Courts and Tribunals: Recovery

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend takes a keen interest in such matters. He is absolutely right to talk about a reduction in violence. Clearly, we need to look maturely and carefully at the overall impact of what has happened in our prisons. It is clear to me that we are working hard in this second wave to ensure purposeful activity and meaningful exercise, as well as more educational opportunities. Looking to get the balance right and ensuring that prisoners feel safe is our No. 1 priority.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

In 2016, the Conservatives pledged 10,000 extra prison places by 2020. They have managed only 200. Unsurprisingly, they recycled that old pledge last year by promising another 10,000, but the Ministry of Justice has informed us that the business case has not even been approved yet, so why should anyone believe this latest announcement that the Government will provide 18,000 new prison places?

[Robert Buckland]

I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at the evidence. We have carried out the building of Wellingborough Prison on time and on budget, and despite covid work is beginning at Glen Parva. We have a very refined and standardised programme, which involves modern methods of construction. I am satisfying myself that those responsible are managing it in a professional way, and these numbers are additional numbers. It is the boldest and biggest prison building programme since Victorian times, and I am satisfied that we have the wherewithal to get this done, and that we can give confidence to those in the construction industry who want to get on with it and help us to build the prisons that we need for the future.

Probation Services

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. She will be glad to know that a lot of work is being done to improve the training of probation officers, particularly as regards the preparation of pre-sentence reports, which are vital documents for judges and magistrates to make decisions—in other words, to be more informed about black and minority ethnic issues, the services that might be available and the alternative ways of dealing with matters for members of that community. I would also make the point that, when it comes to the delivery of services, we are extremely privileged to have higher than average BAME representation among the probation workforce, which is a really good example to the rest of our community. However, it is about more than just getting people; it is about getting that ethos right and making sure people understand the alternatives that are available.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Probation services have without doubt suffered immensely because of deep Government cuts and the increasing fragmentation and privatisation of the service, as highlighted again and again by Napo, PCS, Unison and the Labour party, so I wholeheartedly welcome today’s momentous Government U-turn. However, will the Secretary of State establish a strategy for the resettlement of offenders, to link all the aspects of probation together—from through-the-gate support, planning and assessment in prisons to more frequent contacts and relationship building with offenders?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that that is precisely the approach I take. I have a strategy—it is called reducing reoffending. He will know that that means bringing together all agencies—not just criminal justice. Frankly, they have more of a role to play, whether that is public health, education—which has been mentioned—housing or other vital local services. We cannot do this on our own. The criminal justice system is often the repository of failure caused by other factors. Unless everybody puts their shoulder to the wheel and realises that all parts of public service have a criminal justice dimension, we will not achieve what we need to achieve for our communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

T3. For some weird, inexplicable reason, the Government have a dangerous and flawed obsession with handing huge contracts to private firms to run our prisons. I appreciate that the Secretary of State may not heed my call for prisons to be returned to public ownership, but will he at the very least implement a moratorium on private prisons until an independent review has ascertained whether they are indeed more violent?

[Robert Buckland]

I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I have to say, with respect to him, that the characterisation of “public good, private bad”—or, indeed, vice versa—is wrong. There are plenty of examples of privately run prisons that are more than passing muster with the inspectorate, and are doing an excellent job. I have always believed in a mixed approach, and I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that will continue. I will base my decision on hard evidence rather than on blind ideology in which, I am afraid, his Front Benchers have indulged far too much in recent years.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I too want to begin by paying a huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for her bravery in speaking out, because that is a message not just to those across the country who experience coercive control or abuse but to everybody else, including those of us across the Chamber who think she is wonderful but who did not know all she was going through and who want to support her and other people who experience abuse, control or violence across the country.

It is also really important, at a time when this Parliament and the country can feel hugely divided and angry, that we have seen so many people from both sides of the House come together on an area that is so important and in which radical reforms are needed. I pay tribute to all on the Opposition side of the House, and also to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for the work that she and her Committee have done on this legislation. This comes at a time when the number of people dying from domestic violence is increasing, and we should not ignore the fact that in some areas the problem is getting worse; it is not an area in which improvements are happening and we just need to go further.

I welcome the introduction of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. I raised that issue with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in 2013, so it is good to see this happening now, but I do think that the role has to be more independent. We have seen from the experience with the anti-slavery commissioner and the immigration inspectorate that there is a need for greater independence. Many of these issues were also raised by the Home Affairs Committee in our report last October, and I welcome some of the measures for stronger powers, including prevention powers, and the inclusion of economic abuse in the statutory definition.

I want to raise four areas where I think more action is needed. First, the creation of a commissioner is not an alternative to having a proper action plan from the Home Office and the Government. The number of domestic abuse cases reported to the police has gone up by 40% in the last two years. However, over the past four years the number of cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service has gone down by 20%. The number of prosecutions for domestic abuse has gone down by 20%. A huge systems failure is going on, and we cannot just tell ourselves it is about changing attitudes, crucial though that is. Action is needed to make the system work and to address the fact that so many cases now involve online abuse, stalking and control, making them more complex.

Our police and social services are often also badly overstretched. I have seen cases in my constituency in which obvious things were not done for victims of domestic abuse: the police were too overstretched and did not gather crucial evidence from A&E departments, for example, or individual police officers—although well intentioned—did not know about the coercive control legislation introduced in 2015. It is not enough just to change the law; we need a proper action plan to deal with the reduction in prosecutions.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is so right about why we are here today to discuss the Bill. I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who spoke so eloquently and emotively. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why we cannot get to grips with this issue is that the resources and support for the support network—the wonderful women’s charities and domestic abuse charities—have dwindled and been taken away? If we do not support them, they cannot support the women who need their support.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. Refuge, for example, has faced funding cuts of some 80% of its services over recent years—that was the evidence given to the Joint Committee. We also heard that 60% of referrals to refuges were unsuccessful because of a lack of bed spaces. I hope that in Committee we can look more closely at the recommendation from the Home Affairs Committee to have a statutory duty on local authorities to provide refuge places with sustainable funding supported by Government.

I want to raise the point about what happens to serial perpetrators, including serial stalkers. We recommended in our report that the Government should introduce a national register of serial stalkers and domestic violence perpetrators. We know from the ONS evidence that around a third of victims of domestic abuse suffer from more than one type of abuse, with partner abuse and stalking being the most common combination. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust told us that 55% of callers to the national stalking helpline were being stalked by an ex-partner. We need more co-ordination between police and social services to address that.

In a case in my constituency, a man has just been sentenced to 11 years for violent assault. He tied a noose around his partner’s neck and lifted her off the ground. It was part of a series of sustained attacks. At the time, he was on bail for other attacks, including punching his previous partner in the face, trying to suffocate her and wrapping a phone cord around her neck. He also threatened to tie a rope round her child’s neck and drag him behind his van. Laura Richards of Paladin, the anti-stalking charity, warned that this particular man had abused at least four women before, including some years ago grabbing a 17-year-old by the hair and kneeing her in the face, and the following year grabbing another woman by the throat and headbutting her in the mouth. Yet this man was able to go on and commit the abuse for which he has now been sentenced. There are so many other cases that involve serial abuse, yet the onus is still on potential victims of domestic abuse or stalking to raise their concerns with the police, rather than agencies having a responsibility to manage the risk, identify those who are committing serial violence and make sure that action is taken before it is too late.

Let me briefly raise the other concerns we had. As well as seeing the commissioner be more independent, I hope the Government will also take further account of the gendered nature of abuse. Of course men and women can both be victims of domestic abuse, but the Minister will know that women are more likely to be the victims of abuse and of the most serious abuse. That is part of a wider context of violence against women and girls. We owe it to those who experience terrible coercive control, and to their children, who can bear the greatest scars, to ensure we use this Bill to make the maximum possible change in people’s lives.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered imprisonment for public protection.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Sentences of imprisonment for public protection are an often overlooked part of our criminal justice system, despite their huge impact on those prisoners continuing to serve them. They were intended to protect the public from serious offenders and ensure that dangerous violent and sexual offenders stayed in custody for as long as they presented a risk to society.

Under the IPP regime, offenders given an IPP sentence were set a minimum term that they had to spend in prison, but unlike with most other sentences, there was no upper limit, meaning that once the minimum tariff had been served, the offender must apply to the Parole Board for release. Only if the Parole Board is satisfied that they are not a danger to the public can someone serving an IPP sentence be released. Release is therefore not automatic, and if the Parole Board is not satisfied that someone serving an IPP sentence has demonstrated that they no longer pose a risk, the prisoner can remain in custody indefinitely.

I have discussed these concerns with colleagues, including the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who also realises the gravity of this important issue and how it impacts on so many families. That is why I applied for the matter to be debated by right hon. and hon. Members in Parliament.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

The point that the hon. Gentleman has just made is very important. This issue has a big impact on families. I do not think we should lose sight of that as the debate proceeds. The other point is that the number of prisoners who self-harm during these sentences is much higher than the number across the rest of the prison population. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those two factors should play a part in his thinking?

[Mr Dhesi]

With great eloquence, the hon. Gentleman has highlighted two of the key reasons why this debate is so important. I concur fully with his views.

In many cases, IPP sentences that had shorter tariffs, of less than two years, have become in effect a life sentence as people have been stuck in limbo, unable to prove that they no longer pose a risk, often for reasons beyond their control. For those IPP-sentenced prisoners, the sentences did not work as intended and instead have become an unfairly punitive aspect of our criminal justice system. I would like to focus my remarks today on those prisoners, as it is those on the shortest tariffs who have experienced the injustice.

Why were IPP sentences abolished in the first place? Although designed to protect the public from serious offenders, IPP sentences were in reality handed down for a far broader range of offences than was intended. They were handed down at the rate of more than 800 a year, moving thousands of people into prison indefinitely. That led to offenders who had committed more minor crimes facing a short tariff but an indefinite sentence.

The Prison Reform Trust published late last year a report that showed that more than half of prisoners still serving an IPP sentence had a tariff of four years or less and 15% had a tariff of less than two years. Custody and imprisonment should be used as a last resort; and indefinite custody, with no fixed end, should be used only where a very serious offence has been committed. I fully appreciate that there are cases in which individuals have committed heinous crimes against humanity and therefore the local communities are extremely concerned about the prisoner’s release. One such case was highlighted to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). He and his predecessor in that seat had both worked with the local community to highlight their very serious concerns about someone who had killed three children and impaled them on railings after murdering them in their home.

However, I am most concerned about the non-serious cases wherein someone is sentenced to a short sentence but ends up being imprisoned for years on end. Where people are safe to be released, we should not be keeping them in custody to serve many multiples of their tariff for the crimes that they have committed. That stands against the principles of natural justice, on which our justice system was founded. The more widespread use of IPP sentences than was intended has also led to a number of instances in which offenders who committed the same offence in the same context were handed sentences such that one offender could be expected to spend a lot longer in prison.

Even the author of IPP sentencing, David Blunkett, acknowledges that this was a flawed policy. Lord Blunkett has noted:

“The consequence of bringing that Act”—

the Criminal Justice Act 2003—

“in has led, in some cases, to an injustice and I regret that”.

In 2012, the Government rightly took the decision to abolish sentences of imprisonment for public protection for offenders, meaning that that option was no longer available to judges. However, although that was the right decision, the issue remains of what to do to address the situation of those who are currently serving an IPP sentence.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to recognise that these sentences have now been abolished. The Parole Board previously aimed to get the IPP prisoner population below 1,500 by 2020, but the latest figures show that the number of people still serving IPP sentences is above 2,400. Given that these sentences have actually been abolished, does my hon. Friend agree that those who are continuing to serve them should be re-sentenced under the rules that exist at the moment?

[Mr Dhesi]

With great telepathy, I, too, will be referring to the Parole Board and the statistic that my hon. Friend has very ably highlighted. I fully agree with her.

As I said, the issue remains of what to do to address the situation of those currently serving an IPP sentence. That is the issue that the current Government have to grapple with. The problem remains a real one for the prisoners, for their families, for the justice system and for wider society, which needs to have confidence in a justice system that rehabilitates people and is fair and proportionate.

Let us examine the continued use of IPP sentences. On 31 March 2019, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) has highlighted, 2,403 prisoners were still serving an IPP sentence and had yet to be released, despite the abolition of these sentences more than seven years ago. Of those prisoners, nine out of 10 have already served the minimum tariff that was handed down to them by the judge at their trial. A large proportion of those still serving an IPP sentence after surpassing their original tariff were initially sent to prison to serve a short tariff. Of the close to 400 people on an IPP sentence with a tariff of less than two years, more than half have served nine years, or more, beyond their original tariff. That is a travesty.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who cannot be here today, has informed me that a recent parliamentary question that she tabled has revealed that there are currently 46 women on IPP sentences, yet the Ministry of Justice does not know how many of those women have children. Given that that is such a low number, and given that the impact of mothers’ imprisonment on children is well documented, I believe that that is a shocking admission. The Parole Board predicts that unless changes are made to the situation faced by IPP prisoners, there will still be 1,500 people in prison serving an IPP sentence by 2020.

To illustrate the issues faced by people still serving IPP sentences, I shall draw attention to some particularly tragic examples of the effect that the indefinite nature of IPP sentences can have on those people sentenced to them.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

Just before my hon. Friend highlights his examples, I will raise the case of my constituent, Wayne Bell, who has had a mental health crisis and is now unable to engage with the parole process. Given that a study a few years ago showed that one in 10 IPP prisoners was seeking psychiatric help in prison, which is double the rate for the normal prison population, does my hon. Friend share my concern that these prisoners can easily get into a downward spiral? They have a mental health crisis and are not able to engage with the parole process, and that makes them more depressed. There is no way out of that downward spiral for them; there is no ability for them to resolve their situation.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend’s excellent point encapsulates the mental health issues and the intertwined nature of what we are discussing. I will elaborate further on the mental health problems faced by prisoners.

In 2009, Tommy Nicol received an IPP sentence with a minimum four-year tariff for stealing a car from a mechanic’s garage and injuring a man’s arm in the process. Once his tariff was completed, the Parole Board refused his request to be released and told him he should access a therapeutic community, in order to address his mental health issues and become safe to be released.

Tommy’s mental health suffered as he was repeatedly denied access to mental health treatment courses. He was moved to prisons that did not even offer those courses, making proving that he had been rehabilitated increasingly difficult. In November 2014, he made a formal complaint saying that IPP sentences were a form of “psychological torture”. Around that time, he also began to self-segregate and went on hunger strike. His behaviour became increasingly erratic as he understandably struggled to deal with the psychological impact of his situation. Tommy tragically took his own life in prison in September 2015.

James Ward was given an IPP sentence in 2006 with a tariff of only one year for setting light to his mattress while in prison serving a fixed sentence for a fight with his father. He ended up serving not one year but 11 years.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the case of arsonists is often serious in the IPP sentence structure? Because of the links between arson, sex offending and reckless behaviour, arsonists have been disproportionately affected.

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Lady ably makes the point about arsonists who end up serving a lot longer than they should. It is not fair.

During those 11 years, James Ward regularly self-harmed and his mental health deteriorated significantly. He has since spoken out about the damage that the IPP sentence did to his mental health, telling the “Today” programme:

“Prison is not fit to accommodate people like me with mental health problems. It’s made me worse. How can I change in a place like this? I wake up every morning scared of what the day may hold.”

IPP sentences leave prisoners in limbo, with a lack of access to courses and treatment. Those cases show how much more needs to be done to address the issue faced by those serving IPP sentences. They also highlight a particular issue for IPP-sentenced prisoners, namely being unable to complete the courses that the Parole Board has told them will help to demonstrate that they are safe for release. That is partly because we face an increasingly violent and overcrowded prison system, where there are simply not enough places on development courses and therefore not enough opportunities for short-tariff IPP-sentenced prisoners to demonstrate that they no longer pose a risk.

There are other problems, which are easier to fix. For example, the families of IPP-sentenced prisoners have said that prisoners are prioritised for places on courses based on how close they are to their release date. Because IPP-sentenced prisoners do not have a fixed release date, they fall to the back of the queue and can struggle to ever get on the appropriate courses. I would be grateful if the Minister provided an update on what is being done to address that issue.

IPP sentences have a huge impact on prisoners’ mental health, as they would do on anyone locked up and deprived of their liberty with no end in sight. They create a sense of despair and hopelessness, which can have a significant impact on an individual’s mental health. This is demonstrated by the fact that IPP prisoners are significantly more likely to self-harm than determinate-sentence prisoners and even life-sentence prisoners, which is an amazing statistic. This is borne out by numerous reports, such as those by the Prison Reform Trust, the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Institute for Criminal Policy Research at King’s College London.

Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons found that IPP prisoners were significantly more likely than life-sentence or determinate-sentence prisoners to have arrived in their current prison with problems, including feeling depressed and suicidal. Mental health issues are already endemic in our prison system, with at least one in three prisoners reported to have mental health issues by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons reports. The real figure is likely to be greater.

Instances of self-harm are already too high, with 55,598 in 2018 alone. We need a comprehensive and fully-funded strategy for the reduction of all forms of violence in prison, including self-harm, and that must include special support for those on IPP sentences. Will the Minister outline what special provision is made to tackle the mental health conditions of IPP prisoners, especially those with shorter tariffs, who have served way beyond their tariff and probably never expected to be in this situation?

Another issue that affects the prisoner’s ability to rehabilitate and turn their life around is recall. When an IPP-sentenced prisoner is released, they are released on licence, with strict licence conditions that must be followed. Breaching those conditions can result in recall to prison. In many cases, that is a correct and appropriate response, but there are cases where technical breaches—for example, missing a probation meeting due to unforeseen illness or travel delays—have resulted in recall to prison. The excessive use of recall to prison for minor breaches of licence has contributed to the number of IPP prisoners remaining in prison staying stubbornly high. Families of those serving IPP sentences have called for a more reasonable approach to recalls to be taken, to ensure that only those breaches that suggest that someone poses a risk should necessitate the deprivation of an individual’s liberty.

Minor breaches of licence conditions are often not crimes in and of themselves, but simple things, such as missing appointments and breaching administrative conditions. The ex-head of the Parole Board told of offenders sent back to prison for turning up drunk at their bail hostel, even though that presented no risk to anybody. Repeated recall to prison while on release on licence also prevents an IPP prisoner from securing housing and holding down a job, both factors that are proven to reduce reoffending rates. Indeed, 936 people on IPP sentences were released by the Parole Board in 2017. In the same year, 543 people on IPPs were recalled. This is a complex and serious issue that will be tackled only through proper co-ordination between the Ministry of Justice, prisons, probation services and the police. Will the Minister outline his Government’s strategy to tackle the issue of recall?

The only way that an IPP prisoner can finally be entirely released from their sentence is to apply to the Parole Board, 10 years after their release from custody, to have their licence ended. Many experts and campaigners have rightly pointed out that this is simply too long and sets people up to fail. Does the Minister have plans to amend this?

Before concluding, I will highlight the impact of IPP sentences on our justice system. Such sentences do not just have a detrimental impact on the mental health and stability of offenders, both while in prison and during release on their extraordinarily long licences; they are detrimental to the efficient running of the prison and parole systems. The Parole Board has historically heard the cases of offenders given longer sentences than those who were subject to IPP sentences, but is now forced to conduct a lengthy risk assessment process for short-tariff offenders on IPP sentences. There is also no doubt that the rapid increase in the number of prisoners on IPPs contributed to prison overcrowding, which continues, despite the abolition of IPP sentences, because many IPP sentence prisoners face difficulties in demonstrating that they are safe to be released.

The prison population has risen significantly since 1994, especially following changes to minimum sentences since 2000. The UK now has the highest imprisonment rate in western Europe, with 141 prisoners per 100,000 of the population. Our prisons are often dangerously overcrowded, with many prisons operating at significantly over their certified capacity. Such overcrowding has a detrimental impact on safety, which has deteriorated considerably under this Government; prisons are substantially more violent than in the past. Overcrowding has also had an impact on the ability of prisons to rehabilitate offenders effectively; Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons has repeatedly raised it as an area of concern because it affects the resources available to reduce reoffending.

It is now time for IPP sentences to be resolved. Continued calls for further change—including from former Justice Secretaries, from Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons and from the chair of the Parole Board—have focused on the unfairness for prisoners who are still serving IPP sentences and on the challenges that they create for the prison system. Abolishing new IPP sentences was the correct course of action, but there is still more to be done to address the issues that face those who were sent to prison for a short tariff that has effectively turned into a life sentence.

The families of those on IPP sentences are making proposals that may well offer a way forward. For example, Donna—the sister of Tommy Nicol, who I referred to earlier—is now campaigning for reforms to the system that prisoners on IPP sentences face. She has called for the sentences of those who are serving initial tariffs of four years or less, as her brother was, to be converted to fixed sentences. Is the Minister looking at that? There are many suggestions for reforming these outlawed sentences to ensure that public safety and justice is served. Suggestions from the criminal justice reform sector include converting IPP sentences to fixed-length sentences, starting with shorter tariffs, and protecting the public with minimum licence periods.

The Government need to finish the job that they started. Their challenge now is to lay out how they will ensure that this wrong is finally righted. Until it is, it will remain a stain on our justice system.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken time to engage in this important debate. I think you would agree, Sir Edward, that there has been consensus and agreement on so many issues, between the shadow Minister, my good friend the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), members of Select Committees including the Select Committee on Justice, and that Committee’s Chair, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).

However, I fear that the Minister has responded with a great deal of hesitation and caution, which does not befit the urgency of the action that is required. Although we should not forget the victim, the punishment must fit the crime. We cannot ignore the glaring official statistics on excessive sentences, the mental health problems of prisoners, or the need for a rehabilitation pathway. We cannot leave people in limbo. Sentences need to be determinate, not indefinite. Although we have corrected the policy, we have not done so retrospectively, and the current situation—as other right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out—is simply unconscionable and unacceptable. That is why I urge the Minister to take urgent action to resolve this unsatisfactory situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered imprisonment for public protection.

Victims Strategy

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate on victims’ rights and look forward to the Minister’s response. I also welcome the fact that the Government have committed to overhauling their victims of crime strategy. There is widespread recognition that the system needs to change. We have seen some welcome improvements in the way in which victims of crime are treated, but they have been piecemeal and unco-ordinated. As many right hon. and hon. Members will know from talking to constituents who have been victims of crime or from their conversations with the police, probation officers or victim support groups, our current system is just not working.

For many victims of crime, especially children, victims of sexual assault and rape, and victims of racially aggravated crimes, the system is simply not fit for purpose. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) eloquently explained, the cuts to legal aid have had even more damaging effects on access to justice. At Reading Crown court last month, an offender was sentenced to five years for assault and robbery in a car park in my constituency. The victim, a 39-year-old man, was forced to strip naked and was left utterly humiliated. The criminal will be free in a couple of years, but his victim will carry the trauma like a yoke on his shoulders for the rest of his days. How confident are we that the victim will get the lifelong support he will need?

The system remains complex, confusing and alienating for victims. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is creaking, cumbersome and slow. As has been highlighted earlier, the system fails to recognise the impact of crime on mental health—that is particularly pertinent, as we marked Mental Health Awareness Day yesterday—and the lasting damage beyond the mere material to a victim’s wellbeing. It may be a cliché, but it is true: a victim of crime suffers twice, once at the hands of the criminal and again at the hands of the criminal justice system.

Right hon. and hon. Members may recall that a crime was committed just outside Parliament in February when my guest Ravneet Singh, a committed internationalist and environmentalist, was assaulted. The assailant grabbed and tried to remove his turban. Sikhs consider the turban to be a crown on the head and, therefore, sacrosanct. This left Mr Singh humiliated and hurt, and potentially with a terrible impression of our country and our Parliament. Many Sikhs who choose to wear a turban are victims of this type of assault—I have been myself—and I am sorry to say that often the authorities have failed to take it seriously, despite the deep offence and dismay it causes.

Other crimes, such as domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault and stalking, have not been taken seriously enough by our system. Most victims of those crimes do not even come forward, with some estimates suggesting that 85% of serious sexual assaults are not even reported. So we need a new approach: a massive cultural shift that turns our criminal justice system into a criminal justice service, with victims at the heart, not the edges. Citizens must believe that the system is on their side and will work for them.

I am proud to say that in 2015 the Labour party published the comprehensive report of its victims taskforce. That was led by Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Peter Neyroud, the former Thames Valley chief constable, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). It is a great shame that the 14 recommendations were not implemented, as that would have given us the joined-up, victim-centred system we so desperately need. The centrepiece of the report is the call for a single, clear victims law enshrining the rights of victims across the entire criminal justice system. I restate my support today for a single, transparent victims law. It would give victims access to justice from their very first dealings with the police and beyond, into dealings with the courts and prison service. The role of the Victims’ Commissioner would be enhanced. Every police area should have an area victims plan, evaluated and approved by the Victims’ Commissioner. Victims should have the right to a review if the police or prosecutors drop a case, as so often happens. Victims should have the right to information and updates, and not be left for months in the dark. In particular, when a victim of a crime comes forward, their allegation must be recorded and allocated a crime number. That is supported by the code of conduct and by the EU directive on victims’ rights, yet the evidence shows there has been slippage, especially in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault.

We must ensure that the system does not judge victims of crime based on lazy stereotypes of how a victim is supposed to behave, especially when it comes to sexual assault and rape. We need only to look at recent events in the United States and the shameful treatment of Dr Christine Blasey Ford during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. I hope that the whole House will commend the courage of Dr Christine Blasey Ford and condemn utterly the way that President Trump mocked her testimony in public. We may hope and pray that nothing like that could ever happen here, but for thousands of women in the British criminal justice system, their treatment is no less humiliating, as explained by previous speakers.

Lastly, there is the crucial question of funding. The truth is that eight years of austerity have left our criminal justice system less robust, less able to mete out justice fairly and efficiently and less able to support victims crime. I raised these issues during a recent Westminster Hall debate on continued Government court closures that I had the honour of opening. The Minister is in charge of a system in meltdown. The Crown Prosecution Service has seen its budget cut by a quarter since 2010 and staff numbers have fallen by 2,400; the head of the CPS and the head of the probation service have resigned amid chaos; and prison violence and suicide rates are rising.

There are fewer police on the streets. Earlier this year, in my own area, the Thames Valley police reported a shortfall of 98 officers and further cuts of £14.3 million until 2020-21. Of course, that has a negative impact on the victims of crime. Were the criminal justice system a school, it would now be in special measures; were it a council, it would have been taken over by commissioners by now. That leaves us with a big question: without the resources, how can we have confidence that the Government’s victims strategy will work? This was ably pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), whose determined and dedicated work in this field I wholeheartedly commend. Unless Ministers can tell us today that there will be adequate funding for victims, how can we believe that this year’s initiative is not just yet another piecemeal fix?

The price paid for cuts to justice is not paid by criminals; it is paid by the victims of crime. I am proud to support the Labour party in its endeavours on this issue, because only Labour will end austerity, only Labour will put the police back on to the streets of Slough and every community in our country, and only Labour is truly on the side of the victim.

Solitary Confinement (Children and Young People)

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Seema Malhotra]

I will come on to that point. One point I will make is about the inadequate collection of data. What information we receive comes partly through the lens of healthcare providers and charities that are taking calls from prisoners in distress.

To continue the point I was making, I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the substantive difference between the international definition of solitary confinement and the Government’s definition of removal from association.

Let me outline the current situation. Under rule 49 of the young offender institution rules, a prison governor can authorise removal from association for up to 42 days. That can be extended further after application to the Secretary of State. I understand that, as we have just discussed, national data on the use of solitary confinement within the youth secure estate are not currently collected. That is concerning, as it means that no accurate data exists as to how many children and young people are being held in isolation and for what period of time. However, anecdotal evidence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and others suggests that it is on the increase. Will the Minister clarify the situation on data collection? What steps can be taken to change it?

According to the recent BMA guidance, “The medical role in solitary confinement”, the use of solitary confinement in the UK youth justice system is much more widespread than we might realise. According to studies that the guidance flags, almost four in 10 boys in detention spend some time in solitary confinement—some for periods of almost three months. Some estimates suggest the duration of confinement can range anywhere from an average of eight days up to 60 or even 80 days. Children and young people are also increasingly being kept in conditions of solitary confinement—in cells or rooms for up to 22 hours a day—amid reports of staff shortages and increased violence. There is also evidence referred to by the Children’s Commissioner that certain groups may be more likely to experience isolation.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that all the scientific and medical evidence points to a profound negative impact on the child, such as paranoia, anxiety and depression? Solitary confinement does not create a constructive pathway to rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point that goes to the heart of this debate. The use of solitary confinement in the justice system potentially increases harm and can impact on the young person’s life not only during a period of detention in the justice system, but in the longer term.

Black and mixed heritage children are three times more likely to experience isolation. Children with a recorded disability are two thirds more likely to experience isolation. Looked-after children are almost two thirds more likely to experience isolation. Children assessed as a suicide risk are nearly 50% more likely to experience isolation. The problem we have is that the policy is not without harm.

There is an unequivocal body of evidence on the negative health effects of solitary confinement. As has been mentioned, the symptoms observed include anxiety, depression, rage and aggression, cognitive disturbances, paranoia and, in the most extreme cases, hallucinations and psychosis. The experience can also trigger adverse childhood experiences. For children and young people—about whom this debate is most concerned—who are still in the crucial stages of developing socially, psychologically and neurologically, the health effects of isolation and solitary confinement can be particularly damaging.

Court Closures and Reform

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered court closures and reform.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am very pleased to have secured this debate on an extremely important topic that is long overdue for discussion.

The justice system is to undergo a radical programme of modernisation. The Minister will no doubt tell us about the potential for information and communications technology to deliver efficient and improved justice. However, against a backdrop of 40% cuts to the Department’s budget since 2010—the most of any Department—there is serious concern that this will be done without the proper safeguards to prevent our justice system from being undermined, and that it will therefore lead to reputational damage.

In January, the Government announced a consultation on the future estates strategy for the Courts and Tribunals Service, with a focus on ensuring access to justice. Separate to that are five consultations on proposals to close a further eight courts: the Banbury magistrates and county court and Maidenhead magistrates court, which will have a direct impact on my Slough constituents; the Cambridge magistrates court; the Chorley magistrates court and the Fleetwood magistrates court; Northallerton magistrates court; and Wandsworth county court and Blackfriars Crown court. Given how many courts the Government have closed in recent years—258 since 2010—there seems little doubt about what conclusion will be reached. Are the consultations not simply a smokescreen for yet more court closures and staff losses?

Capacity should not be the only criterion used to determine court closures. Geographical coverage and the representation of the justice system throughout our country are also important. As I will set out, there remain genuine concerns and a serious lack of detail to the Government’s plan to use technology in the court system, to reduce the court estate and to change the role of case officers. There could be no better response from the Minister today than an announcement that the Government are finally publishing the draft courts Bill. I hope she will give the date for that, as only then can the reforms be subjected to full scrutiny.

Thousands of court staff have been axed in recent years—more than 5,000 since 2010. That is an incredible number; however, the consultation is silent on the impact that further closures will have on staff. Indeed, they are merely called “other impacted groups”. On top of that substantial loss of expertise and experience, the closure of the eight courts would displace more than 130 staff. Does the Minister agree that court staff should be properly included in consultations?

Against this background of funding cuts, court closures and loss of staff and their expertise, outsourcing and temporary staff costs have rocketed. Figures obtained by the Opposition show the cost of the Government’s obsession with outsourcing, privatisation and the use of agency work. The Courts and Tribunals Service spent some £50 million last year on agency and contract staff—a tenfold rise since 2010.

The Government claim that these closures are part of a £1 billion modernisation of the courts service through better use of technology. Where is the evidence to justify the push for a digital courts programme? The Government should publish the business case for their modernisation programme so that the risks of a move to online and virtual justice can be fully examined.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I speak as the co-chair of the justice unions cross-party group. Does the hon. Gentleman share my fears that we have not yet had an effective evaluation of the impact of digital technology on justice and on whether court proceedings carry on? That should be done as a matter of urgency before the Government introduce yet further digital technology into the court system.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Lady for her pertinent point and fully concur, as I will elaborate.

Virtual courts may significantly increase the number of unrepresented defendants, discriminate against vulnerable defendants or those who do not speak English well, and negatively affect the relationship between defence lawyers and their clients. There are already concerns about video equipment that is in use, including technology failure, poor sound quality and mismatches of sound and image.

In my constituency, I have a large volume of immigration cases. Reports of video links between the Taylor House tribunal hearing centre and Gatwick detention centre breaking down are frequent, as are complaints about the poor sound quality. I am told that users must shout to be heard. That has been unresolved for many years. Likewise, there are concerns about the difficulty of holding confidential discussions where there is inadequate soundproofing. The Bar Council stated last month that

“virtual hearings diminish the ability of parties to follow proceedings and to understand each other. This inevitably will have serious consequences on the quality of justice as it is done and as it is seen to be done.”

Given the current situation, what plans are in place to guarantee that legal advice discussions between clients and lawyers remain confidential when held over video link? In the rush to digitalisation, where is the evidence, rather than the mere assumption, that there will be a reduced need for court buildings in the near future? After all, the Courts and Tribunals Service has recently confirmed that virtual hearings will not be imposed where participants do not wish it, so it is likely that physical hearings will be the norm for some time to come. Has that been a factor in any of the consultations?

I would also like to discuss travel times to court, which will be a significant issue if the courts estate shrinks further. Longer journeys will have a negative impact on the delivery of justice. As the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), wrote recently to the Minister:

“No convincing policy justification has been offered for the current proposal, which appears to favour the principle of value for money over the principle of access to justice.”

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I represent Dwyfor Meirionnydd. Dolgellau, the last magistrates court in my constituency, was closed in the last round. It is now impossible to arrive at either Aberystwyth or Caernarfon, the alternative courts, from Meirionnydd by 9.30 am. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that given the situation in rural constituencies, this discriminatory approach needs to be evaluated thoroughly before we move to further changes?

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Lady speaks with a great deal of experience. Indeed, while this will impact everybody in our country, the impact on rural communities will be disproportionately higher.

Does the Minister agree with the Chair of the Justice Committee’s remarks? Our constituents must not be discouraged from seeking justice, and witnesses must not be put off giving evidence. Is the Minister not concerned that court closures will make it less likely that victims and witnesses will travel to courts to give evidence? The equality analysis accompanying the consultations makes no mention of the indirectly discriminatory impact of lengthy round trips on elderly people or women, who are more likely to be caring for pre-school and/or school-age children.

There are relevant points of fact on travel time that consultations neglect to take into account. The consultations assume that a court user is on time if they are there at the time when the hearing is due to start, rather than in advance, when negotiations may take place or further instructions may be given. The Minister will be aware that in a public law children’s hearing, it is a requirement that all parties attend court an hour before the hearing. Will she ensure that such factors are considered when travel time is assessed?

What assessment has been made of access to justice if court users are required to pay for overnight accommodation, leave home in the early hours or return home late at night?

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. On the issue of accessibility, a few colleagues fought an ultimately successful campaign to retain the courthouse in Limavady, a small town in my constituency. The lack of public transport accessibility to the alternative locations that would have been available was a crucial factor in retaining it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that should apply across the UK?

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That situation has been replicated in other parts of the country, as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) said in her intervention. All those issues need to be taken into account, especially when dealing with the more vulnerable in our community.

What assessment has been made of access to justice if court users are required to pay for overnight accommodation? Two or three-hour increases in travel time before and after a full day’s hearing, let alone post-hearing conferences, would be onerous—if not impossible—for many constituents.

In my region, the Thames valley, Maidenhead magistrates court and Banbury magistrates and county court are under consideration for sell-off. It is assumed that the workload would be redistributed to other magistrates and family courts in the region, including the small magistrates court in my constituency. According to the Government’s proposals for those three courts, people living in the areas affected by the court closures would be within an acceptable travelling distance of the court that the work was transferred to.

My constituents who rely on public transport will face a significantly longer journey if Maidenhead cases are redistributed to Reading. They will not find that acceptable. It should be noted that Reading has already received the workload from the closure of the West Berkshire magistrates court in Newbury in 2016. Instead of the 20-minute, seven-mile journey between Slough and Maidenhead, people will face a 20-mile journey to Reading or journey times of about one hour to High Wycombe or Staines.

Unsurprisingly, longer journeys also cost significantly more. An off-peak return journey by train between Slough and Maidenhead is £3.90. Between Slough and Reading it is £9.30. During peak times, the Maidenhead journey is £4.40 compared with £10.60 to get to Reading. Whatever the time of day, it is more than double, yet in the Government’s proposal there is no mention—not even one word—of addressing the financial cost to individuals travelling further.

The extra costs will be borne by victims, their support network, witnesses and others. How can the Government claim to have truly assessed the impact of possible closures on court and tribunal users when transport prices have not been considered? It goes without saying that such information is factual, freely available and easily found. There is no excuse for it to be overlooked.

It is not only Opposition Members who are concerned about the lack of information in the Government’s plans. The Minister will know that Cambridge magistrates court, which was purpose-built less than 10 years ago and which serves her constituents, is earmarked for closure. Has she had sight of a letter from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) that calls the plans “ambiguous” and “lacking in detail”? Does she disagree with her hon. Friend?

Much more could be said about the use of technology in the court system, the ongoing reduction in the court estate and planned changes in the role of case officers, and about the Law Society’s warning of substantial additional costs for legal aid firms and the impact on police resources and on other organisations that use the courts. Will the Minister address the lack of clarity in the consultations and confirm that more of the necessary research into the digitalisation of court services will be carried out?

While the “Fit for the future” consultation takes place, and until the courts Bill is published, further court closures and digitalisation contracts should be halted. It is time for the reforms to be subjected to full parliamentary scrutiny. I hope the Minister will be able to give us information about the scope of the promised courts Bill and, better still, to answer the fundamental question: when will the Government publish it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

Again, I am grateful for having secured this important debate, and I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed to it. Many talked about the effect on their constituencies. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) talked about the use of technology in hearings and about alternative dispute resolutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) spoke persuasively about the impact of the court closure in Cambridge, and about how local justice, which dates back centuries and for which we in this country are famed, will no longer be available if the court is closed.

I thank the hon. Members for Moray (Douglas Ross) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their kind support. They spoke passionately about the impact that this is already having on Scotland and Northern Ireland. We need to be careful, because the closure of banks, which the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, and courts is ripping the heart out of local communities. My hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) spoke passionately about the impact in their communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East called for a halt to the sell-off until the courts Bill is published.

Nobody would argue against reform, but it must be done in a holistic and sympathetic manner. The Minister referred to Maidenhead, but it is not merely about costs and savings—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

As my hon. Friend says, I am starting to wonder whether the Government will reverse ferret a little bit on the fixed date. We will wait and see—I think the vote will come up on day eight. It is obvious that it has not been as thought through as it should have been.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Various businesses in my constituency and unions have pointed out the need for, and the benefits of, a transitional period. Does he, like me, feel that because of the Government’s actions we are sleepwalking towards a no-deal scenario that would have a catastrophic impact on our economy?

[Mr Leslie]

I fear that that scenario is beginning to loom on the horizon. We know the Prime Minister does not want that because she says she wants the transitional arrangement, but more flesh has to be put on the bones in terms of how the UK envisages the transition and at the European Council in December. If a transition deal is not signalled, with more flesh put on the bone in December, a lot of firms will say, not unreasonably, “We have to plan for a scenario in which we are not legally able to sell our services to the 500 million customers across the other 27 countries.” We hear that American corporations that currently have their base in London are looking at all sorts of convoluted branch-back arrangements, so that they can subsidiarise back into the UK. This is getting terribly complicated and very expensive. Ultimately, all these issues will hit consumers and workers in the UK. It will have a very practical effect on the lives of many of our constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

The former Prisons Minister makes an excellent point about good practice at Parc Prison. As he is aware, there is good practice dotted around the prison estate. We have Storybook Dads and Mums in some prisons and Our Voice in other prisons. We want to see good practice spread across the entire estate. To enable us to do that, we are devolving budgets to prison governors, and we will also hold them to account when we pilot new family and significant relationship performance measures as of next year.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

6. What recent progress his Department has made on its review of legal aid reforms.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Dominic Raab)]

Yesterday, we laid a written ministerial statement before the House setting out the details of the review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and publishing the post-legislative memorandum, which discharges the promise made by previous Ministers to this House. I expect the review to be completed by the summer of 2018.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the Minister for his response about progress on the review of legal aid reforms, but it is disappointing that, even though the Government first announced this review nine months ago, it still will not conclude for another nine months, which is nine more months of many thousands of people not being able to afford to access our justice system. His Government’s reforms of legal aid were intended to save £350 million. In fact, legal aid has fallen by double that. Will the Minister lobby his colleague the Chancellor, so that some of those additional savings go immediately to help those who have been priced out of access to our justice system?

[Dominic Raab]

I thought the hon. Gentleman might at least welcome the fact that we laid out the terms of the review yesterday. I am not sure whether he has had a chance to study the post-legislative memorandum. Let us be clear about one thing: last year, we spent £1.6 billion on legal aid in England and Wales, which is a quarter of the Ministry of Justice’s budget. International comparisons are not exact, but according to the Council of Europe’s review last year, the UK spent more per capita than any other Council of Europe member.