Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
We have heard the human cost of the Government’s policies, but I have had the pleasure of facing several—four or perhaps five—Justice Ministers across the Dispatch Box who claimed they would sort out the courts backlog. They have all failed. Contrary to what the Minister said, Crown court cases increased by 6% on the previous year in February: up 3,500 to nearly 61,000. Magistrates court cases were up 1,600 to more than 345,000. President of the Law Society Lubna Shuja has said:
“The data cuts through the rhetoric and clearly shows that delays in the criminal justice system aren’t coming down anytime soon.”
What new rhetoric does the Minister have today?
Mike Freer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for not asking a question about Common Platform, which makes a refreshing change. On the issue of reducing the backlog, it is not rhetoric—these are facts. The outstanding case load—
Mike Freer
The outstanding case load is coming down from the impact of the Criminal Bar Association—
Mike Freer
Well, if the hon. Gentleman waits until the figures are published at the end of June, he will see that the case load is coming down. I repeat: this is not rhetoric. These are facts. More judges this year, more judges next year, more money in the criminal justice system for legal aid, Nightingale courts, uncapped sitting days—these are practical measures that will improve access to justice.
Mike Freer
Well, they are working. The hon. Gentleman will not want to admit it, but if he waits to see the facts when they are published, I hope he will then realise that we are taking tangible action to improve the capacity of our courts.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister would have us believe that all was well and great progress was being made in tackling the courts backlog. Then we got the damning National Audit Office report into the reform programme. The catalogue of problems is too extensive to detail here, from the ailing common platform to the hundreds of failing processes within the 46 projects yet to operate in the way they were intended. I therefore pose the same questions as the NAO: when will Ministers be able to quantify the now decreasing benefits of the programme and demonstrate that it has improved access to justice?
Mike Freer
I appreciate that the shadow Minister has a somewhat luddite approach to implementing new systems. I also say to him that the Opposition have been calling for us to listen to the staff using the common platform, which is what we have done. In fact, when I go out and about and talk to courts staff, including listing clerks and clerks in magistrates courts, the benefits of the common platform are understood, but the implementation does need some work, which is why we are pausing it. However, the alternative is to return to legacy systems, which were on the verge of collapse and for which support will be withdrawn in the near future. If that is his future, he is welcome to it.
Family Court Reform and CAFCASS
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is an extra special pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Cummins. I apologise to you and the House for arriving a few minutes late for this debate. Similarly, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), but I congratulate her on securing this important debate.
We have had a couple of powerful and persuasive speeches today that demonstrate the urgent need for further reform to the family justice system so that victims of abuse and the children at the centre of proceedings are given the protection from harm and risk of harm that they both need and deserve. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) spoke in her usual strong and blunt fashion in defence of the victims and the pleas for change. I do not know if my speech will add any additional value to what we have heard this afternoon, but I say to her that she should not lose confidence in the work she has championed in this place, because she needs to be doing it. I never thought I would manage to make my hon. Friend blush, but today I have succeeded.
It has been more than two years since the Ministry of Justice published the harm report, “Assessing risk of harm to children and parents in private law children cases”. The panel that wrote the report said that the extensive evidence submitted to it
“unveiled deep-seated and systemic problems with how the family courts identify, assess and manage risk to children and adults.”
While we of course welcome the changes brought in by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, including the ban on cross-examination of victims of abuse by their perpetrators in the family and civil courts, it is clear that much more needs to be done.
Women’s Aid conducted research with specialist support services and survivors of abuse who have been involved in private child proceedings since the Government’s implementation plan for the harm report recommendations was published in 2020. It found that the optimism and hope that the publication of the report had brought have been destroyed by Government inaction and that lack of progress on the report’s findings has left them disillusioned and disappointed.
Women’s Aid also found that for many family court practitioners and professionals, their understanding of coercive and controlling behaviour and how perpetrators can and do use family court proceedings as another form of post-separation abuse is still insufficient. Survivors of domestic abuse are left feeling as if their experiences are ignored. The report from Women’s Aid notes that they feel that
“as mothers they are trapped within a continuum of blame, facing contradictory accusations both of failing to protect their children from the perpetrator, and failing to facilitate contact between child and perpetrator.”
The report also identifies serious concerns with parental alienation, and my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North West and for Birmingham, Yardley have addressed that this afternoon. Indeed, several of the survivors Women’s Aid spoke to in its research have had their children removed from them as a result of accusations of so-called parental alienation or alienating behaviours when they raise concern about unsafe contact arrangements for their child.
As we have heard today, this apparent belief system has come under increased international scrutiny. Indeed, several countries now refuse to recognise it as a result of the risk it poses of placing a child with an abusive parent. Following a recent survey of more than 4,000 court users in England and Wales, it is estimated that allegations of parental alienation are made in nearly 70% of family court cases in England and Wales. That astonishing number underlines the necessity for immediate Government action. In these cases, unregulated, self-declared experts, such as milkmen, are invited to give evidence, even though they have little to nothing in the way of formal qualifications to do so. In fact, they may have a vested financial interest in diagnosing so-called alienation, which they may then be paid to treat. Only last month, Sir Andrew McFarlane, the president of the family division, commented in the case of Re C that there was a “need for rigour” and “clarity” when instructing psychologists to give expert evidence in family cases, but claimed that stricter regulation was ultimately for Parliament to take action on.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West on bringing this matter before the House, and I am aware that she has made other representations to the Ministry of Justice on the matter, to which the Minister has responded, claiming:
“It is a matter for the judiciary to determine which experts may be instructed to provide evidence in family law proceedings.”
This impasse is totally unacceptable. There is a potentially high risk to already vulnerable children in this area. Loud alarm bells are being sounded, and the Government should be taking action now to investigate. Instead, they are once again demonstrating the dangerous inaction and lack of forward planning that have become their hallmark.
On the other hand, Labour wholeheartedly supports the calls for an urgent inquiry into the use of unregulated psychological experts in the family courts made by the Victims’ Commissioner for London, Claire Waxman, alongside lawyers, academics and charity leaders. My colleagues, the shadow Minister for victims and youth justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), and the shadow Minister for domestic violence and safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, have co-signed those representations to the Ministry of Justice.
In government, Labour will put Jade’s law on the statute book, ensuring that men who kill their partners will automatically have parental responsibility removed so they are not able to have a say in their children’s lives. That will prevent them from continuing to perpetuate controlling and coercive behaviour on their children and the victim’s family, who are likely to be caring for those children. Will the Minister introduce that law?
The Minister’s Department has been active in addressing concerns regarding post-separation abuse through the family courts in recent years, as evidenced by the publication of the harm report in 2020 and the Domestic Abuse Act, which received Royal Assent in 2021. Why is the Department stopping there when it was beginning to take some really positive steps forward? Will the Minister commit today to action that will help to begin to resolve the ongoing crisis in this area?
I now turn to the wider challenges faced by our family courts. As across the rest of the courts system, the backlog in family courts is unacceptably high and, as a result, vulnerable children are left in precarious situations for months on end. The most recent data shows that private children’s law cases are taking on average 45 weeks —nearly a year—to reach a final order. Cuts to legal aid, which others have raised today, in family cases have led to a huge increase in the number of litigants in person, who have been forced to represent themselves and end up costing the Government a significant amount because they take up much more of a judge’s sitting time than a represented individual normally would.
Back in November 2021, I was pleased to hear the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, when he appeared before the Justice Committee say that he was
“in the market for something quite drastic and bold”,
particularly in private law family cases, but I am sad to say that ambition appears to have disappeared. Instead, the backlog in the family court continues to rise, creating substantial anxiety and stress for families and, most importantly, for vulnerable children, at what is already an extremely difficult time in their lives.
I have spent a lot of time recently reflecting on how we can reduce the pain and suffering of going through the family court process. The debate we are having feels particularly timely, as I have met a number of family court practitioners, including at the north-east family drug and alcohol court, which I visited on Monday. I was hugely impressed by the work it is doing. I saw at first hand the value and benefit of a greater use of non-adversarial and problem-solving approaches in the family court.
I also had positive feedback regarding the pathfinder pilots in Dorset and north Wales, which are exploring a more inquisitorial approach in private family proceedings. An additional strength of the pathfinder model is that CAFCASS does substantially more up-front work in the process, which the court benefits from as it moves through the proceedings, but we have heard today about the resource challenges for CAFCASS that would currently prevent this positive work from being rolled out nationally.
Finally, many experts I speak to stress the importance of access to early legal advice in these cases, to ensure they end up in the most appropriate part of the system. One arm of that is ensuring that cases that do not need to go to court are kept out of it by early referral to mediation services and alternative dispute resolution. The other arm is ensuring that those cases that do need to go through the legal process are referred to it at as early a stage as possible.
These cases deal with challenging and highly emotive circumstances. Even the most straightforward family separation causes pain and anxiety. The impact these cases have, especially for the children involved in them, can last a lifetime. I hope the Minister will provide reassurances that the urgent issues raised today are being worked on by his Department, but also I hope that campaigners can take confidence in the fact that Labour takes these issues extremely seriously and fully supports the call for an urgent inquiry into the regulation of experts in the family courts.
Mike Freer
I will make some progress. I point Members to the recent Ofsted inspection in January this year. Ofsted said that CAFCASS was “highly effective”. The service has meant that the children at greatest risk continue to be promptly allocated a children’s guardian or family court adviser. I do not take issue with the problems that hon. Members have raised, but I wanted to put on record that the description of CAFCASS as a dystopian organisation getting everything wrong is simply unfair. There are many people there working in very difficult situations, doing a lot of good work for children.
I will move on to some of the things that we are doing to ensure that CAFCASS has capacity and funding. On additional funding and coping with the pandemic backlogs, we have ensured that the CAFCASS budget was increased by over £8.4 million, to a baseline of £140 million. We are also ensuring that the sitting days for both elements of the family court are increased.
I do not want to dwell on the particularly dry bits of what the family courts have to do. I appreciate that Members have raised specific questions, which I will do my best to answer. Where I cannot answer them, I will see that my colleague, Lord Bellamy, who covers this portfolio, provides more detailed answers. If hon. Members wish to meet Lord Bellamy to go through the issues in more depth, I am happy to facilitate that. I appreciate that I do not have the depth of knowledge that other Members or Lord Bellamy have.
We spend £813 million on civil legal aid. In the last couple of months, we have increased the amount by £30 million, just to support those people who need legal aid in a situation of domestic violence. It is not true to say that we are leaving victims of domestic violence without legal aid.
I recognise that long-term reform of the family court is needed, and that many of the issues are wide-ranging. Ensuring that vulnerable court users, such as those who have experienced domestic abuse, continue to be supported is complex. We want to continue to build on the response to the 2020 report on the risk of harm in private law proceedings. We have delivered on all the short-term commitments in the harm panel report. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 prohibits the cross-examination of victims by perpetrators, and gives victims of domestic abuse automatic eligibility for special measures in the family courts.
In December 2022, the Family Procedure Rule Committee agreed rule and practice direction changes to ensure that independent domestic violence advisers and other specialist support services can accompany a party into court. Those changes are expected to come into force on 6 April. The Government continue to work closely with the domestic abuse sector to ensure that survivors’ voices remain central to family court reform. I look forward to the upcoming launch of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s monitoring and reporting pilot, which will ensure that we continue to understand the impact of family court proceedings on children and families.
I will touch on a couple of issues raised.
Alex Cunningham
Before the Minister continues, could we go back to the issue of legal aid? Not everybody in family court proceedings can qualify for legal aid, but will he conduct an assessment of the time that has been wasted in courts because litigants in person take up so much more of judges’ time? It would save time, and the Government money, if those people had access to legal aid.
Mike Freer
As always, I will give very careful consideration to any request from the hon. Gentleman, and I will report back to him on what we can do on that issue. He mentioned family mediation. Obviously, a big driver of the reform is the desire to keep families out of a court process that is not helpful, and away from an adversarial process. The investment of about £7.3 million in providing mediation vouchers has been a success; it is working.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Government’s common platform roll-out has been nothing short of disastrous. Among many other problems, I have heard of dozens of prisoners being released without the tags that their licence conditions demand and other instances where individuals have been detained in custody beyond their release date. This is all avoidable chaos caused by Tory incompetence. Can the Minister explain why, despite the best efforts of the staff, the data systems simply do not work? Will he outline when he will finally get a grip and sort out this very wasteful scandal?
Mike Freer
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman yet again that if he wishes to return to the legacy systems he is welcome to argue that case, but those systems are at the end of their useful life. Since taking on this portfolio, I have gone out of my way to speak to the practitioners—the people down at the sharp end—and ensure that their concerns are reflected in all the technological enhancements. To describe the common platform as a disaster is simply untrue. This Government are investing in modernising our criminal justice system; Labour Members are nothing more than luddites.
DRAFT JUDICIAL PENSIONS (FEE-PAID JUDGES) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2023
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes.
The Minister and I have faced each other across the Dispatch Box a couple of times, as we will later today, but this is the first time we have shared an SI. The Opposition are going to give him a very easy time of it this morning.
As the Minister has outlined, the SI amends the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, which established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme, and provides pension benefits for eligible fee-paid judicial service from 7 April 2000 to 31 March 2022. It mirrors the pension benefits for salaried judges under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.
Today’s SI amends the 2017 regulations as required by the “O’Brien 2” litigation in the number ways that the Minister has described. It is complex, but we are happy to support the SI. I am a strong believer in equal pay for equal work, and the work that fee-paid judges and salaried judges undertake is the same. It is right that it is recognised as such in their pensions.
Can the Minister shed some light, however, on an additional ongoing issue about part-time judges’ pension payments in relation to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill? The regulations that are being amended today are based on the UK’s obligation to give effect to EU directive 97/81, which banned discrimination against those who work part-time. There is some anxiety that if the Justice Secretary does not take action, those regulations may be revoked by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. That could have an impact on more than 11,000 serving or part-time judges, and it has been suggested that they could lose up to £3.5 billion if those regulations are not retained. It is said that, in some cases, that could amount to a staggering 43% pay cut.
I expect that the Government, having brought forward today’s SI, will undertake the necessary work to address the matter that I have raised, but given that there is no mention of judicial pensions on the retained EU law dashboard, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified his Department’s position on them. I hope that he will commit to retaining the 2017 regulations, as amended by today’s regulations.
Mike Freer)
First, I thank the shadow spokesmen for their contributions. They have raised a valid question and I am aware that the judiciary are somewhat exercised about it. I reiterate that the judiciary are valued, and I know that the Lord Chancellor is currently reviewing the options available under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill to ensure that we comply with our obligations while maintaining the esteem in which we hold our judiciary. I cannot commit my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, but I can tell the hon. Gentlemen that the issue is high on the agenda and it is one that we take extremely seriously.
Alex Cunningham
I am rather fascinated by that particular answer. It sounds as though the Minister does not actually know whether the regulations that we are amending today will be retained in the long term. I promised to give the Minister an easy time, but why on earth are we in this room amending regulations that could be confined to the bin, not to mention all the ramifications of that, within a few months? Surely we should have a date by which this issue will be sorted out.
Mike Freer
The amendments are needed to comply with existing legislation and to fulfil the existing commitments that we have given to the courts. That is why we are here, and why we need to pass the regulations. The scope of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill and its impact on judicial pensions is being reviewed by the Lord Chancellor. I am happy to repeat that it is not the intention of my right hon. Friend to do anything that would undermine the esteem in which we hold our judiciary.
Question put and agreed to.
Cammell Laird Workers Imprisoned in 1984
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) on securing this debate and bringing further attention to this historic injustice to the Cammell Laird workers, some of whom sadly are no longer with us. I also pay tribute to the GMB union, which has provided continuous support to the workers so that they and their families can finally achieve recognition of that injustice, and for their suffering and hardship. It is good to recognise that three of the men—Eddie Marnell, Billy Albertina and Sam Morley—are joining us this afternoon in this Chamber.
The Cammell Laird shipyard in Birkenhead has a proud history. The site has played a strategic role in British shipbuilding for 200 years. Importantly, it has proved pivotal in supporting the Wirral community, sustaining vital jobs and creating a lifeline for the local economy. I remember well the 1970s and ’80s, when I was a young newspaper reporter and spent a lot of my time reporting on shipbuilding, on both Teesside and Clydeside. I know that shipyard workers are proud and loyal workers, and they are pleased to have their role in society. But as we have heard, in September 1984, Cammell Laird Ltd, through the High Court, conducted legal proceedings that would mark the history of this impressive hub of industry in Merseyside in a way that surely no one could have desired. It followed the decision by Cammell Laird to implement masses of job cuts, and a decision by the workers and their trade union to fight for their future. From July of that year through to September, the dispute escalated from picket lines to the occupation of a rig under construction and a blockage preventing access to HMS Edinburgh, which was under construction at the time.
The company then sought an injunction, which in turn led to the 37 people occupying the area being arrested for contempt of court between 1 and 3 October and imprisoned in the then category A Walton prison. History tells the story of injustice and the horrendous impact that it has, not just on those imprisoned but on the whole community. Those workers were fighting principally to make a difference, to protect jobs and the area in which they lived, but they paid a terrible price. They were faced with a month-long detention in prison, followed by blacklisting and the loss of redundancy, pension rights and their livelihoods. They have since spoken of the feeling among the workers that the dispute could have been resolved, but that the authorities were in no mood to negotiate. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) spoke of the decimation of manufacturing jobs in Liverpool at the time—a loss from which the city is yet to fully recover. More importantly, he spoke of the fact that these men were never allowed the right to defend themselves.
Eddie Marnell, one of the persons present today, is a former shipyard worker and one of the 37 men who spent those 28 days in prison after being arrested at Cammell Laird. He has campaigned heavily for the release of documents about the case. He believes the workers were used by Thatcher’s Government as a warning to the miners and any other organisation that posed a challenge. I understand that some of the documents have been released, but others remain secret to this day.
Those 37 men were fearful that the end of Cammell Laird was imminent, taking Birkenhead’s economic and social health with it. This case of injustice is not isolated. Too often, we have seen successive Governments sweep issues under the rug and hope to avoid culpability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, this is simple. It is about justice for ordinary people who were incarcerated despite not breaking the law, and locked away from their families. Recognition of that injustice by the Government would be an uncomplicated action towards bringing solace to these workers and their families for all the misfortune they have suffered. More generally, as has been said, we cannot ignore the comparison between the 1980s and what we are seeing today. After 13 years of Tory Administrations, workers are once again seeing their rights disregarded. Contempt for workers now is not dissimilar to what it was then.
We know the Government have form for deterring workers from exercising industrial action. In the ’80s, we saw the Tory Government introduce successive laws restricting industrial action. A matter of weeks ago, this Tory Government introduced legislation once again set on doing the utmost to quash strike action by threatening people with the sack. The Government apparently believe in the right to strike, but the shoddy legislation they have introduced—the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill—is yet another attack on working people’s freedoms. Labour strongly opposes this Bill on principle. It is simply unworkable. We voted against it on Second Reading and we will repeal it in Government.
The past few months have seen the greatest strike disruption in decades, with rail workers, ambulance workers and nurses taking unprecedented industrial action. Yesterday saw both NHS nurses and ambulance staff striking simultaneously for the first time. Unlike this Government, Labour is proud of the trade union movement’s historic achievements in giving people a voice at work through collective action. Standing up for workers is in our history and in our future. A Labour Government will champion these rights and transform people’s lives for the better.
On the matter under discussion, can the Minister say what appetite the Government have for looking again at the Cammell Laird injustice to recognise it for what it was? Do the Government accept that those 37 people had their lives ruined by the heavy-handed use of the law, and that it was unfair and unjust?
There appears to be some confusion over the routes to having these matters looked into again. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), who submitted a parliamentary question on the merits of looking again at what happened to the 37 Cammell Laird workers. In response to that question, the former Justice Minister, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), said:
“The appropriate route to challenge a conviction and/or sentence is by way of appeal.
Anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence in England, Wales or Northern Ireland can apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which can review and investigate possible miscarriages of justice. Where there is a real possibility that the conviction or sentence will not be upheld, the Commission can refer the case to the appropriate court.”
The Minister present will know, as I do, that these workers were jailed for contempt of court. Can he confirm whether the legal route described by the former Minister would apply in this case? If not, does he have sympathy with the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West that a change in the law be sought, allowing issues associated with contempt to be subject to the same rules and therefore applicable to the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission?
To be clear, a Labour Government will always stand up for the rule of law and challenge injustice wherever we find it. Labour would release documents held by Government relating to the Cammell Laird prosecutions and carry out a review into the jailing of the striking workers. Sadly, our history is littered with injustices, with the lives of hard-working people ruined as a result. As such, I would very much welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that what happened four decades ago was wrong, and that, rather than develop new ways to foster conflict between employers and workers, we should see them work together for everybody’s advantage.
Future of the Parole Board
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on having secured this hugely important debate to highlight the urgent challenges facing the parole system. Much of my speech will reflect and build on his concerns.
My hon. Friend mentioned the deeply distressing case of Andrew Barlow, formerly known as Andrew Longmire, and I echo his concerns. I, too, welcome the Lord Chancellor’s referral of the case back to the Parole Board for reconsideration that was announced yesterday; it is a testament to the hard work and campaigning of the victims. I also put on record my admiration for my hon. Friend and the vital work he has done, championing those victims’ cause in Parliament. As a former journalist, I also commend the role of the media in this particular case. However, it is totally unacceptable that the victims and their families did not receive the expected prior notification of Barlow’s planned release. Sadly, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), such failures are regularly repeated.
I am aware that the head of the Parole Board has expressed regret at the fact that some of Barlow’s victims were not informed, but that is simply not good enough. I note that when Sonia Flynn, the chief probation officer, gave evidence to the Science and Technology Committee last year, she confirmed:
“It is in statute that we must consult victims of serious crime on their view of release, and for them to also give our victim liaison officers a view regarding the protections that we need to put in place to reduce their concerns about that individual if the Parole Board does choose to release—particularly the obvious concern that they could bump into them in the street.”
It is deeply worrying that, even with a case as serious as this one, mistakes have been made.
I was horrified to learn that one of the victims, who still has nightmares three decades on as a result of the horror of Mr Barlow’s offending, only found out about his potential release, as we have heard, by reading the Manchester Evening News. We cannot allow our justice system to continue to treat victims as an afterthought. All of Andrew Barlow’s victims should have been signed up to the victim contact scheme and received communications from a victim liaison officer regarding how long he would be in prison, when he was up for parole and when he was likely to be released. They should have been told how to make a victim’s statement at the parole hearing. Such failings can retraumatise victims and seriously damage the public’s confidence in our justice system.
The Parole Board’s statutory purpose is to ensure that people who are dangerous are not released back into the community. It is a system designed to ensure public safety and to protect victims of crime, but after 12 years of Tory incompetence and chaos, our justice system is on its knees. Before the Minister uses the P-word, let me say that it was chaotic before the pandemic. Public confidence in the system is already near breaking point and with each further failing it gets closer to collapse. The Sentencing Council’s 2022 research report tells us that 45% of those surveyed were not confident in the criminal justice system’s effectiveness and 44% were not confident in its fairness. Does the Minister share my shock at those statistics? Public trust, efficacy and fairness of criminal justice are vital, or we will see fewer victims coming forward to report crimes and even greater numbers withdrawing midway through the process.
The 2019 Conservative manifesto promised to support all victims of crime and do right by victims, but the Government simply have not addressed these ongoing problems. How can year-long court delays and chronic staffing shortages from one end of the system to another contribute to a system that is doing right by victims? The Minister will not be surprised by my next question: when will the victims Bill come before the House?
It is clear to us all that the Government have completely lost their grip on criminal justice. Labour is the only party that can be trusted to deliver on law and order. We know that careful parole decisions are essential to reducing reoffending and its costs to society. Reoffending costs our society an astonishing £18 billion each year according to the Government’s own figures. Changes to the parole system introduced by the Government in June last year prohibit probation officers from giving a view or making recommendations to the Parole Board on progression or release of prisoners, thus removing an important element of professional expert knowledge from the process. In his evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, Martin Jones—CEO of the Parole Board—emphasised this expertise by saying,
“It is really important to make the point that we get evidence from prison and probation officers on whether a person is safe to be released or not, and work by the Ministry of Justice some years ago suggested that 90% of our decisions are in line with the evidence provided by report writers. That provides some evidence of consistency.”
In July last year, the three recognised Probation Service unions—Napo, Unison and the GMB—penned a letter to the Secretary of State with warnings about the serious consequences of the decision to prevent probation staff from making recommendations in written reports and oral evidence to the Parole Board under any circumstance. The ability to do so has long been a vital and valued part of the parole process. The unions warned that the decision
“severely endangers the ability of the Probation Service to protect victims of the most serious offences, and indeed the wider public, from the risk of serious harm posed by many individuals involved in the parole system.”
It further de-professionalises this vital public service role, leading to staff demoralisation, and exacerbating the retention problems that the Probation Service already faces. Prison and probation officers work hard day in, day out to deliver justice, and yet again they have been dismissed, undervalued and let down by this Tory Government. Speaking to the Ministry of Justice last year, a senior probation official said:
“It is extremely difficult and very disappointing that the Parole Board is the last to hear about important decisions which strike at the very heart of the difficult decisions we are asked to make. It makes our members’ already difficult job close to impossible.”
In fact, Napo members raised concerns about having to supervise someone in the community who they would not have recommended for release. They talked about the extreme stress that could cause, as well as the increased risk of further serious offences.
I am interested to hear from the Minister why removing probation recommendations was not included in the root-and-branch review of the Parole Board, and why there was no prior consultation with all stakeholders before the changes were implemented. Napo is concerned that removing professional recommendations in parole will lead to inappropriate releases and the non-release of those who otherwise may have been granted parole. Will the Minister share what impact assessment has been carried out on that particular issue, and confirm whether the Government sought the views of the Parole Board itself about having to make release decisions without expert witness recommendations?
The changes allow for the Secretary of State to make recommendations. That happens only in the most serious of cases—around 150 of the 6,000 that the Parole Board deals with each year. The remaining cases will now have no recommendation given, which seems astonishing to me. I ask the Minister for further information on the so-called “critical few” cases that the Secretary of State will be involved in. Can the Minister share how many oral hearings have been attended by a Secretary of State’s representative in recent times? In how many of those oral hearings did the Secretary of State’s representative recommend no progression—either from closed or open conditions, to open conditions from closed conditions, or release on licence?
Public hearings, the other major change introduced last year, were consulted on via the root-and-branch review. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton mentioned that as well. Personally, I am in favour of increasing the transparency of such hearings. When done properly, they could help to improve public confidence in the system. I know there have been only a few public hearings since their introduction, but could the Minister provide an update on how they are running, and how much engagement there has been with them? I understand that a remote link has to be set up to allow viewing, so I assume the Government have some sense of how many people are attending.
Finally, our probation service is still reeling from the reckless transforming rehabilitation programme, a failed experiment in privatisation. That disaster proceeded because the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), failed to listen to the warnings of those with the wealth of experience and expertise. I sincerely hope the current Secretary of State does not make the same mistake with parole.
Damian Hinds
I will respond to the hon. Gentleman on the precise numbers in correspondence, if I may. The important point is that every case is considered individually on its merits; that has to be at the heart of how the Parole Board goes about its business.
We will make the release test more prescriptive, so it is absolutely clear that prisoners should continue to be detained unless it can be demonstrated that they no longer present a risk of further serious offending. Secondly, for a top tier of the most serious offenders—I think that the hon. Member for Stockton North asked for clarification on what the tier consists of; it is those sentenced for murder, rape, causing or allowing the death of a child, and terrorist offences—we will legislate to give Ministers the power to refuse a release decision made by the Parole Board if they disagree with the board’s view that the release test has been met. That will provide an additional safeguard and, I hope, further reassurance to victims that for the most serious offenders, including murderers and rapists, there will be oversight by Ministers, who will be able to prevent release if that is considered necessary to keep the public safe.
Thirdly, we will legislate to ensure that the Parole Board’s membership includes more people with law enforcement backgrounds, who will sit on panels dealing with the most serious cases. Having more members who are, for instance, ex-police officers with first-hand experience of tackling crime in our communities and dealing with serious offenders will further enhance the Parole Board’s expertise in assessing the risk such offenders present. The measures that I have described will require primary legislation, which, to respond to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, we will introduce at the earliest opportunity.
We have already taken other steps within the system to enhance public protection and increase confidence. For example, we have reformed the way indeterminate sentence prisoners are moved to open prison conditions, and Ministers can block such moves if they do not meet new, tougher criteria. Also, we have introduced a new system whereby Ministers can submit an overarching view to the Parole Board about release in some of the most serious and troubling cases before any decisions are taken. That ensures that it is made very clear to the board at the outset if there is a case where Ministers would be opposed to the prisoner’s release.
I return to the important issue of victims’ experience of the parole system, which is at the heart of the case that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton made, and the measures that we are taking on it. When offenders are being assessed for release by the Parole Board, it can be a very difficult and distressing time for victims. We want to improve the way victims are engaged in that process, give them additional opportunities to hear about what is going on, and make them feel and know that they have more of a voice.
The mechanism by which victims are kept informed about parole is the victim contact scheme, which is operated by the probation service. It was first established in 2001 and applies to victims of sexual and violent offending where the offender is sentenced to imprisonment of 12 months or more. Victims who have signed up to the contact scheme should always be notified when a prisoner is coming up for potential release.
Victims have a choice about joining the victim contact scheme. If they choose to join, they will be kept up to date with key developments, including prisoners’ parole reviews, parole decisions and release decisions, by a dedicated victim liaison officer. During parole cases, victims can make a victim personal statement to the board, setting out the impact of the offence against them, and they may read it aloud to the Parole Board panel if an oral hearing is convened.
Victims also have the legal right to make requests about licence conditions, including a no-contact condition and an exclusion zone that prohibits the offender from entering areas where the victim lives, works or travels to frequently. Victims can also request a summary of the Parole Board decision and, where the Parole Board has directed release, they can ask the Secretary of State to consider applying to the Parole Board for the decision to be reconsidered.
It should be noted that some victims choose not to sign up to the victim contact scheme. Understandably, they may seek to do what they can to put the events of the case behind them. If there is no response to a second and third invitation to join the scheme, the probation service will properly respect their wishes and not keep contacting them. Victims can, however, join the scheme at any time, even if they have previously said no. A system in which all victims are notified about parole releases would not be practical for a number of reasons. For example, as I have said, not all victims will want to receive information, and unwanted contact from the service could retraumatise them.
The scheme was set up in 2001. For cases in the system before then, in relation to the victims of offences committed many years ago, it does not operate retrospectively. However, in the most serious and notorious of cases, such as some of those that have been referred to in this debate, the probation service should ask the police, through multi-agency public protection arrangements —known as MAPPAs—for support with tracing victims. In the Andrew Barlow case, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton talked about, the Greater Manchester probation region is working with Greater Manchester Police to trace victims of the offences that Mr Barlow committed in the 1980s and 1990s and invite them to join the victim contact scheme. I should also confirm that, as has been said, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State is applying to the Parole Board to reconsider its decision to direct Mr Barlow’s release on life licence. Probation victim liaison officers will keep victims in the scheme informed of progress with the application for reconsideration.
As for the measures we are taking to make further improvements, particularly to increase transparency and the information available to victims and others, we committed in the root-and-branch review to allowing victims to observe parole hearings for the first time. We also confirmed that we would change the rules to allow for public hearings in some cases. I know that that has come up this morning, and I will say a little bit about the progress that has been made on both those commitments.
Since October last, victims have been able to observe Parole Board hearings as part of a testing phase that is running in the south-west probation region. During the hearings, victims are supported by probation staff, who discuss the parole process with them and ensure that they are directed to relevant support. We are working closely with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners to ensure that tailored local support services are readily available, should victims require. We recognise that it could be retraumatising for a victim to hear the evidence that is explored during a parole hearing, so we are initially conducting a relatively small-scale testing phase to ensure we get the processes and support arrangements right. My paramount concern is to ensure that victims can observe the hearing in a way that is safe for them while not compromising the Parole Board’s ability to conduct a fair and rigorous assessment of risk.
The hon. Member for Stockton North asked for an update on progress. During the testing phase so far, victims have welcomed the opportunity to observe hearings. Following their feedback, we are working to improve the process to prepare for its expansion across England and Wales.
Last year, having made changes to the Parole Board rules, we also saw the first public Parole Board hearing, which was in the case of Russell Causley in December. A second public hearing has been agreed by the board and will take place this year in the case of Charles Salvador, formerly known as Charles Bronson. These changes will help to improve public understanding and awareness of the parole process.
In the root-and-branch review, we also committed to reviewing the current guidance and requirements for providing victims with information about the parole process. Our review will identify areas for improving the information that victims currently receive through the victim contact scheme. We will ensure that, where victims have requested it, they receive effective, clear and timely communication about the parole process so that they are sufficiently informed as their case is progressed.
As part of the primary legislative reforms that I referred to earlier, we intend to require the Parole Board to consider written submissions from victims about the release of the prisoner. That will be in addition to the victim personal statement that victims are already permitted to make to the board. Again, that is about doing more to give victims a voice and an opportunity to put their concerns and views to the Parole Board.
I want briefly to cover a few other points that came up during the debate. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton raised the sex offender treatment programme. The SOTP was discontinued in the light of research evidence, and a new treatment programme has been introduced, which relies less on group work.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who is no longer in her place, indirectly raised a couple of points—one of which was also raised by the hon. Member for Stockton North—about the important issue of what is in the dossiers that are brought to the Parole Board and the content that comes from different perspectives and analyses. They both asked about not having individual staff recommendations. Reports will continue to provide all the same information, evidence and assessments about the prisoner as they currently do, with the exception of a recommendation or review from the report writer. The reason for that is that it is the Parole Board’s responsibility to decide whether the prisoner is safe to be released or should stay in prison for the protection of the public, based on the entirety of the evidence received. The written reports, including those from prison, probation and psychology staff, and the questioning of witnesses at oral hearings, will continue to provide all the evidence the board needs to enable it to reach fully informed decisions.
Alex Cunningham
The point about the information staff provide and how confident they are that it is being shared is important. I mentioned that staff appear to be concerned that we are releasing prisoners they would never have recommended be released. What does the Minister have to say to them about the credibility of information that is before the Parole Board, and the confidence in the decision?
Damian Hinds
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, the situation he describes could have happened anyway. I reassure him and other colleagues that this is not a diminution of the information that goes into the risk assessment. All of that information is still there, and that totality of information will be considered in the round.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and the hon. Member for Stockton North asked about the impact assessment on changes to the recommendation system. The right hon. Lady specifically asked about impact on minority ethnic offenders. I want to reassure them that that impact is being monitored, though it is too early to assess on a segmented basis. It is important that we keep such matters under review.
I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance that, through the actions the Government are taking, victims’ concerns and the protection of the public are at the heart of our vision for the future of the parole system. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this important, thoughtful and measured debate, and thank everybody who has taken part—in particular the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, who secured it.
Powers of Attorney Bill
Alex Cunningham ExcerptsFriday 9th December 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Powers of Attorney Act 2023 View all Powers of Attorney Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on promoting this private Member’s Bill and on introducing it today. He made his case very well; this is a matter of great importance that can affect so many of us.
Last year, I wrote to the then Justice Minister overseeing this portfolio, the hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). I had several concerns, particularly regarding the lack of training and awareness on the limits of power of attorney, that had been brought to my attention by a number of practitioners. The then Minister’s response was reassuring and I am glad that the agenda in this area is moving forward with Government support, but there is still much to be done to improve the system beyond the Bill’s parameters. That said, Labour supports the Bill’s aims and welcomes the modernisation of the process for making and registering lasting powers of attorney.
It is of cardinal importance that donors are protected. If technology can provide more effective ways of strengthening those protections, we should make full use of it. Furthermore, although I understand that the strain on the Office of the Public Guardian has reduced in recent times with the recruitment of more caseworkers, the staff there are still stretched and delays are still being experienced. I hope that the modernisation process provides the necessary streamlining to ease the burden on the Office of the Public Guardian.
We welcome the Bill’s amendment to section 3 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971, which the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock mentioned, which will enable chartered legal executives to certify copies of powers of attorney. It is good to see that particular matter addressed. However, there are several areas on which I would welcome the thoughts of the hon. Member or the Minister to inform my understanding of why they have been omitted from the Bill. One notable absence from the Government’s response to the consultation was the Law Society’s recommendation that certification should expressly include consideration of the donor’s capacity. This seems like a sensible proposal to me, and I am interested to hear why the Bill has not taken it on.
While LPAs are one important mechanism by which it is possible to support the exercise of legal capacity, as Alex Ruck Keene KC notes in an article on his excellent website about mental capacity law and policy, it is certainly not the only mechanism. He notes that it would be possible within the same zone of endeavour as this Bill
“to flesh out the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to secure that a person is recognised as being able to make their own decisions in more situations than is currently the case.”
Should we expect further legislation that would provide for wider reforms, or is this Bill the extent of the Government’s ambition for legislative work in this area? I ask with genuine interest, as we are looking forward to working with the Government, and the hon. Member, on introducing reforms in this important area.
I was pleased to read in the Minister’s foreword to the consultation response that
“it remains for me to emphasise again the importance of us modernising LPAs in a way that is right for donors. They are the ones who choose their attorneys, they are the ones that should set the scope of the powers they wish to confer under an LPA, and they are the ones whose rights and freedoms must be protected and facilitated through this service. It therefore remains the case that their needs are paramount and must come before those of any other party as we seek to make changes.”
We very much agree with this sentiment and are looking forward to scrutinising and potentially improving these measures at Committee stage.
Legal Rights to Access Abortion
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to again serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for presenting this petition, and particularly for the sensitivity with which she did so, outlining the complexities thrown up by the petition and the role that a Bill of Rights could—or, perhaps, could not—play in furthering women’s rights over their own bodies. I also thank Caitlin, who is in the Public Gallery, for the petition itself. Whether there are bigger campaigns in play around the world or around the country, it is a great thing for democracy that an individual citizen can hold all of us in this place to account through hard work and dedication to their own particular cause.
I completely understand and recognise the very real anxieties that have prompted this debate. It is an outrage that 36 million women in 26 American states were stripped of their right to a safe and legal abortion when Roe v. Wade was overturned earlier this year; it was a devastating setback for women’s rights in the United States. It reminds us that we must be vigilant in the protection of our hard-won rights, especially in the face of organised far-right campaigners who seek to roll them back.
Alex Cunningham
No, not at the moment. It was not until 1967 that women in Britain won the right to a safe and legal abortion, and it was just three years ago that 99 MPs voted to keep abortion illegal in Northern Ireland, including the current Secretary of State for Justice. I will begin by affirming the Labour party’s commitment to a woman’s right to choose. We believe that access to a safe, legal abortion should be available throughout the UK, and we will always protect and safeguard that right.
We have had many contributions today. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) pressed the opinion that Parliament should remain sovereign in abortion policy, so perhaps he will also support decriminalisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and I have had a few conversations and exchanged emails in the last 24 hours or so. She talked about the need for clarity on any rights under a Bill of Rights, and stressed how it would still be subject to challenge. She talked about variable rights in different parts of the UK and the need for a consistent approach, but ultimately about the need for a woman to have the right to determine what happens to their own body.
The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) was supportive of the work to give women autonomy over their own bodies. I am not surprised—I have heard her speak on many occasions. She also summarised current legislation and queried the investigation of medical abortions. Like so many people she, of course, supports decriminalisation.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) had a very different opinion, but he spoke of the need to respect each other’s views and explained what he saw as the view of the Northern Irish people and why legislators should be mindful of that. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) took the usual robust approach in defining her view. She relied on international legislation and various treaties in support of opposition to abortion in all its forms, but it was good to hear her say, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, that she did not believe that women seeking an abortion should be criminalised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) spoke about a healthcare right and a properly funded and available service, and I agree with that. She stressed that behind every abortion was a woman with a decision to make.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) questioned the evidence of overwhelming public approval to decriminalise abortion, but I did not hear why he actually believed that. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) stressed that men should be involved in any abortion decision, rather than it being a woman’s decision alone, but he also raised the rights of a woman who a man may try to force to have an abortion against her will.
The right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) spoke on what he believed was a “cult of death”. He then said that he would rule out abortion in all circumstances, including rape and incest.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) spoke of the need for women to be protected from men, and stressed the horrific figures of domestic violence in her area. It has been a robust debate, with lots of contributions.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The hon. Member began his excellent summing up of the debate by quoting, I think, that 126 million women had lost their right to abortion. I do not want to get involved in the detail of US politics, but the reality is that many of those women will retain their rights under state legislation. It was simply a question of the federal right being removed.
Alex Cunningham
I do not disagree with the right hon. Member, but the fact remains that there are lessons for us to learn from what is happening in America.
The introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 is one of the proudest achievements of our Labour party. We are deeply concerned about the Government’s attacks on it. I have a number of reservations about the mechanism proposed by the petition. First, the Government’s rights removal Bill—they call it a Bill of Rights—is shambolic. It would divide the nations of the UK, weaken the rule of law and create additional barriers to British people seeking justice.
The End Violence Against Women Coalition described the Bill as
“a major step backwards for victims and survivors’ ability to seek justice and a direct attack on women’s rights.
We have long called on the government to save our Human Rights Act, which is an essential tool for upholding women’s rights to live free from violence. It provides victims and survivors with essential legal protections, as well as vital tools to challenge the state and its institutions for failing to protect us from gender-based violence.”
UK in a Changing Europe, a UK-based network of academics and researchers, has also expressed concerns:
“The Bill of Rights Bill would prevent UK judges from interpreting Convention rights in ways that create positive obligations on public authorities…Many landmark cases under the HRA have relied on positive obligations: for example, the Act allowed bereaved families and survivors of the Hillsborough disaster to expose the negligence of state officials, using the positive obligation to investigate alleged breaches of the right to life….Not only does the Bill of Rights preclude new interpretations of rights that impose positive obligations on public bodies, it also discourages courts from applying positive obligations that have already been identified in previous cases. This could lead to legal uncertainty, and to divergence from the case law of”
the European Court of Human Rights,
“since positive obligations are an important principle applied by the Court to ensure practical and effective protection of rights, particularly for people whose rights are most vulnerable to abuse (such as children, victims of sexual violence and people seeking asylum).”
Everyone in the Chamber will be familiar with the case of John Worboys, the black cab rapist, who raped and sexually assaulted more than 100 women over the course of six years. Relying on the positive right under article 3 to not be subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment, two of his victims challenged the Metropolitan police’s failures to stop that horrific course of offending. A UK court held that, because of our obligations under the Human Rights Act, the police were under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to investigate credible allegations of serious crime.
Labour will oppose the rights removal Bill, under which victims of serious sexual assault will lose the right to force the police to investigate crimes committed against them. The Bill is not about giving people extra rights; it is about taking our hard-won rights away. We cannot lose sight of that fact.
My second concern about the petition is that we cannot trust this Government to safeguard such an important right properly in their proposed legislation. The rights removal Bill is the pet project of the Secretary of State for Justice. It was brought back only when he was reappointed to his former position. As I mentioned, in 2019 he voted with 98 other MPs to keep abortion illegal in Northern Ireland. He has described the Government Equalities Office as “pointless” and suggested it be abolished. He even called feminists “obnoxious bigots”, and defended that remark just a couple of years ago on “The Andrew Marr Show” during his failed prime ministerial bid. This is not a Secretary of State who has women’s interests at heart.
The final reason why I do not think that the rights removal Bill is an appropriate mechanism for the reform of UK abortion law is its scope. Labour has committed to decriminalising abortion—to removing it from the scope of UK criminal law. In two cases next year, women will stand trial for accessing abortions in the UK. If found guilty, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said. A coalition of organisations, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Amnesty International, Southall Black Sisters and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions, requesting that the prosecutions be dropped, and noting that over the past eight years at least 17 women have been investigated by police for ending their own pregnancies, although it believes that the actual number is likely to be a lot higher. As we heard, last year a 15-year-old girl was investigated by the police after an unexplained stillbirth at 28 weeks. She was accused of illegal abortion and reportedly driven to self-harm by the year-long investigation. Police stopped pursuing the case after a coroner concluded that the pregnancy had ended because of natural causes.
As Clare Murphy, chief executive of BPAS, put it:
“What kind of society treats women in this way?...It is abhorrent that 160 years later vulnerable women should suffer from legislation drawn up in a world which is unrecognisable to us now, and”
be
“punished for making decisions about their own bodies.”
It is not clear to us that the scope of the Bill will allow for the reforms that we need in order to update our abortion laws, so that they represent the values of our modern Britain, but I want to underline once again that the Labour party supports women’s right to choose, and I also want answers from the Government on how they plan to make UK abortion law fit for the 21st century. The Tories are taking the UK backwards with this so-called Bill of Rights. Labour will fight tooth and nail to uphold the rights of British citizens by defending the Human Rights Act. We saw the previous Lord Chancellor commit this Bill to a very slow back burner in the hope that everyone would forget about it. No one can defend the indefensible. The Tory Government and Lord Chancellor have got their priorities all wrong with a Bill that is about taking away our rights, rather than being the vehicle for enshrining new ones. Instead of bringing forward the much-awaited victims Bill, the Lord Chancellor seems to be determined to press on with his divisive rights removal Bill, which will make life tougher for our citizens, not better.
What is clear from this petition and the ensuing debate, however, is that the Government must do more to support women’s rights, so I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how the Government will engage more with women and women’s groups in order to address their concerns and ensure that their right to choose is protected.
Edward Argar
There are two points in there. I will address the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke more explicitly than I did previously. We have been clear throughout this that the decision taken in Northern Ireland was a decision by this House. It is open to the House, if it wishes, to change the position in respect to England or Wales. We do not believe that is something the Government should do. We believe it is, as ever, a matter of conscience for individual Members.
What happened in the case of Northern Ireland reflected the vote of the House on a particular amendment. I will not use the word “hijacking” because I think that right hon. and hon. Members are entirely able to use the procedures of this House to advance the causes that they or their constituents wish to promote. That is how the rules and Standing Orders of this House are written. I may or may not be happy with that on occasions, but it is a legitimate use of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons if something is within scope.
Edward Argar
Let me briefly finish answering the hon. Lady. On her second point about rights, I come back to the point that it is entirely open for the House to legislate in primary legislation. She talked about free speech and the Bill currently going through. Just as with the 1967 legislation, which I believe was a private Member’s Bill by the now Lord Steel, it is entirely open to the House, through private Member’s legislation and the usual processes that are followed for such legislation, to seek to legislate.
I will make a final point before I give way to the shadow Minister, on the changes to the Bill of Rights, which links neatly to what the shadow Minister was talking about. Schedule 1 of the draft Bill of Rights includes the rights contained in the ECHR, which are set out in the HRA 1998. Although there is a focus on ensuring that the right balance is struck between the legislature, the courts and the Executive, there should be a little caution about suggesting that this is anything other than updating and clarifying some of those balances.
Alex Cunningham
I may be more blunt than my hon. Friend for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Does the Minister foresee an early opportunity for the House to make a decision on whether abortion should be decriminalised?
Edward Argar
There are many opportunities in front of hon. Members. They may wish to submit a private Member’s Bill. When the new Session starts there will be a new ballot. I may take a view on whether amendments should be included in particular pieces of legislation, but if they are ruled to be in order by the Speaker, Members will be able to explore their options. I do not believe that the Bill of Rights is the right approach to take to secure this issue, if that is the desire of right hon. and hon. Members. There are other mechanisms in Parliament for them to advance that debate and propose legislation, should they wish to do so.
Let me conclude by reiterating that this Government remain committed to ensuring access to safe, regulated abortions. It is right that women have this choice at their disposal. I am sure that I speak for the whole Chamber when I say that I do not want a return to unsafe, unregulated abortions that put women’s lives at risk, or to women feeling unable to escape a situation they find themselves in or to have an alternative.
As I said, the debate has been thoughtful on both sides of the argument. I believe it has been respectful and reflects the depth of sincerely and strongly held views on both sides of the debate. I have sought to address the specific point in the context of the Bill of Rights. I slightly sidestepped the broader points of the Bill of Rights, and I suspect that the shadow Minister and I will have an opportunity in the coming weeks or months to debate those. I have sought to keep my remarks to the matter in hand in the petition. I am grateful for the opportunity to have spoken on this issue, and I look forward to hearing the winding up comments from the hon. Member for Gower.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Oh dear, dear, what a mess: our courts systems were in chaos before the pandemic, and now it is much worse, with some cases taking years to come to court and remand numbers at record levels. The Common Platform was supposed to make courts more efficient, but fails in everything from recording criminal convictions to getting crucial data to the Registry Trust on time. Worst of all, it is having an adverse effect on people’s lives, including those who use it. Costs have soared from £236 million to more than £300 million, with Ministers ready to pay an IT firm another £20 million for product enhancements. Will the Minister tell us where the money has gone, why the system has not been sorted and whether he will pause the roll-out until it is?
Mike Freer
I point out that the backlogs were on a downward trajectory until the Criminal Bar Association action. The roll-out of the Common Platform is a necessary part of modernising our systems, and I am confident that we will ensure that the system is delivered for the benefit not just of users, but of everyone who touches our criminal justice system.