Prisons and Courts Bill

Debate between Richard Burgon and Rob Marris

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon]

I agree with the point that my hon. Friend so eloquently makes. Injured people should not be made to pay the price of the behaviour of the unscrupulous minority—the companies that engage in the practices she describes.

The Secretary of State started her speech by explaining how the Bill introduces a statutory purpose for prisons to

“protect the public…reform and rehabilitate offenders…prepare prisoners for life outside prison; and…maintain an environment that is safe and secure.”

Of course we agree with those aims, but most people believe that they are what prisons are meant to be doing already. It is crystal clear that those things are not happening today. The main problems in prisons cannot be disputed: violence, drugs, overcrowding and understaffing. To combat those threats effectively, we need a plan for order—a plan to reduce the demand for and supply of drugs, to manage the prison population, and to recruit and retain prison officers. Where is any of that in the Bill? Where are the practical measures to realise those goals? We will be returning to those issues in Committee.

[Rob Marris]

Let me try to help my hon. Friend because there is a bit of a theme running through the Government’s approach. Ironically, given that we are considering the Prisons and Courts Bill, the Government’s approach to evidence is somewhat cavalier. Most of us would accept there is likely to be cause and effect between cutting 6,500 prison officers and replacing them with only 2,500, and the terrible state of our prisons; and between the introduction of massive employment tribunal fees and a lack of access to justice. Now we have bizarre compensation tariff proposals for whiplash with no evidence of where the Government got their figures from, but just an assertion from the Secretary of State that they believe in fair compensation. Well, I believe in Santa Claus as well.

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend puts it very well indeed. Evidence is required in court and in this place, and the evidence to back up some of the Government’s proposals is lacking. I will say more about this later, but there is a similar situation in respect of the review of employment tribunal fees. In effect, it says, “There is nothing to see here,” despite evidence showing that there has been a 70% reduction in the number of cases brought to those tribunals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon]

That programme is certainly worth while and welcome. I have been arguing that the Bill should refer specifically to such practice.

We need to know more about what the Secretary of State’s overall responsibility for the statutory aims will mean in practice. Who will decide whether she is fulfilling her responsibility? We welcome the additional powers for the inspector of prisons, but the inspector’s report will mean little, if not nothing, if its recommendations are simply ignored. As we have heard, the Bill will require the Secretary of State to respond within 90 days. It will be interesting to know how that time period was decided, but beyond responding to a report, what else will she be required to do?

Many stakeholders tell me that a failure to take any action in response to independent monitoring boards’ reports and inquest jury verdicts has contributed to the prisons crisis. The recent tragic death of Dean Saunders is a sad case study of what can go wrong when mental health issues and our prison system collide. Has the Secretary of State considered whether she or prison governors should be required to respond to such findings? Could the role of the governor be more effectively scrutinised through a system of peer-to-peer review across the prison estate—whether public or private?

The urgent notification system is welcome, but how did the Government arrive at the 28-day time limit for a response? Does the concept of urgency not demand a shorter period? There have been past attempts to put the prisons and probation ombudsman on a statutory footing. Perhaps that is now within reach, but that is all the Bill will achieve in this regard. What thought did the Secretary of State give to expanding or augmenting the ombudsman’s powers? There is nothing in the Bill that addresses the need to improve the experience of and care for those who come to prison with mental health problems, or that addresses whether prison is even the right place for many of them in the first place.

Blocking the use of unauthorised mobile phones in prisons is clearly an urgent task, which we of course fully support, but other measures could be taken to complement the innovation in the Bill and reduce the trade in mobile phones. Committed and hardened criminals will seek out mobile phones to try to continue their criminal enterprises and activities from inside our prisons. For those prisoners who just want to phone home or phone a friend, greater access to affordable pay phones for monitored calls will help to reduce the demand for mobiles. Currently, some prisons have pay phones in cells, but most have pay phones only on the prison wing, which means that, at association time, the prisoners end up queuing to use the phone, and they may not get to use it before their association time is up. Better access to affordable pay phones and privacy from other inmates will reduce the demand for mobile phones. We welcome the Government’s measures to block the unauthorised use of mobile phones.

Developing and using an effective way of testing for psychoactive substances is also vital. However, that alone will not deal with the demand and supply of those substances. Recent reports from the inspectorate have found that overcrowding and a shortage of prison officers means that intelligence-led drugs tests are, sadly, a rarity. The best and most effective way of reducing the demand for drugs is to ensure a full and purposeful programme for all prisoners so that their time in prison is occupied.

Many of these problems with which we now grapple can be linked with the disastrous decision to cut prison officer numbers by 7,000—or 30% since 2010. The public sector pay freeze has made recruitment more difficult and without sufficient numbers of officers in prisons, order cannot be maintained. Officers do not have time to mix with prisoners and gather intelligence or to conduct searches, fabric checks of cells, and drugs testing.

[Rob Marris]

In that context of insufficient staff, does my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the establishment of a prisons and probation ombudsman with considerable powers, including one to direct the form of the response to be made by the Secretary of State to a report from the ombudsman? It is a considerable power. To have a strong ombudsman who would be prepared, if necessary and in certain circumstances, to face up to the Secretary of State is a powerful protection when that ombudsman investigates deaths as well as other complaints.

[Richard Burgon]

That is a very important point. We support a strong ombudsman, and we want reassurances that the Secretary of State will have to not just respond to the ombudsman, but take action on the basis of the findings of the ombudsman.

Prisons officers to whom I speak want to help offenders turn their lives around. They want more responsibility and to be part of a valued profession. They do not want to be viewed just as turnkeys, but successive Conservative Secretaries of State have diminished their role.

As mentioned earlier, the Government have set out plans for league tables and greater autonomy for prison governors. One wonders why the Government are persisting with the league tables idea when it was first dismissed by the chief inspector of prisons, Peter Clarke, at the Justice Committee in January. The Prison Governors Association has said that league tables

“will not achieve anything other than to risk demoralising staff and of unfairly judging the senior management team”.

Perhaps that was what prompted the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), to tell the Justice Committee that it would be performance data. The PGA also fears increased governor autonomy coinciding with increased responsibility for the Justice Secretary may result—heaven forbid—in blame being pushed its way. It says:

“Governors are being asked to sign up to agreements, which will become effective in just five weeks, with insufficient detail on what they will be held to account for. The risk is that the prison reform bill will become the prison blame bill”.

Further inroads into overcrowding and chaos could be made by considering who is being remanded and why, whether some offenders with mental health problems need a different approach and by dealing with the backlog of imprisonment for public protection prisoners. None the less, we see insufficient action to address any of those things. We were told that this Bill would transform the lives of offenders, but just saying that that is the case will not make it so. Transforming lives means first transforming the system.

I shall return to the subject of courts and tribunals, which I touched on earlier. Since 2010 Government legal aid cuts have robbed thousands of the legal representation that should be their right. Many of them are those who are most in need of legal representation—for example, people who are in debt, claiming welfare benefits, facing marital breakdown or experiencing housing problems. In 2012-13, 724,243 civil law cases were funded by legal aid; after the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 were introduced, that figure plummeted to 258,460. I realise that some Government Members will toast those figures as evidence of a job well done, but in reality what are they but proof of access to justice denied?

The coalition Government introduced employment tribunal fees. That measure resulted in a 70% reduction in the number of cases brought. The long delayed review I mentioned earlier essentially concluded, “There’s nothing to see here.” It said:

“While there is clear evidence that ET fees have discouraged people from bringing claims, there is no conclusive evidence that they have been prevented from doing so.”

If only illegal treatment by employers flouting the law of the land had been reduced by 70%. Instead, it is the number of cases that has fallen by 70%.

[Richard Burgon]

That is a very useful intervention because it makes clear the Conservative view of access to justice. Something for nothing? If somebody has not been paid the national minimum wage, why should they be charged to get the money back? If someone has not been paid their proper wage or has experienced disability, maternity or pregnancy-related discrimination, it is outrageous to say that they are seeking something for nothing.

That intervention takes me back to when I was an employment lawyer acting for the people the hon. Gentleman dismisses in such a cavalier fashion. I remember the first time I lodged a case after the coalition Government introduced employment tribunal fees. On the Employment Tribunal Service website, it said, “Customer, please enter your credit card details.” Is that not shameful? When we regard citizens who are attempting to assert their statutory rights—rights made in this place, such as the right to the minimum wage and the right not to be discriminated against at work—primarily as consumers, it shows that the priorities of our society and our justice system have been warped by the Government.

[Rob Marris]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the difference is that some Government Members apparently have overlooked the fact that very often employment tribunal cases are brought by people who have no job? They have no income. That is why they are bringing a tribunal case. It is very different from a big commercial dispute, where court fees are paid for access to justice, to charge tribunal fees to people who have no income and no job, and that is the substance of their complaint to the tribunal.

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would also give the example of people being charged employment tribunal fees that exceed the underpayment of the wage about which they are complaining. That really discourages claims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon]

The problem is that the price that is being paid is that of access to justice, and that is unacceptable to the Labour party at least. Are the Government seriously contending that 70% of claims brought before 2013 were somehow fraudulent? If so, that is absolutely outrageous.

[Rob Marris]

Would my hon. Friend repeat the figures? I thought he said, in round terms, that there were half a million fewer cases after the changes, but the Minister has indicated that 70,000 more cases go to arbitration. That is a big gap—it is still more than 400,000 people who are not getting access to justice.

[Richard Burgon]

That is completely right. My final point on the subject, before I move on to the closures of courts and tribunals, is that the introduction of employment tribunal fees has harmed not only those who would bring a case, but those who would never dream of bringing a case. If employers know that there is virtually no chance of an employee bringing a case against them if they break the law, it gives unscrupulous employers the green light because they know that the risk of being held to account is so much diminished. This goes to the root of what access to justice is. Legal rights are basically worthless if we cannot enforce them or rely upon them because of lack of resources or for any other reasons.

Two Government programmes earmarked a total of 243 courts and tribunals for closure. This has obvious and long-lasting effects on the principle of local justice. The cuts have led to an increase in the number of people forced to represent themselves. As far back as 2014, figures such as the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, were warning of the rise in unrepresented litigants—litigants in person. The Justice Committee’s 2015 report into the impact of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 said:

“The result is that the courts are having to expend more resources to assist litigants in person and require more funding to cope”.

We know that, and we know that litigants in person clog up the court system and make it less efficient.

As Members of Parliament, our weekend advice sessions are full of people who need a lawyer, but cannot get one. Ministers seem to treat the involvement of lawyers in litigation or potential litigation as a fundamentally bad thing. That misses much of the point. Those hon. Members who have ever needed to use a lawyer or who have ever been lawyers themselves will know the valuable role lawyers play in dissuading clients from ill-advised litigation, in encouraging settlements that are fair and beneficial to clients where possible, and in shortening the proceedings in court.

In that respect, the prohibition in part 2 on cross-examination by the abuser of the abused is, of course, very welcome. The stark evidence from groups such as Women’s Aid is that this gap in the law was being used as a further means of control and abuse. Despite the fact that we very much welcome this measure, it cannot be left unsaid that the reason this serious problem became so pronounced was the Government’s legal aid cuts, which exacerbated it in a very damaging and profound way, and Resolution—the body of family solicitors—makes that clear:

“The impact of LASPO has led to an increase in litigants in person, meaning we’ve seen a rise in the number of defendants cross-examining those they have abused.”

Let me turn to the subject of modernisation. Few will disagree that the court system needs modernising and digitising—some would say it is in more need of modernisation than this place. There remains too much paper involved, when technology has made it possible for much documentation to be stored, referenced, annotated and amended using tablets and the like. However, technology alone does not demolish barriers to justice, and it can exacerbate the risks. The Opposition favour streamlining justice and reducing unnecessary court hearings, and we recognise that part 2 seeks to achieve that, but as the chair of the Bar Council, Andrew Langdon, QC, has warned, the fact that online courts

“might encourage defendants to plead guilty out of convenience, when in fact they may not be guilty of an offence, no matter how small, risks injustice.”

We have to be mindful of that. In its briefing on the Bill, the Law Society also issued a caution, saying:

“Although we welcome the introduction of these measures as a way to improve efficiency, there are serious risks associated with them in the absence of adequate access to legal advice. Safeguards must be in place to ensure that a defendant is aware of the consequences of indicating their plea in writing and the other measures highlighted above.”

Online courts, again, present the opportunity for a modern and desirable way of using technology to reduce court hearings and, hopefully, to deal with preliminary matters efficiently. However, the Law Society, again in its briefing, cautions that online convictions should be thoroughly tested and reviewed before being expanded. The Opposition therefore hope the Government will be open to amendments that allow for reviews to take place after a specified time. That would seem sensible. Virtual hearings, procedures on papers only, and written plea and mode-of-trial procedures will all need to be reviewed in time. The Government need to give closer consideration to safeguards, and we will seek to put those in place.

On whiplash, the clauses in part 5 will have come as a relief to many. The Government have backed away from increasing the small claims limit across personal injury, and that is welcome. However, they see a personal injury lawyer lurking around every corner—the Minister with responsibility for courts and tribunals even mistook me for one. [Interruption.] There is a former personal injury lawyer behind me—my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris)—although he has only one job now. However, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers made it clear in written evidence to the Justice Committee that even

“when whiplash statistics are combined with the number of injuries registered by insurers with the CRU”—

the Compensation Recovery Unit—

“as ‘neck and back’ injuries, there has been”,

as I said earlier,

“a significant fall of 11 per cent since 2011/2012.”

Profound problems also exist with the tariff system proposed. As the Government have accepted, the amounts they have set out elsewhere are low. However, they are too low, and compensation must be commensurate with the severity of an injury. If those tariffs are taken together with the increase in the small claims limit to £5,000, no victims of road traffic accidents—not only victims of whiplash—would be entitled to recover legal costs where the compensation did not exceed £5,000. That will inevitably deter people from accessing legal representation and deter genuine claims. The Government should consider ensuring that victims of road traffic accidents are able to recover their legal costs.

We have heard repeatedly—this was touched on earlier—that the proposals in the Bill will lead to premiums reducing by as much as £40 a year on average. The Law Society has questioned the accuracy of these figures, saying that the pass rates on which they are predicated are difficult to predict and it is unclear how the 85% savings rate has been calculated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West said, it is a matter of evidence—or, in this case, a lack of it. Most obviously, there is no mechanism by which insurers can be made to pass on any savings to consumers. We hear a lot of insults thrown at the British people about a rampant claims culture and people being on the make and on the fiddle, but a lot less about the behaviour of some insurers in failing to defend weak claims and how much the insurance industry is making out of all this. Only a tiny minority of insurance companies have said that they will pass on any savings. The Government need to take action to win those guarantees.

I look forward to the remainder of this debate. As I said, Labour does not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, but we do lament the fact that it lacks so much. I suggest that the Bill itself must transform if it is to transform.