explain to the House why she wants to rob the people of Britain of their rights? Will she admit that talk of a so-called Bill of Rights is simply posturing and making concessions to the hard right of the Conservative party?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Human rights were not invented in 1998 with the Human Rights Act. There are major issues with the Human Rights Act and we need to move forward. We need a British Bill of Rights that enshrines our ancient liberties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lee]

As I understand it, victims are now getting more of an opportunity to make a victim impact statement because they can do so online. I agree with my hon. Friend that that should be possible.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

As has been mentioned, today’s report on violence against women and girls shows an increase in prosecutions. However, victims charities remain concerned about their futures, as was stated by the chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Supporting Victims Group when asking the Ministry earlier this year to clarify what funding is available to PCCs. The Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that he will be “keeping an eye on this matter”. With respect, keeping an eye on the matter is not good enough. Will the Secretary of State now confirm that victims services will receive the full funding that they require?

[Dr Lee]

The victims services budget has increased significantly from £48 million in 2010-11 to about £95 million in the current financial year. In 2016-17, for example, we have allocated about £7 million to 99 rape support centres to provide therapeutic and practical help to male and female victims of rape and child sexual abuse. I do not recognise the description given by the shadow Secretary of State. The Government are committed to protecting victims, particularly women who have been victims of crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am a huge fan of apprenticeships. The new apprenticeship levy brings a big opportunity for some of our large legal services firms, and right across the board, to increase the number of apprenticeships. I will certainly be talking to those firms about that over the coming months.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

At one London provider of legal education, fees for the academic year ahead are as follows: nearly £11,000 for the graduate diploma in law; more than £15,000 for the legal practice course; and near to £19,000 for the Bar professional training course. That is on top of the cost of university education. Such fees are beyond the reach of many people from ordinary backgrounds. Given that reality, how will the Minister ensure a diverse legal profession?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have been discussing this matter right across the legal profession. At the younger end we are seeing a lot more diversity; the question is how people progress through the pipeline. I would like more transparency so that we can look at people moving through the system. I have no doubt that the Lord Chief Justice and leading judges want to see more diversity. They are very keen to work with me on this agenda.

Safety of Prison Staff

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for making those points. The report was exemplary, and, as I mentioned earlier, it has been a great help to the Ministry. I absolutely agree that we will bring forward an action plan and provide the House with regular updates on the steps that we are taking. He is also right to point out that the recruitment and retention of staff are critical. In response to his questions and those of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), I want to underline the fact that I want to work with the Prison Officers Association and all trade unions to ensure that legitimate concerns—all concerns, indeed—are addressed. I also want to ensure that we continue to attract high-quality people to the Prison Service, because it is a vital job.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The situation in our underfunded prisons is deteriorating. There have been consequences of the Government’s decision to cut £900 million from the Ministry of Justice budget. Assaults on staff and on prisoners are up. There are 13,000 fewer prison staff than there were in 2010, but there are more prisoners. The Government have made prisons less safe for staff and for prisoners. It is a service in crisis. On Friday, members of the Prison Officers Association held meetings outside prisons across the country to discuss what they call the “perpetual crisis” in the Prison Service. The Secretary of State has accepted that there are “significant problems”. The chief inspector has said prisons are “a lot more dangerous” and that staff shortages have had an impact. The Justice Committee has demanded an “action plan”. In the light of all this, will the Secretary of State tell us whether he or the National Offender Management Service have spoken to the Prison Officers Association since Friday’s meetings outside the prisons?

What is the Secretary of State’s plan to reduce staff assaults, which have increased by 36% in the past year? On the £10million that he has allocated to staff safety, if he finds, as I suspect he will, that the significantly higher spending he has experimentally allocated to Bristol, Hewell and Rochester does indeed have a much greater impact, will he increase safety spending elsewhere? In relation to the prisons identified for greater operational freedom in the upcoming prison and courts reform Bill—a process the Secretary of State has likened to school academisation—will he confirm that we will not see any watering down of staff terms and conditions or creeping privatisation? Is it not time that this Government stopped failing prison staff, failing prisons and failing our society in this regard?

[Michael Gove]

First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role on the Front Bench. I know that he has a distinguished legal career behind him, and that he has represented some of the most vulnerable in our society. His questions today go directly to the heart of the matter and I am grateful to him for giving me this opportunity to respond to them. We have spoken to the Prison Officers Association. Senior figures in the National Offender Management Service have been in touch with the POA, and we will continue to be in touch in the future. When the Prime Minister made a landmark speech on prisons earlier this year, I had the opportunity to talk to senior figures in the Prison Officers Association and found their approach to be constructive and cordial, and I want to maintain good relations with them.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that the £10 million may need to be increased and that we may need to invest more money in staff safety. We will of course monitor how the money is spent. It has been given to individual governors to spend as they think fit, but we will do everything possible to ensure that the resources are there to safeguard not only those who work in our prisons, but the welfare of those in custody.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the prison and courts reform Bill and the principle that the six reform prisons should have a greater degree of autonomy. He asked whether academisation, as an analogy, is a prelude to privatisation. The governors of those six prisons do exercise a greater degree of autonomy, but it is not intended that that should come at the cost of staff terms, conditions, security, safety or prospects. We want to ensure that staff in every prison feel that the idealistic work that they do is valued and rewarded, and that outstanding governors who are taking forward change in such prisons live and breathe respect for their staff every day.

Draft Civil Proceedings, First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and Employment Tribunals Fees (Amendment) Order 2016

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 General Committees

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I thank the Minister for his kind remarks, and I look forward to having many a constructive conversation and debate with him and his colleagues.

This is our second opportunity this week to debate court and tribunal fees, following the debate on Monday in the Chamber, during which we had the opportunity to discuss the Select Committee on Justice’s recent report on the issue. Hon. Members will recall that although it was an estimates vote on Monday night, Labour decided to treat it as a vote on tribunal fees in order to make clear our opposition to the Government’s policy on employment tribunal fees, so strong is our belief that they are a barrier to justice. Today we have an opportunity to make another clear statement on barriers to access to justice, as we discuss the proposed increases in court and tribunal fees set out in the order.

On Monday, I made it clear that I see it as my priority in my new role as shadow Justice Secretary to speak up for all those whose access to justice has been deliberately obstructed by this Government and the coalition Government who preceded them. We will assess the order on two grounds: affordability in providing access to justice and the Government’s evidence base for the proposals.

In principle, we can be in no doubt whatever that civil litigation fees discourage claims, particularly from those least well placed to afford them, such as people in receipt of benefits, whether unemployed or on low pay, women, black or minority ethnic individuals, the disabled and those seeking asylum. The introduction of fees in employment tribunals has coincided with an enormous fall of 70% or thereabouts in claims being brought, particularly those relating to sex discrimination, pregnancy or maternity rights, race discrimination and disability discrimination.

[Chris Stephens]

Is the shadow Secretary of State aware that there has also been a 70% drop in workers pursuing claims for non-payment of the national minimum wage?

[Richard Burgon]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important and alarming point. The reason for the drop in claims, whether those for enforcement of the national minimum wage or the other claims that I have outlined, is not that bad employment practices have suddenly become much rarer since the introduction of employment tribunal fees; it is that the fees are deterring people from making claims. That is not good for anybody, because employment tribunals deter bad employers from following bad practices and even protect employees who would never dream of making a claim themselves.

Today, the Government are proposing a 10% increase in civil litigation fees across the board. When did anyone who has to pay those fees have a 10% pay rise? I know from my previous brief as shadow City Minister that there are some people who might expect a 10% pay rise, but which council worker, health worker or factory worker—which of our constituents—last received a 10% pay increase? We need to be clear: this inflation-busting increase will lift access to justice further out of the reach of ordinary people on ordinary pay who receive ordinary pay awards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East put that point well in his intervention.

Today’s debate is also about the principle of court fees and how the legal system is increasingly used, in the words of the Law Society, as “a profit centre”. On Monday, I highlighted in the Chamber how concerned I was that litigants are increasingly treated as customers. As I said, I remember the first time, as an employment lawyer, I assisted a claimant to make a claim following the introduction of employment tribunal fees. I was sickened to see the following words on the Employment Tribunals Service website: “Customer, please enter your credit card details”. I was shocked and saddened to see that we are not treating people as citizens trying to assert their statutory rights; we are increasingly seeing them as consumers or customers. That shows the wrong priorities on the Government’s part.

We also need to be clear that the fee remission system in employment tribunals often requires people to provide a humiliating level of detail. I remember receiving remission forms requiring bank statements, and on one claimant’s remission form the Employment Tribunals Service had highlighted the fact that in December they had received a bank transfer of £12 from a relative. They were asked to explain what that £12 was for and why it was sent to them. If I remember correctly, it was money relating to a Christmas present, but that is the kind of intrusion that people are subjected to. It is almost as though the service did not want people to apply for fee remissions. Of those who do apply, only about 3.7% get any joy.

So why are the Government doing this? On Monday we discussed employment tribunal fees, which contribute something like £7 million of the £70 million-plus that it costs to run the Employment Tribunals Service. Today we are discussing a measure that the Government’s impact assessment says will bring in £5.9 million, but which will see fees leap up in a way that will make individuals think twice before applying. Some of those increases are as follows. A request to reconsider at a hearing a decision on permission in the immigration and asylum chamber will increase from £350 to £385; the High Court fee will increase from £480 to £528; and the fee for a contested hearing in the magistrates court will increase from £515 to £567. In the civil court, the fee for permission to proceed with a judicial review will increase from £700 to £770. Those increases are simply unfair and will deny access to justice.

The Government are clearly concerned enough by the fall in applications to employment tribunals that they have agreed, correctly, to initiate a review of the impact of employment tribunal fees. They are yet to produce or publish that report, five months after it was given to the Minister. Now they wish to push ahead with increasing civil litigation fees in a number of areas—including the property chamber, the immigration and asylum chamber and others—without publishing their review of employment tribunal fees or carrying out a further review of the affordability of civil court fees and the fee remission system. Such a review should take place, and it is not just those on the Labour Benches saying that. A number of stakeholders advocated that approach in response to the Government’s consultation. I am sad to say that the Government do not seem to be listening to those stakeholders.

The Government conducted a consultation on the increases in court and tribunal fees, following which they concluded that they still wished to impose a general 10% increase in civil litigation fees. That decision flies in the face of the submitted evidence. I would argue that the key question in that consultation was the one that asked:

“Do you agree with the proposal to uplift all civil fees not affected by one of the other specific proposals by 10%?”

The Government’s response noted that of 82 responses to that question, four agreed and 78 disagreed, and stated:

“Those who disagreed raised a number of opposing arguments,”

including that

“it would deter people from bringing claims”

and

“prevent people from accessing justice”.

There were 46 responses to the question:

“Do you agree with Government’s proposal to increase the fees charged for proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)?”

Some 37 of those responses disagreed with that proposal, saying that

“people seeking asylum in many cases were vulnerable and would be unable to afford the fees”,

and that

“the fees would prevent access to justice”.

The Justice Committee report, the words of which should weigh heavily on Members from all parts of the House, highlighted considerable concern at the Government’s proposals to set immigration fees at a cost recovery level.

I wish to highlight some of the arguments that the Law Society set out in opposition to the increase in fees in its submissions to the Government consultation and the Select Committee inquiry. I will quote the Law Society at some length, because it is worth listening to. It said:

“It is wrong in principle for the court service to be treated as a profit centre—the courts have a vital social function which it is for the State to provide, and should not be treated as a commercial activity to subsidise other work…The Government’s decision will discourage people from bringing legitimate cases, thus reducing access to justice…The proposals are not supported by any evidence or concrete proposals to indicate how the Government will use the money gained to improve the court service ... The research on which the decision was based is inadequate.”

The submission says that there is limited evidence of the impact on the poor in society, particularly in the immigration field.

The submission continues to say that

“fee increases will shift the burden of responsibility and costs onto innocent parties, deterring individuals from seeking redress and creating another barrier to access to justice…The income level at which fee remissions is available is far too low to be of any assistance to the majority of individuals—it is below the threshold for eligibility for civil legal aid…Increased fees could lead to the prospect of clients having to take out loans to fund court fees. This will only serve to create a further barrier to justice as many clients will not want to take out a loan or will not meet banks’ lending criteria. Those who do take out loans will have to pay interest…The process of applying for the remission of court fees is also highly complicated, designed seemingly to deter ordinary people from applying and in urgent need of simplification.”

I apologise for quoting at such length, but it is important that the Law Society’s comments are heard, heeded and put on record. They are damning words from a respected body of professionals who keep our legal system running.

I will also take a moment to highlight the concerns of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. It highlighted the fact that the Immigration Act 2014 dramatically reduced rights of appeal in immigration and asylum cases. It said to me that in many cases, access to judicial review

“will provide the only remedy to challenge the certification of a case as one in which the appeal may be conducted from outside the UK without leading to a breach of human rights including serious and irreversible harm”.

It said that access to judicial review

“will therefore be an essential safeguard against poor quality decision-making in this context and the risk of removal leading to breaches of human rights breaches.”

It concluded that in many cases, applicants

“will be facing imminent removal. Finding the funds to pay court fees or completing complicated applications for remission of the fees”

is complicated by the urgency of their cases. It also blames the Home Office for creating those court costs through

“poor decisions with (high overturn rates on appeal), to create delays in immigration proceedings and to fail consistently and timeously to give effect to the decisions of the courts.”

On the back of those concerns, we also have the latest proposal to increase immigration and asylum chamber fees, but I will leave that point there.

The one positive item in the order is the proposal to reclassify posted workers’ claims against employers in the employment tribunal as type A rather than type B claims, meaning that a lower fee will be payable. But one swallow does not make a summer, and in any event we remain committed to the abolition of employment tribunal fees under a Labour Government.

The Law Society has advised me that

“in light of the damning report from the Justice Select Committee on the impact of fee increases, the Law Society believes that any further increases should not be implemented until at the very least the MoJ has responded to that report, and preferably until a proper review has been carried out of the impact.”

I agree. I therefore ask the Minister the following. Will he listen to stakeholders from across the legal profession and conduct a review of the impact of civil litigation fees? Since it is three days since our last debate, is there any news on when he will publish the review of employment tribunal fees?

Given the evidence that court fees are a barrier to justice and given that the Government have refused to conduct or publish sufficient reviews of the impact of court fees, I confirm that we will divide the Committee to demonstrate the Opposition’s commitment to access to justice and to oppose the across-the-board, inflation-busting increase of 10% that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East so eloquently described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that where it is necessary for cases to go to the tribunal, people can recover their costs if they win.

[Richard Burgon]

On the subject of lawyers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw mentioned, I have been thinking about what the Minister said earlier. He said that to say that fees were about treating courts as a profit centre showed—I think these were his words, as Hansard will show—“a complete misunderstanding” of the court system. If I remember correctly, the quote to which he was responding was from the Law Society. Is he saying that the Law Society has a complete misunderstanding of the court system?

[Mr Vara]

There are various stakeholders involved in this debate and there are a variety of views. I disagree with the views that have been put forward, and that is why these fees are being introduced. I simply say as far as fees are concerned—this applies to employment tribunal fees as well as all the other fees that are relevant to the order—that a remission process exists. Subject to meeting the right criteria, people can apply for remission of the fees.

The Government estimate that the measures in the order will generate about £6 million per annum in additional income, with every pound that is collected being spent on providing an efficient and effective courts and tribunals system. The purpose of these reforms is to increase fee income and so reduce the costs of the courts to the taxpayer, and to ensure that access to justice and to the Courts and Tribunals Service is protected. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Question put.

Courts and Tribunals Fees

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond for the Opposition. I am following in the footsteps of a very learned gentleman: Baron Falconer of Thoroton. In terms of my legal career, I am not quite so learned. Before I was elected to represent my constituents, I was a lawyer for 10 years in my home city of Leeds. In eight years as an employment lawyer, I saw—like my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders)—many changes to employment law. As an employment lawyer, I was angry at what the introduction of employment tribunal fees in 2011 did to access to justice. Today, I am here at the Dispatch Box to speak up for all those whose access to justice has been deliberately obstructed by this Government and the coalition Government who preceded them.

I want to share with hon. Members my memory of the first time I lodged an employment tribunal claim after the introduction of employment tribunal fees in 2011. I was shocked and saddened to see the following words appear on the computer screen: “Customer, please enter your credit card details”. That made me sick to my stomach. Are we saying that people attempting to assert their statutory rights, such as the statutory right to be paid the national minimum wage and the statutory right not to be discriminated against at work on grounds of gender, sexuality, religious belief or disability, are reduced to being consumers or customers?

[Mr Djanogly]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Burgon]

I will not be giving way because there is limited time and I want to give the Minister as much time as possible to answer.

Are we saying that these people are reduced to being customers? In fact, they should be viewed as citizens trying to assert their statutory rights and to seek justice. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) is annoyed, but not as annoyed as many across the country who have seen their access to justice so unnecessarily restricted.

The Select Committee’s report, which I commend, recommends that

“the overall quantum of fees charged for bringing cases to employment tribunals should be substantially reduced”

and that

“the Ministry…should introduce a system for regular rerating of remission thresholds to take account of inflation”.

I think, as do plenty of people outside this place, that we need to go further than that, but the report is nevertheless to be commended.

We have heard excellent contributions to this debate from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I particularly welcome the opening speech by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who is Chair of the Justice Committee, which, as he explained, unanimously supported the report’s recommendations. In response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), we do recognise the concerns of the Campaign for Freedom of Information.

How can it be disputed, after what we have heard today, that access to justice has been harmed, not helped, by this Government and their coalition predecessor? Many of us know of this from our own experience as MPs, with our constituency advice sessions overflowing with people who do not know where to turn when they cannot access or afford legal advice or legal representation. Legal aid has been attacked, employment tribunal fees have been introduced, and fees are being increased in divorce proceedings and in immigration and asylum cases. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) explained, these fees risk dissuading people from litigating at all, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) indicated, they have a discriminatory impact.

The Select Committee is right to be concerned about the effect of court and tribunal fees on women in particular. The increase in the divorce petition fee from £410 to £500 disproportionally hits women, who are the vast majority of divorce petitioners. Why should the Government be increasing what could be termed a “divorce tax” on people, including women, who have suffered domestic violence or emotional abuse? Why are the Government charging more for a divorce petition than it costs to process it? Should the state really be making money from people’s misery? What have people bringing cases in the immigration and asylum chambers done to deserve a proposed 600% increase in fees? This is an attack on some of our society’s most vulnerable people—those seeking asylum. As we heard here last week, this takes place against a backdrop of growing attacks on people who are perceived to be migrants.

Let me turn to the Select Committee’s concerns about employment tribunal fees. The report quotes from the Odysseus Trust, which describes tribunal fees as

“a tax on justice imposed to enable HM Treasury to profit from people seeking to enforce their legal rights”.

The same paragraph quotes the organisation, Working Families, which says that

“these fees imperil the rule of law.”

That is also the view of legal experts. The Select Committee heard from Jonathan Smithers, the president of the Law Society, who said that there was the possibility of

“a two-tier justice system for the rich and the poor”

and that any increase in fees will militate for that rather than against it. Chantal-Aimée Doerries, chair of the Bar Council, said:

“Our members who practise in the employment tribunals have very much formed the conclusion that the challenge at the moment is the level of fees in terms of access.”

The Select Committee concluded, and I hope that the whole House weighs these words very carefully:

“Where there is conflict between the objectives of achieving cost-recovery and preserving access to justice, the latter objective must prevail.”

I could not agree more.

Employment tribunal fees have cut access to justice. As we have heard, there has been a 70% or so reduction in employment tribunal cases being brought. Cases on unauthorised deductions from wages are down by 56%. Cases on unfair dismissal are down by 72%. Cases on equal pay are down by 58%. Cases on sex discrimination are down by 68%, and cases on race discrimination are down by 60%. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) observed so effectively, is anybody seriously arguing that this drop in the number of claims being brought means that there has been a sudden damascene conversion of all the employers in the country and that bad treatment has been abolished and consigned to the history books? Of course not; it is just that claims are not being brought. We must remember the deterrent factor. Employment tribunal claims do not just help those who bring them; they also help those who would never dream of doing so. The possibility of the claim being brought acts as a deterrent against employers engaging in bad and discriminatory behaviour.

The true nature of the remission system must be discussed. I remember, when I was an employment lawyer, helping people to fill in the remission fees forms and watching them do so, with the amount of humiliating detail they are expected to go into in providing so many bank statements and all their other details. I remember getting documents back from the employment tribunals service where people had highlighted in yellow on someone’s bank statement the fact that they had had £12 transferred into their bank account by a relative and asked them to explain what this money was for, where it had come from, and why. Unison is correct to say that the remission system is not working. Unison argues that the equality impact assessment of July 2012, before the introduction of fees, said that it was expected that 23.9% of claimants would benefit from full remission and 53% of claimants would benefit from the variable discounts on fee rates up to £950, but the actual figures suggest that only 3.87% of claimants benefit from any remission. That is shocking.

With these statistics in mind, I welcome the Select Committee’s criticism of the Ministry for failing to publish the review on the impact of employment tribunal fees. The Select Committee said:

“On the basis of…evidence to us on 9 February, we assumed that the review would be published shortly”.

It also said:

“We have not appreciated being strung along in this fashion”,

and that it is “unacceptable” that it remains unpublished six months later. Who would not agree with that when ordinary people continue to miss out on justice? It is therefore welcome that as well as the pressure brought to bear by the Select Committee’s report we continue to see a legal challenge to employment tribunal fees by the trade union Unison, which has now taken its case to the Supreme Court, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) mentioned.

I would like to say more, but I wish to give the Minister an opportunity to address some of the concerns that I and others have outlined today. I reiterate my support for the Select Committee’s request that the Government publish their review on the impact of tribunal fees and reconsider their approach of treating court users as customers.

Sir Hartley Shawcross, who was Attorney General from 1945 to 1951, when we had a fantastic Government who changed things for the better, said about the Legal Aid and Advice Bill in 1948:

“It is a Bill which will open the doors of the courts freely to all persons who may wish to avail themselves of British justice without regard to the question of their wealth or ability to pay…indeed, going back further to the time when Magna Charta decreed that: ‘To no one will we sell, deny, or delay right or justice.’—it is an interesting historical reflection that our legal system, admirable though it is, has always been in many respects open to, and it has received, grave criticisms on account of the fact that its benefits were only fully available to those who had purses sufficiently long to pay for them.”—[Official Report, 15 December 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1221.]

Nobody could put it better or advocate those principles more effectively, but regrettably they are up for debate again.

This is an estimates day debate. I can make it clear now, with no ifs or buts, that a Labour Government, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) as Prime Minister, will abolish employment tribunal fees and pursue the principle of access to justice for all. The usual convention is not to vote on estimates day. However, such is the strength of feeling in the parliamentary Labour party that we will vote against this motion on a point of principle.

Homicide Law Reform

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am pleased to respond to the debate, which I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) for securing. I very much enjoyed serving with him and other hon. Members who are here today in my brief time on the Justice Committee. So much has changed for all of us in the Conservative party and the Labour party since those straightforward and timid days.

The hon. Gentleman brings the expertise of someone who sits on the Justice Committee, whose work I will refer to later, and the experience of a distinguished legal career. His former legal practice described him as “a first-class practitioner” and a “persuasive and forceful advocate”. As he has persuaded the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to keep an open mind on this matter, I can certainly say that I agree with his former legal practice.

The hon. Member for Shipley, a fellow Yorkshireman, said that people would not want hear from him in the debate. On that, as on many other things, I fundamentally disagree with him. I was pleased to hear from him, as we all are, because one thing we do respect him for is that he always says what he thinks, which is very important. It was a pleasure to hear from the hon. Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and for Hendon (Dr Offord), both of whom made interesting points about this most serious of matters. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating this slot for the debate and ensuring that such important topics are debated in the House.

As hon. Members know, this is my first debate as shadow Secretary of State for Justice and shadow Lord Chancellor. I am pleased to follow in the footsteps of Lord Falconer and my other predecessor, Sadiq Khan, who is now the Mayor of London. Not only have I had the pleasure of briefly serving on the Justice Committee, but for 10 years I was a lawyer in my home city of Leeds, and for eight of those years I practised employment tribunal work. I am yet to meet my opposite number, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, but I understand that he is rather busy at the moment. I am sure that he will be agreeable to meeting me at some point and I look forward to that.

There have not been many speeches in this debate, but they have all been excellent, and I feel with confidence that we can move the debate forward. I want to give the Minister the maximum time to respond—he may get a full hour to respond, who knows?

[Mike Penning]

Don’t hold your breath.

[Richard Burgon]

Some people would like me to hold my breath, maybe for a long, long time but, on this occasion, I will not. I will limit my remarks to briefly addressing joint enterprise, an issue that has been raised in this debate and that the hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned in his submission to the Backbench Business Committee.

Any change to the law of homicide, no matter how small, is of the utmost importance to the public and the House. That is because homicide offences are some of the most serious criminal offences that any individual can commit against any other individual or individuals. The state, as a signatory to the European convention on human rights, must undertake a positive obligation under article 2—the protection of the right to life—to take all appropriate steps to safeguard life, and to put in place a legislative and administrative framework to provide effective deterrents against threats to the right to life. That is what we are debating and why, in my new role, I am keen to listen carefully and engage with as many key stakeholders as possible. I am keen to hear more from the Minister about the Government’s next steps.

On joint enterprise, it is important to refer to Lord Neuberger’s judgment, in which he said that the Supreme Court ruling did not automatically mean that all previous joint enterprise convictions were unsafe, and that

“a person who joins in a crime which any reasonable person would realise involves a risk of harm, and death results, is guilty at least of manslaughter”,

the maximum sentence for which is life imprisonment. He also said that the rule that

“a person who intentionally encourages or assists the commission of a crime is as guilty as the person who physically commits it”

was not affected, and that it remained open to a jury to decide whether a person had intentionally encouraged or assisted a crime—for example, through knowledge that weapons were being carried. As the Prime Minister has said, we are dealing with a narrow change to the law, but one that could have massive implications for many people.

[Mike Penning]

I am probably the only non-learned Member present in the room, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but I understood that the ruling was quite specific. I thought that the Supreme Court had said that the interpretation of the law had been wrong but that there was no need to change the law. The judgment was quite specific about that.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the Minister for making that important point, and I look forward to hearing about that in more detail in his response.

The lawyer Simon Natas, who has worked with the impressive campaign group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association, said that the “historic” ruling would make the law “fairer for everybody”. He is right, but it is important to make it clear that if someone goes out as part of a gang carrying guns or knives, and their actions encourage or assist in a murder, they should face the consequences. I am sure that is broadly the view of reasonable people, and that the public would support that. After listening to the views of my friends, neighbours and constituents, I know that, by and large, that is people’s view.

The judgment was right to acknowledge the growing call for change following the concern that quite peripheral members of a gang involved in a killing, who had no real clue what they had been caught up in, were being prosecuted. That is why I welcome the judgment. I press the Government to commit to conduct a review of the effects of the change after two to three years.

I am concerned by evidence that the Cambridge Institute of Criminology provided to the Justice Committee revealing that the proportion of black and mixed-heritage young men serving very long sentences for joint enterprise offences is much higher than their representation in both the general population and the overall prison population. Will the Government commit to reviewing that, alongside the wider review by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)?

We have heard today about so-called one-punch killers. The hon. Member for Cheltenham provided examples, hypothetical and otherwise, showing the difficulty of the issue and the serious consideration it requires. I am concerned about the public perception that attackers who kill with a single punch seem to receive jail sentences that could be seen as lenient, despite the December 2009 Court of Appeal ruling on single-punch killings led by the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge. The ruling’s conclusion stated that acts of violence resulting in death should be given “greater weight” in sentencing, even if the conviction is for manslaughter rather than murder. Will the Minister confirm whether he is reviewing that ruling?

I will close my remarks to give the Minister as much time as possible, although I suspect he will not take the maximum time available. The Labour party is clear that the criminal justice system relies on the fundamental principle that the public must have confidence in it, and it is our duty to ensure that victims and witnesses who come forward have confidence that their case will be dealt with thoroughly and fairly, and that people who break the law of the land and who are found guilty of some of the worst offences—homicide devastates families across the country—are punished accordingly.

I thank all hon. Members who took part in this debate, and I thank you, Mr Evans. I look forward to the Minister’s response.