Access to Justice: Vulnerable People

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to justice for vulnerable people.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on what is an increasingly critical issue: access to justice, particularly for those who for whatever reason would otherwise be left without legal redress. The Opposition recognise the fundamental importance of legal aid in ensuring that everyone has access to justice. It is a significant time for legal aid, and today marks the inaugural meeting of the Bach commission, led by my colleague Lord Willy Bach and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). The commission has brought together experts from across the legal profession and will explore establishing access to justice as a fundamental public entitlement.

Since 2010 the Government have cut legal aid to the bone. The consensus that once existed around legal aid has been sidelined. Although we recognise the need to make savings, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Justice Committee have all criticised the Government’s failure to understand the knock-on costs and wider consequences of their reforms. The Labour party recognises the importance of legal aid in making sure the state does not infringe the liberty of its citizens, and we understand its crucial role as a tool for legal redress in family disputes. Those who traditionally benefit from legal aid—the poor and most vulnerable—have been marginalised by the policies of this Government. They have seen the erosion of their rights at work, in schools, and in their housing and welfare needs. In 2010, as Labour left office, almost 500,000 cases received advice or assistance for social welfare issues. The year after the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 came into force, it was less than 53,000.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend has constituents in his surgeries every single week desperate for legal help, who previously would have benefited from the legal aid regime, but who now cannot find legal help or representation anywhere and cannot afford to pay for it.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. This is about the kind of society we want to live in. There is no doubt that a key indicator of that is the way in which we deal with access to justice. My constituents, like hers, are deeply concerned about the distortion of our justice system, which we are discussing here today.

The figures that I have cited show a massive drop in access to justice, and that has had a huge impact on people across England and Wales: parents unable to see their children; employees unfairly dismissed or discriminated against; tenants mistreated by abusive landlords; and women unable to leave abusive partners. Those are exactly the kind of people the Government claim to stand up for, but the reality is different. Consider family proceedings, for instance. In the first quarter of 2015, 76% of private family law cases had at least one party who was not represented. That means our constituents no longer receive the support and advice that is required for them to have effective redress in the courts.

The problem is most acute in the civil and family courts, which are dealing with an unprecedented rise in the number of litigants in person. Previously, litigants in person were most often there by choice, choosing to self-represent, but it is now the case that litigants in person are there because they cannot get legal aid. The personal support unit, which provides help to people facing civil court hearings, has seen a rise of 900% in clients helped. The deck is firmly stacked against the most vulnerable. What was once a relatively level playing field has been seriously distorted, with litigants in person now effectively battling uphill, often challenging decisions passed down by the Government.

The checks and balances that were previously in place for citizens to hold the Government to account have been seriously limited. Across the legal spectrum, we have seen the removal of vast swathes of legal aid, the closing down of law centres, and the removal of good quality legal advice from those who need it most. If that was not enough, the safeguard of judicial review has also been severely curtailed. We have seen the warm words from the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, who decried a two-nation justice system, but unfortunately we all know his rhetoric is not being backed up by action. The Justice Secretary has carried on from where his predecessor left off: sidelining legal aid; the sector cut to the bone; court closures denying access to local justice; and massive increases in fees, excluding many from the system.

One particular section of the population in desperate need are the victims of domestic violence. During the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the Government made a point of saying that it was not their intention to make legal aid available to all victims of domestic violence. The Government have been too narrow in the safeguards put in place for ensuring that victims of domestic violence can receive legal aid. The Justice Committee expressed concern in its report about the evidence requirements for victims of domestic violence, and a recent survey from Rights of Women revealed that 39% of respondents did not have the evidence required to qualify for legal aid. Another survey found that almost half of respondents did not take any action in relation to their family law problem because they were unable to apply for legal aid, and a further 25% opted to represent themselves in court. Those figures reflect the findings of the all-party group on domestic and sexual violence, which found that more than 60% of respondents did not commence action and that one in six had to pay more than £50 to get the required evidence to prove domestic violence. Victims of domestic violence should not be forced to choose between staying with their abuser and having to face them in court. Although the Opposition do not believe that that was the Government’s intention in the legal aid reforms, it none the less persists and must be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes an absolutely critical point about women in the workplace. This plays into the broader theme of today’s discussion, which is about how we ensure we include all elements of society so that we can build an economy and a society that are cohesive and dynamic. The issues are not only about rights and equalities in the narrow sense; they are about how those rights and equalities play into the creation of an inclusive and dynamic economy where all people are able to bring their talents to the table, and women are a critical element of that. Without redress to justice, they will not have the checks and balances in place that they need to defend their rights, as should every other member of society.

A clear theme is coming through in the interventions from my hon. Friends. The overall theme is whether the Government have properly considered the impact of their legislation and policies on some of the most vulnerable groups in society, such as the homeless; those threatened with eviction and facing serious housing disrepair; those in need of community care services; parents and children involved in child abduction cases; and those with mental health and mental capacity issues. This test only further entrenches the gap between those who can and those who cannot access justice. The law is there to protect all citizens, and a robust justice system should make sure that justice can be afforded to all, not only those who can afford it.

[Jo Stevens]

Last week the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, issued his annual report in which he raised concerns about the lack of access to justice, and Lord Justice Briggs said:

“To any rational observer who values access to civil justice, this is a truly shocking state of affairs.”

If we have the most senior judiciary in our country worrying about lack of access to justice, does my hon. Friend not agree that the Government must take heed and start to change their policies in this arena?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I agree entirely with every word of it, and with the sentiment. Members clearly have a deep and active interest in this issue, but we could never claim to be experts at the same level as the judiciary whom she just cited. We must defer to those views. If the most eminent experts in the world are telling us that the system is seriously flawed and the new legislation is deeply damaging, surely we must take heed of their interventions.

Nothing we see from the Government addresses what is increasingly being recognised as a two-nation justice system—and this from the party that claims to be a one-nation party. How we treat the most vulnerable is a key barometer of the kind of society we are and aspire to be, particularly when it relates to that most fundamental of rights: equality before the law. The increase in court fees, alongside reduced access to legal aid, restricts access to justice. Unless the Government change course, they will fail on the first duty of any Government: the just maintenance of law and order.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

That is not the case with professions such as medicine—for surgeons and so on.

[Jo Stevens]

Part of the problem is that huge swathes of people are graduating and going into the law—both the solicitors’ profession and the Bar. The problem is that the work is not there for them now because of the Government’s cuts to legal aid, so it is very difficult to get a practice up and running. If we do not have solicitors and barristers, we will not have a judiciary in the future.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Lady’s point is spot on. Barristers have told me that too many people are going into the profession, given the work that is available, despite the fact that their numbers are several times higher than a few years ago. The consequence is that too many of them are effectively working part time and are not able to do as many cases as they ought to be doing, given their productivity, so their earnings are lower, as the shadow Minister said.

[Jo Stevens]

The point I am making is that some of the work of representing vulnerable people that was previously available is not available to the Bar and the solicitors’ profession because legal aid has gone.

[David Mowat]

We will come to the amount of money we spend on legal aid, although I note that I have certainly got this debate going, so I guess we should at least be grateful for that—as I said, I did not intend to speak today.

A point has been made about the fact that we spend a large amount of money on legal aid compared with other countries such as Germany and France, which, as far as I am aware, do not have legal systems that are not fit for purpose. They have non-adversarial legal systems, which are different from ours, so they may be different in other areas. Despite the fact that we spend many billions of pounds on our legal system, that our spending on legal aid per capita is much higher than other countries—even those with adversarial systems, such as New Zealand—and that people work in good faith at the Bar, the judiciary, the Crown Prosecution Service and elsewhere, there is a structural issue with our legal system, and we need to look at it. Perhaps we should look at whether the Bar should be independent and at whether more barristers should be employed. Perhaps the shadow Minister will come forward with that proposal. It is not reasonable to say that the Government have no role in curtailing the amount of expenditure on that area, although we must be fair to all who are involved.

The hon. Member for Aberavon briefly mentioned judicial review, at which a number of the changes were aimed. The number of judicial reviews has increased by a factor of something like four in the past eight years. Such numbers are very significant, and it is reasonable that the Government look at them. I am not in the Government, and I do not know whether they have got it right in all cases. That is why I was so keen to get an answer from the shadow Minister to my question about which of the changes to legal aid he agrees with. I am sure we will hear from him about that.

It is wrong to say that Government Members are not as concerned about access to justice and vulnerable people as Opposition Members, but questions need to be asked about the structure of the legal system and about how things work at the moment. The rate of increase that we saw before 2010 would have been untenable if it had continued at that level, as the then Labour Government recognised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is always a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mr Bailey.

To declare my interests, my wife is employed as a criminal duty solicitor and part-time judge and, before my election to the House, I was a member of Wilberforce barristers’ chambers in Hull. I was a junior member of the Bar and certainly not earning “fat cat” moneys, as the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) might want to believe.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing this important and timely debate. It could not have come at a better time, because the commission chaired by Lord Willy Bach is as we speak hearing evidence from experts in the professions on how we deal with this problem of access to justice and legal aid.

The Bach commission was established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the leader of the Labour party. It is fair to say that the Leader of the Opposition understands legal aid. He, unlike any other leader of a political party that I can remember, actually gets it, as no one else has done. He understands it, he cares about it and, as a result, he has established the Bach commission to look at access to justice and legal aid. He is also doing that in a non-party political way.

Members of the commission have been appointed by Willy Bach not because of their politics or any sort of association with or affiliation to any political party, but, on the contrary, because of their expertise and their knowledge not only of legal aid and access to justice, but of other things. For example, one member, a particularly huge asset to the commission, is Tanni Grey-Thompson, who is also providing expertise in relation to disability. So the commission is non-partisan and we hope that it will come to a view on how we provide access to justice for the most vulnerable people in our society.

It has to be said that the Government have made a real mess of access to justice and legal aid. Since 2010, advice-and-assistance matter starts in social welfare have gone from 471,000 down to 53,000, a drop of 91%. So more than 400,000 people are now not provided with the opportunity to receive legal advice and are not given the chance to access the courts. They are often left paddling their own canoe, faced with extremely complex issues of procedure and law, and left to do all that on their own.

In reality, no money is saved, because the courts are delayed. Judges are complaining constantly, privately in the main, but complaining none the less that cases are delayed while litigants in person are left fending for themselves, trying to navigate through complex areas of procedure and law. There is no real saving.

Following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, exceptional case funding was supposed to help people who are denied access to lawyers. I think this is right—I will be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong—but last year, for example, only 394 applications were granted under the scheme, rather than the 3,700 or so estimated. Clearly, the system is not working.

The Government might be about to reintroduce the residence test. They got excited about that and were pleased that the judicial review was successful, in that the Government won, but the lord justices who heard the case for review were not considering the practical effects of the residence test. They were simply deciding whether the residence test was legal or “Wednesbury unreasonable”; they were not considering whether the test itself was practical or could be implemented successfully. To reintroduce the residence test would be a huge mistake. I have not heard from a lawyer who has been able to explain how it would work. I have asked the Minister, too, how it would work. Will he explain exactly how he intends the residence test to work in practice?

As for criminal legal aid, the Government are now attempting to implement a system that will see the number of duty contract providers reduced from some 1,650 to 526. There has been a cut of about 17.5%. The Government say that the number of providers needs to be reduced and consolidated, in order to allow them a profit on their work. The system, however, cannot work. It will not work and the Minister knows that it will not work. It is undergoing litigation, but the reality is that the Government have made a terrible mess of the duty criminal contracts since 2010. It was needless, in truth, but the entire thing is in a terrible mess now, to the point of a whistleblower coming forward. The whistleblower was employed through the Legal Aid Agency to help with the procurement exercise and was able to explain how chaotic the entire system was.

Last night I received an email from a criminal law solicitor, Mr Andrew Gurney of Gurney Harden Solicitors in Ashford. I will not read the entire content of the email, but that firm of solicitors was successful in its application for six contracts. Mr Gurney makes the point:

“We were involved in 6 successful bids and our early estimates put our costs at £30,000”—

so he knows. He knows that the system is impossible to implement. His firm has spent £30,000 in applying for contracts that everyone knows will probably not happen, because everyone knows that it is impossible to implement the system.

The system is not fit for purpose, and the Government have been warned about it. The Justice Secretary privately accepts that the idea of removing more than 1,000 firms of solicitors and leaving some areas without access to duty solicitors is unmanageable. So even Ministers privately believe that access to justice for the most vulnerable people will be denied as a result of the Government’s plans to implement a system that is absolutely chaotic. It is time that the Government listened to people who know better than them.

That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Warrington South. We need consensus. We need to put politics aside. It is all right for me to come here and attack the Government—I enjoy that—but the reality is that will not get us anywhere. We need to sit down and accept that people need access to law. As my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party has said, that ought to be considered a basic human right. If the state is taking on an individual, surely the most basic thing required of a civilised society is to allow that individual access to people who have experience and expertise in the area of law that they are trying to navigate.

[Jo Stevens]

It is somewhat ironic that, later on this morning, the Minister for Human Rights will be appearing before the EU Justice Sub-Committee because the Government have not implemented a European directive adopted by other member states in 2013 that gives criminal suspects a right to access legal advice following arrest.

[Karl Turner]

I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend makes an important point.

It is time that we grew up. The Bach commission, with its cross-party members—I suspect some appointments are political and some non-political—chosen for their expertise only, not for their politics, will hopefully come to a view that can save money while providing access to the courts, lawyers and justice. As I have said, we need to do that in a non-partisan, non-political way. I sometimes find that difficult to manage, but it is crucial that we grow up.

Before I finish my remarks, I will mention the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). I think we have seen a drop of 80% in employment tribunals. The hon. Member for Warrington South talked about people in the law profession earning more than the Prime Minister, but we now have employment judges sitting idly in tribunals throughout England and Wales with no work to do because of the fee that needs to be paid for a tribunal to be heard.

Women want to raise serious issues. I think of a case that I advised on pro bono and referred the woman to a solicitor: she had told her employer that she would take maternity leave at some point in the not-too-distant future and he said, “Well, that’s not very convenient. I’m afraid you’ll have to find something else to do for a living.” I think she needed to find £1,300 to get her case to a tribunal, but she could not possibly afford that. I managed to find a solicitor who was prepared to act for her pro bono, but she still did not have the money—it would have taken her several months to save that up.

Sadly, the reality is that employers react to those cases only once the money is paid in. Before that, they do nothing—they are using that as a tactic. Therefore, while terrible employers such as that would have to settle if the case were taken to tribunal—they would not get anywhere near success, because they had clearly been discriminatory—because the woman concerned could not get the £1,300 together, she was at the stage of saying, “Fair enough, I give in.” The statute bar in employment cases means that people have to get their act together within three months and she could never have managed to save that money up in that period.

I do not know whether I am making this point well or not, but it is not about saving money because we have employment judges with no work to do. It is purely ideological. There is no reason for it—it does not save a penny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens]

Does my hon. Friend agree that another consequence is that while there are lots of good employers, bad employers, because of the tribunal fees, can get away with unlawful practices and they have no incentive to change their behaviour to become good employers?

[Karl Turner]

Absolutely. I know the Minister well, I think, and he does not want a situation to arise where employers get away with treating their staff badly. I do not think he wants that for a second, but that is an unintended consequence of the Government’s policy and it needs to change. It comes to something when the Lord Chief Justice comes out of his comfort zone as a senior member of the judiciary and criticises Government policy. It is appalling.

I will finish on this note. The hon. Member for Warrington South—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I would simply say that the hon. Gentleman should look at some of the cases in England and Wales. He will find that some of the fraud cases in this jurisdiction are pretty complex. However, I am grateful to him for saying that it is important that we look at matters from an overall perspective. With the best will in the world, some of those who have spoken already have not done so—they have seen legal aid in a narrow confine, rather than from the overall perspective the hon. Gentleman speaks of.

Even after the reforms we have put in place, we still have a very generous legal aid system, compared with other countries. Last year we spent more than £1.6 billion on legal aid, which is about a quarter of the Ministry of Justice’s departmental expenditure. As I said, that is one of the most generous legal aid budgets in the world.

[Jo Stevens]

Is it not the case, though, that the Ministry of Justice budget has been cut? Therefore, to boast that the Government are spending that proportion, when the overall amount of money has been reduced, is not really a boast at all.

[Mr Vara]

May I gently tell the hon. Lady that, were it not for the economic mess that the Labour Government left this country in—[Interruption.] Labour Members may well shrug their shoulders, but the reality is that, were it not for the mess they left and their economic mismanagement, we would not have had to take the tough decisions that we are having to take. I will return later to the views the Labour shadow justice team has expressed on the record about whether the cuts should have been made.

During the previous Parliament the coalition Government proposed a civil legal aid residence test, which has been referred to. The Government continue to believe that individuals should have a strong connection to the UK to benefit from our civil legal aid scheme, and intend to implement the residence test following recent success in the courts. I should add that during the previous Parliament the Government were particularly careful to listen to, and take into account, concerns that were raised about the residence test. As a result a number of modifications and exceptions were proposed, including in cases involving particularly vulnerable individuals. We believe that the proposed residence test, with specific exceptions for vulnerable groups, is both fair and appropriate. It has to be right that when British taxpayers’ money is being used for legal aid, the recipient of the legal aid should have a strong connection to our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced barrister and an experienced politician. He will appreciate that the function of this House is to put policy into implementation, by ensuring that it becomes law. The practical process will need to be thought out—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]—as is the case with every other measure introduced by the present and previous Governments, and during the 13 years when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government, and even before that. That is something that will be dealt with and resolved.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for whom I have huge respect and regard, spoke passionately; but he will of course be aware that the matter is a devolved one. I wish him well in his dealings with David Ford, with whom I too have had dealings. To the extent that it will help, I will certainly tell him the next time I see him that the hon. Gentleman was speaking passionately and would like him to give a sympathetic ear when he raises the issue. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) will appreciate that, again, the issue is a devolved one; but he has put his views on record—including in our little dialogue during my speech.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) for bringing a realistic perspective to the debate, and for pointing out the reality of the situation. He repeatedly asked the shadow Justice Minister which of the cuts that we have made his party would reverse. I am not surprised that no reply was forthcoming, because in an interview with The Guardian on 30 January 2015, the former shadow Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), said:

“I don’t have a magic wand to wave. I can’t commit to reverse the £600m cuts to legal aid made by the Tories and Lib Dems. We will still have to take tough decisions on reducing the deficit.”

However, it was not only the former shadow Justice Secretary who took that view. The person in his team dealing specifically with legal aid, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), was interviewed by John Hyde of The Law Society Gazette on 24 September 2014:

“‘We’re not going to get in a Tardis and go back to before,’ he said. ‘We are in a world where resources are tight and it would not be right to pretend otherwise.’”

The article goes on:

“Slaughter conceded that the Labour party would have been forced to make cuts to family law funding and promote mediation as a cheaper option. He added that a Labour government would seek to promote and improve mediation services on offer.”

He is quoted as saying:

“‘We are going to be honest about the tightness of resources—we can’t tackle everything immediately and other elements”

of public spending

“will have a higher place in the queue.’”

[Jo Stevens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vara]

I will give way, but perhaps the hon. Lady might like to say something about those comments from the Labour shadow Justice team.

[Jo Stevens]

I want to ask the Minister: does he support the principle of mediation?

[Mr Vara]

I absolutely do support the principle of mediation.

[Jo Stevens]

There we go.

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Lady seeks to justify the fact that her party says it will not make cuts reversals of £600 million by saying, “There you are.” Of course we support mediation. In fact we have said that in family cases where there are divorces, rather than the two separating parties engaging solicitors and then barristers, and then going to court—all paid for by the taxpayer—it is far better for them to sit around a table, trying to have a constructive dialogue with mediation. That way of reaching a solution is preferable.

Given that the shadow team has said it would not make any cuts, perhaps its members could reflect on whether the next time one of them speaks they might be supportive of our proposals, rather than simply saying, “Don’t reduce.”

[Mr Vara]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I just made—that his party’s shadow team said it would not reverse any of the cuts. That kind of contradicts what he says; but as far as Willy Bach is concerned—and he is a man for whom I have much respect—I wish him well with his commission. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) will be aware that we have said there will be a review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 three to five years from its implementation. That will be a thorough review in relation to the way forward.

I want to mention some other points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Aberavon referred to some research conducted by Rights of Women, showing that 38% or 39% of women do not have the evidence needed to apply for legal aid. That research was based on responses from 61 people, which I hope even the hon. Gentleman will agree is a small sample—much smaller than researchers would ordinarily use to generalise across the wider population.

There is much debate about the amount of work available and the number of lawyers around to do it. The Law Society has itself accepted that there are far too many people chasing too little criminal work. We must recognise that the legal profession needs to take a wider look—not just at legal aid—at how things are going. In a relatively short time the structure of the legal profession has changed. There was a time when there were simply solicitors, barristers and legal executives; but now barristers in particular face competition from solicitors who have higher rights of audience than previously. There are more people wanting to qualify as barristers, as well. Alternative business structures are coming on the scene. That means that more and more people are chasing the same amount of work.

[Jo Stevens]

The point is not that there is not sufficient work for barristers to do, but that there is no legal aid available to enable people who need legal advice to go to a lawyer and get help. We have more people going to prison than for many years, and more people going into the criminal justice system. There is plenty of work; it is just that those people cannot afford anyone to represent them.

[Mr Vara]

Perhaps the hon. Lady missed the point when I said that we have one of the largest legal aid budgets in the world, at £1.6 billion. I would say that that is capable of buying a substantial amount of legal aid assistance and advocacy for people. I go back to the comment from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East about the importance of looking at matters in the round, from a broader perspective.

Much has been said about employment tribunal fees and the fact that people are not using employment tribunals any more. There should be some recognition of the ACAS early conciliation process, which did not exist before but has dealt with some 83,000 cases in the 12 months since it was introduced. There should also be some recognition of the fact that the economy is improving, and that more jobs are being created out there. It is always the case, looking back at the trend of such things, that there is less demand for employment tribunals when the economy is improving. People should not overlook the fact that more than 80,000 cases have been dealt with by ACAS’s early conciliation process. Furthermore, looking at matters in the round, let us not forget that this Government are committed to spending some £700 million on reforming the courts system, which means there will be a better way of accessing justice than exists at the moment.

Coming back to the words in the title of this debate, we very much hope that the reforms will particularly assist vulnerable people, including victims, witnesses and others. The reforms will mean, for example, that those people do not have to attend a court to give evidence, but can instead go to a convenient location close to them and give evidence by video conferencing. We will also make more use of modern technology in a broader perspective. We already have prisoners giving evidence from prisons, which avoids getting caught up in traffic jams and all the additional security costs that taking them to court would entail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

It is important to recognise that LASPO made a huge change to the whole structure of the legal aid system. It is important that we ensure the changes have sufficient time to bed in, in order to make a proper assessment of whether they have worked. As it happens, the three to five year period is more or less approaching us, and we will do the review in 2016 to 2018, but it is important that we allow such fundamental changes to take place.

[Jo Stevens]

Can the Minister tell us whether the review of LASPO will be in 2016 or is likely to be at the end of the period?

[Mr Vara]

I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Lady when the review will be. Clearly, we are giving much thought to that. We want to get it right and to ensure that the changes we have made already have the effect we wanted. If necessary, we will make changes. As I say, the timing of the review is yet to be decided, but we are committed to doing it and will do so.

I am mindful that the hon. Member for Aberavon must have an opportunity to wind up, so I will simply conclude by saying that I hope hon. Members will appreciate this Government’s commitment to a one nation justice system that safeguards and protects the vulnerable, supported by a strong and sustainable legal aid system to provide advice and support for the highest priority cases. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberavon for securing the debate and to all other Members who have spoken.

Women and the Economy

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I will make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

It is women who will lose out from the lack of paid-for care, as they so often have to step in to fill the gap.

Terrifyingly for women at risk of or fleeing sexual or domestic violence and abuse, there have also been substantial cuts to services and access to justice that protect women’s safety. Research for Women’s Aid in 2014 showed that a third of women were being turned away from refuges because there was no room for them. Thirty-two specialist services closed between 2010 and 2014 due to lack of funds. The Chancellor’s short-term proposal to fund domestic violence services from the unfair tampon tax makes their funding symbolically and literally the responsibility only of women. Two women a week are killed as a result of domestic violence, and that must be the responsibility of everyone in society.

Why does all this happen? Why are women hit the hardest? It happens because we are not present where decisions are taken. Our voices are not heard. The Fawcett Society has shown that 80% of stories in the media about the economy are about men or quote men. Although there has been a welcome improvement in the number of women on company boards following the Davies report, the proportion of women in executive positions on FTSE 100 boards remains lamentably low.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Lady fails to recognise that in the new pension changes, women who have taken time out to raise children will now not be penalised by the system. She is being a little unfair. Thanks to the Government, we are able to increase support for childcare costs, and protect key Government services.

The commitment to supporting women in work is a priority for the Government, which is why the Prime Minister pledged earlier this year to end the gender pay gap within a generation. Let me be clear: there is no place for a pay gap in today’s society. That is why we committed to requiring employers to publish information on the difference between men and women’s pay and bonuses. We will shortly be consulting on the regulations needed for gender pay reporting, and I urge all employers to consider those carefully.

[Jo Stevens]

One way that the gender gap could be closed is by addressing public procurement and requiring anyone tendering for a Government contract to have made an equal pay audit. Why not take that step?

[Caroline Dinenage]

We have had that conversation many times in recent months, and I say gently that the Labour Government had 13 years to introduce such a measure. We are not asking employers to do this on their own; we are trying to bring them with us because that is the right thing to do. We will provide extensive guidance, case studies and toolkits. By working in partnership with businesses and employees, we will see results. We will also extend those reporting requirements to the public sector. Labour had 13 years to do that, and it failed.

[Jo Stevens]

Equal pay audits are not difficult to do—I ran them in the firm that I was part of before I came to this House. Why will the Government not take steps now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Gentleman could not have put it better. These are the women who, as I have said, were educated under the last Labour Government. Under our education reforms, these are the women who will be aspiring to higher paid work in the future. When Labour left power, there were more than 20 all-male boards in our FTSE 100 companies. Now, there are none.

[Jo Stevens]

On that point, the women on boards are in non-executive director roles. Anyone who has sat on a board of directors knows that decisions are made by executive directors, not non-executive directors.

[Caroline Dinenage]

The women are not all in non-executive director roles. Again, we are criticising women, which is negative. The hon. Lady is right that we would like to see more women coming up through the executive pipeline. We would like to see women who have worked their way up without quotas or token gestures, which is why we are making the changes we are making.

Women are playing their part and businesses are benefiting from their immense skills. Every single woman on those boards knows she is there on merit as the best person for the job, regardless of gender, and the men know it too. We want to go further, however. We are building on this through a new target of 33% female representation on FTSE 350 boards by 2020 and a review supporting more women into executive positions so that we develop that pipeline of female talent. We have also called for an end to all-male boards in the FTSE 350.

We want to inspire women everywhere, from the classroom to the boardroom and every stage in between. We know that education is one of the most fundamental ways of driving lasting change and raising aspirations. If we are to ensure women’s economic equality, we must start with the youngest generation. This is an area where having a Secretary of State for Education who is also Minister for Women and Equalities is especially valuable. No child should ever feel that a career is off limits because of their gender, race or background. There is no place in our society for stereotypes about some jobs being suitable for girls and some for boys. In this, we have made important strides. There are now more girls than ever taking physics and maths A-level, with 12,000 more entries in maths and science in England since 2010.

The Opposition spokesman asked me about the difference between men and women entering apprenticeships in different sectors. Since 2009, the number of women starting engineering and manufacturing apprenticeships has increased threefold. This is not a new problem, of course, and I would be very keen to know, in a different conversation, what Labour did about it. The Government will go further. The science, technology, engineering and maths workforce is vital to the growth of the economy. The UK needs to recruit 83,000 engineers a year and they cannot all be blokes. That is why the Government have set up the new Careers & Enterprise Company. We have heard Members complaining about careers advice. The company will inspire and inform young people about the opportunities available to them, in parallel with business.

I welcome the one-year anniversary of the independent Your Life campaign, which aims to ensure that young people have the maths and science skills the economy needs. It was great for me to visit the Ford motor company in Dagenham, the spiritual home of the fight for gender pay equality, to see Your Life in action. A group of local schoolgirls had been invited to race cars around the car test track, and to experience how varied and exciting STEM careers can be.

A strong economy, where women are encouraged to fulfil their potential, also means that we are able to deliver the services society needs. We must make sure that everyone is given the support they need. In this year’s spending review, the Chancellor announced that the Government would provide £40 million for domestic abuse services, including refuges, between 2016 and 2020. Prosecutions and convictions for domestic violence have also risen to their highest levels ever. Last weekend, we launched a consultation on new measures to better protect victims of “stranger stalking” and to help to deter perpetrators. We also announced an additional £3.85 million to develop a new phase of the campaign to tackle teenage abuse within relationships. Since 2010, the “This is Abuse” campaign has encouraged teenagers to rethink their views of violence, controlling behaviour and what consent means within their relationships. This is helping to change attitudes that can underpin violence against women and girls. Our updated violence against women and girls strategy will be published shortly, and will set out how we will continue to support all victims of this abhorrent abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Crawley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, I hope the Government will take serious action on tribunal fees, because they are acting as a barrier to women taking serious action against rogue employers in the workplace.

[Jo Stevens]

On the review of employment tribunal fees that is under way—I understand that the report is with the Minister at the moment—nothing in the terms of reference allows for consideration of the abolition of those fees. I questioned the Minister on that in a Westminster Hall debate last week. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is a gaping hole in the review’s terms of reference?

[Angela Crawley]

I agree, and I hope that the Government will take serious action and seriously consider the impact that tribunal fees have on women in the workplace. It is important for the House to acknowledge that, given the state of the economy. According to the Women’s Budget Group, women stand to lose more and gain less, especially women in low-paid work, women with children and other caring responsibilities, and women who access services that have been successively eroded in the name of austerity.

In considering the effects of the economy on women, the Scottish National party—the effective Opposition in the House—calls on the Government to recognise that their spending cuts adversely affect women more deeply than men; to understand that measures to remove services can and will drive women into a poverty trap; and to accept that the signs of economic recovery hailed by the Chancellor have in fact disproportionately benefited male workers.

The SNP welcomes the Chancellor’s decision to reverse the tax credit cuts. It must have been a tough decision for him, but it means that the constituents of Members on both sides of the House will not have to make even tougher decisions, choosing between the basic necessities of life. That is especially important to those in low-paid employment and on zero-hours contracts, who, more often than not, are women. The immediate result of the Chancellor’s reversal of his tax credit plans is that working families have far less to worry about, but there are still £12 billion of cuts in the spending review, and, ultimately, they will disproportionately affect women. The tax credit reversal means that women can worry less, but they will continue to worry as they struggle with rent and bills and are unable to keep up payments. Single mothers, raising children on their own, should not have to worry about such matters. However, I applaud the Chancellor for listening to his opponents here and in the other place, and reversing the tax credits decision.

In analysing the effects of the economy on women, we must consider the differences in employment trends according to gender. We must bear in mind that in the UK, 69% of women are employed, compared with 78.5% of men. While that difference is not overwhelming, there is a gender-related difference. Of those women in work, 8.4 million are in full-time employment and 6.2 million are in part-time work. The comparable figures for men show that the vast majority are in full-time employment. That means that 42% of the female workforce are in part-time employment, compared with 13% of men. Those figures expose massive gender inequality in the workplace. If we look more closely at the composition of women’s employment, we see that women are more likely than men to work as employees rather than employers, and are less likely to be self-employed. In fact, only 32% of all self-employed people are women.

Research carried out recently by the International Monetary Fund found that when women work, economies grow, and that economic growth is even more dramatic when the gap between women’s and men’s participation in the labour force is reduced. Given the current figures and in the absence of any increased effort to close the gender gap, we are putting our economy at a disadvantage. In 2014, figures showed that 1.1 million small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK were led by women—only 20% of the total. In October this year, it was reported that only 26% of FTSE 100 directors were female. That simply is not good enough. Women’s participation in the workforce should be safeguarded and encouraged. In short, the gender pay gap must be addressed.

The autumn statement confirmed the Chancellor’s acknowledgement that removing tax credits would not automatically correct the problem. I urge the Government to change tack and recognise that the right way to bring about economic recovery is to stimulate our workforce. In particular, they should ensure that our female workforce are protected, rather than forcing people into deeper poverty and decimating social welfare.

The £12 billion that will be cut from the welfare budget includes cuts in carer’s allowance, disability benefits and employment and support allowance. Given that child benefit is to apply only to a woman’s first two children, that will mean hardship for families, not to mention the absolutely abhorrent rape clause, which the Government have repeatedly failed to justify. The benefits to which I have referred are most frequently accessed by women. For example, 58% of carers in the UK are women; the figure rises to 60% when those who care for more than 50 hours per week are taken into account. Women make up 73% of those who receive carer’s allowance for caring for more than 35 hours per week.

In Scotland alone, there are an estimated 759,000 unpaid carers: a huge section of society. The work done by carers—people prepared to put aside their own needs to look after an ill or disabled loved one—must be recognised by all Governments. It is vital to our society, and can take up the time most people commit to full-time employment, which carers could otherwise be in.

Carers UK has found that, on top of caring for loved ones, carers are twice as likely to suffer ill health. These are certainly not the people who should be punished by the cuts to the welfare budget. In fact, we should be championing the efforts of carers in this country. When we consider the billions of pounds the NHS saves, year on year, due to the contribution and diligence of unpaid carers, it is time that the Government stood up and recognised the hard-working carers across our society. They contribute massively to our economy, a contribution that amounts to a net saving in the healthcare budget. Is this not exactly the sort of practice promoted by the Prime Minister under the concept of the big society? If so, it is unjust for the Government even to consider the removal of the carer’s allowance lifeline.

The Chancellor has again made a great deal of the economic recovery. However, the benefits of the recovery have been exclusively for men. I have spoken repeatedly in the House against the gender pay gap. At present, a woman takes home 85p for every pound earned by a man. That has a serious economic impact on working women and on our economy. Perhaps we are supposed to be pacified by the introduction of the new living wage, but it is by no means a living wage at all. As I have said, women are more often on zero-hours contracts and in part-time work, so a slight increase to the hourly wage will not help women who cannot work as many hours as men, perhaps due to caring or childcare responsibilities.

If we look at the people the Government are aiming to help, they are almost exclusively those on higher incomes. The Conservatives have cut income tax for all workers, most of whom are men, and increased the individual savings account allowance benefit for those with high savings, who, incidentally, tend to be men. The beneficiaries of the transferable tax allowance are 84% male. We have allowances for tax cuts largely for men. Where have such allowances come from? The welfare budget—in other words, services accessed mostly by women. These neo-liberal policies consistently deliver more for men than women. As the International Monetary Fund suggests, an increased gender gap restricts economic growth.

I want to highlight the fact that women are most harmed by the welfare cuts, and that the impact of austerity can be measured mostly in the loss of money in women’s purses and family budgets, and in their decreased spending power relative to men’s. I will leave the House with this thought: the report by the Women’s Budget Group stated that by equalising men’s and women’s participation rates, we could add more than 10% to the size of the economy. Let us not simply pay lip service. Let us deliver on that promise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Kennedy]

As always, my right hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

There are historical reasons for the gender pay gap, but some of the statistics can lead us down the wrong track. The motion says that our pay gap is

“higher than the EU average”

That may be so, but in many of these countries fewer women are actually working. We want more women in work rather than on benefits. I want the gender pay gap to be eliminated not only for women under 40, where we know the gap is closing, but for women over 40. We cannot explain the gap by discrimination, because the Equal Pay Act 1970 has been in force for the whole of my lifetime. When there are instances of discrimination, they should be pounced on. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s responses as to how the Government are going to act on that and on maternity discrimination—

[Jo Stevens]

rose—

[Seema Kennedy]

I am sorry but I am not going to give way again, as I do not have much time left.

Our manifesto promised a consultation on closing the gender pay gap: it is due to report shortly, and I look forward to seeing the results. I also welcome the proposal to require businesses with more than 250 employees to publish their salaries in order to eliminate that gap—transparency will work there.

The whole thrust of the Government’s productivity agenda is to make our economy more competitive globally. We need to get everybody—women and men—into more highly skilled, productive jobs. We can do that only through proper, long-term investment in jobs that make us competitive on a global level. Investing in education and infrastructure is absolutely key; it is what all of us should be aiming for. Yes, we need a stronger economy for our daughters—or, in my case, for my niece—but we also need it for our sons.

I endorse the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central. I do not want to see these motions on the Order Paper. I do not want to be seen as a passive recipient of the Government’s largesse. I am an autonomous person, and an economic actor in my own right. What I want is a stronger economy from which we can all benefit.

Employment Tribunal Fees

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I understand the passion that led her to speak for slightly longer than is the norm. She is absolutely right that pregnancy discrimination is still rife in the workplace. Figures that I have seen suggest that of the 54,000 women who are dismissed on the grounds of pregnancy each year, only 1.5% proceed with a tribunal claim. Is that not a damning indictment of the difficulty that people have in accessing justice?

We need to examine the supposed reasons that the Minister may put forward for why the number of claims has dropped. I am sure that the Government would like to claim that the success of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service early conciliation scheme is part of the explanation, but we should remember that the scheme was not in place for the period immediately after fees were introduced, so that cannot explain the number of claims dropping so dramatically immediately after fees were introduced. The figures that we have seen on early conciliation provide little comfort for those seeking to explain the reduction; indeed, as I will argue, the fee system can be seen as an impediment to effective early conciliation.

The figures on early conciliation tell us that of the 60,800 notifications made to ACAS in April to December 2014 as part of the early conciliation scheme, 15% were formally settled by ACAS and 22% progressed to an employment tribunal claim. That leaves a massive 63% that were not formally settled through ACAS but did not progress to an employment tribunal. Of course, it is not possible to identify how many of those claims had merits, but it is too large a figure to ignore, and the similarity between that figure of 63% and the figures that I have already referred to is too much of a coincidence for us to ignore.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Interestingly, if we look at employers taking up early conciliation through ACAS, we find that Government Departments are some of the worst offenders for not participating in early conciliation; that includes the National Offender Management Service, which is very poor at engaging. Does my hon. Friend have any comments on that?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend, of course, has great experience in this area. The Government should be setting an example. They should be leading from the front and be seen to be engaging in the processes that promote and encourage good workplace relations. Is it not really something when we have a Government Department potentially discriminating against someone or impinging on their workplace rights, then refusing to engage with the systems that that Government have set up to try to resolve that dispute? And then the Government charge that person to force their rights. What kind of situation is that? It is not a fair, equitable or just way of dealing with matters.

Let me turn to the significant amount of evidence submitted to the Justice Committee. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) has referred to evidence that was given to the Justice Committee in respect of NOMS, and I recommend anyone who has not read those transcripts that look at that evidence. In it, multiple witnesses demonstrate the deterrent effect that fees have had; that evidence goes well beyond the data that have been referred to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. May I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my previous occupation as a director of Thompsons Solicitors, which is a national firm of employment law specialists that conducts a substantial number of employment tribunal cases on behalf of trade unions and their members?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing the debate. Like him, I am deeply concerned about this issue. As he outlined, the impact of the coalition Government’s tribunal fees has been to price people out of access to justice. The Conservative party calls itself the party of working people, but if there is one single policy that totally exposes that statement as a myth, it is the introduction of employment tribunal fees. The Conservatives knew exactly what the impact of the policy would be, because they and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners at the time were told repeatedly and forcefully that the proposal would decimate access to justice. Just as with legal aid cuts, civil court fee increases, restrictions on judicial review, the Trade Union Bill, the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act and the intended increase to the small claims limit that the Chancellor announced in last week’s spending review, employment tribunal fees were not introduced to solve a real problem. They were introduced to diminish the voice of ordinary working people, of trade unions and of their members.

I am sure the Government will try to say that the rationale for introducing the fees was to defray the cost of the Courts and Tribunals Service. If that really was the rationale, it has failed spectacularly, because so few people can afford to bring claims that the revenue has not been generated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said.

The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General openly stated that the purpose of the fees was to deter people from bringing employment tribunal claims. In an article for The Telegraph website in March 2014, he wrote:

“Unscrupulous workers caused havoc by inundating companies with unfounded claims of mistreatment, discrimination or worse. Like Japanese knotweed, the soaring number of tribunal cases dragged more and more companies into its grip, squeezing the life and energy from Britain’s wealth creators.”

He went on to say that the tribunal system had

“become a system that in too many cases was being ruthlessly exploited by people trying to make a fast-buck.”

Where is the evidence for that? If the situation really was as he stated, the success rate in employment tribunal cases brought after the introduction of fees would have risen significantly, because the fees would have acted as a disincentive for unmeritorious claimants. What has actually happened? The success rate has stayed at the level it was at before the introduction of fees.

Preventing access to justice through high fees, therefore, weeds out not just unmeritorious cases—I accept there will be a few of those—but nearly all cases. In that respect, the policy has been tremendously successful. Fees have had a severe negative impact on the ability of people—particularly those on low and average household incomes and the more vulnerable in society—to access the justice system. That was a shameful intention. We had a Minister openly stating that he and his coalition partners wanted to prevent members of the public from accessing the justice system.

[Ian Lavery]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised by that attack on hard-working people in the workplace who want to seek justice. Like me and other Members, she has experienced the gagging Bill part 1, the gagging Bill part 2 and what is classified as a trade union Bill. All in all, they are a concerted attack on people who just want to get on in life. If there is a problem with justice in the workplace, they want to be able to challenge it.

[Jo Stevens]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I could not have put it better myself.

As we have heard, there has been a 69% drop in single-applicant cases since the introduction of fees. However, I want to comment on a couple of other statistics. There has been a 90% drop in sex discrimination cases and a 45% drop in pregnancy-related unfair dismissal cases. That is yet another example of the Prime Minister’s problem with women. He does not want public money spent on women, so they bear the brunt of 75% of his Government’s public sector spending cuts. He does not want to do anything about the grossly unfair VAT regime—the tampon tax. Instead, he cuts funding for domestic violence refuges and rape counselling services, and he makes women pay for those services themselves through the VAT on sanitary products. Furthermore, if any of us is subject to sex discrimination at work or sacked because we are pregnant, he prices us out of access to an employment tribunal to challenge that unlawful treatment.

[Dr Huq]

Does that not make a mockery of the claim the Prime Minister made to me at Prime Minister’s questions that he is now a feminist? How does all this marry up with that statement?

[Jo Stevens]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Irony is alive and well in this House. I do not quite know where to start with my thanks to the Prime Minister for the way he treats women.

I turn to what I expect the Minister to refer to as the Government’s mechanism to mitigate people’s being priced out of justice: the fee remission system. Given that the affordability of fees is a central issue in the debate, the remission system’s effectiveness in addressing it is important. However, the reality is that the system is little more than a fig leaf. For each separate fee incurred, a separate application for fee remission, with detailed evidence of income, must be provided. The booklet to guide people through the process is 31 pages long, and the preparation of applications can take up to 30 minutes, increasing the costs of the case every time a court fee is incurred. That work also has an impact on the time of court and tribunal staff. It represents unnecessary bureaucracy, as well as a backward step in the Government’s stated intention to move towards deregulation, efficiency and cost cutting.

In a speech to the Engineering Employers Federation in November 2011, the then Business Secretary, Vince Cable, said:

“I want to make it very clear that for those with a genuine claim, fees will not be a barrier to justice. We will ensure that there is a remissions system for those who need help.”

The latest available information on remission comes from statistics issued by the employment tribunals. They show that, from July 2013 to June 2015, only 17.7% of issue fees requested were remitted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston commented on the redundancy fund. Claimants are forced to pay tribunal fees out of their redundancy pay. I really hope the Justice Committee will address that issue in its report on access to justice. I also hope it will look specifically at the terrible problem of employment tribunal fees, which affect women in particular. I ask the Minister to take those comments back to his colleagues to ensure that fees are scrapped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

Before the short suspension for us to run along to the Division Lobby, I was explaining that there is a difficulty with the Government suggesting that the fee remission scheme is the answer to employment tribunal fees. I said that there were three problems. First, there is the possibility that the remission scheme is not being brought to public attention. As far as I understand it, most people do not know it exists. I have spoken to various law centre staff and citizens advice bureau advisers who have said that people genuinely do not know that the scheme exists and are sometimes surprised to find that it does. Secondly, the fee remission scheme is an absolute minefield. Thirdly and lastly, how can any individual without legal help know what their own legal position is and whether they might be entitled to a fee remission?

I mentioned the first case study, but another one has come to me as an MP. It is the case of Mary, who was employed as a personal assistant. She brought a sexual discrimination claim when her employer was not happy that she had become pregnant. She left the job and immediately found other employment. Even with the fee remission, she was still required to find £840. It is fair to say that she begged and borrowed to come up with that money. However, she said to me that if she had not had family members and friends who were prepared to help her out financially, she would have had a problem. She could not have gone to a loan shark, and clearly she did not want to borrow money, but she considered it and eventually borrowed from friends and members of her family. But for that, she estimated that it would have taken her three months, even on a reasonable salary, to save the money to pay for the fee. We know that the statutory bar for bringing an employment case is three months. Clearly, people are not managing to get the money together to get an application in on time.

Such examples show that since 2010 the Government have attacked the rights of workers. Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, employment cases were taken completely out of the scope of legal help; the Government have increased the time required to gain employment rights from 12 months to two years; we have seen the introduction of employment tribunal fees; and we have also seen the introduction of the Trade Union Bill, which further dramatically undermines the rights of working people. Any claim that this Government are on the side of working people is utterly disgusting, and I put that in the strongest possible terms. It is absolutely disgusting to suggest that this Government are on the side of working people.

The Government argued that the reason for introducing fees was to prevent vexatious claims, and then they argued that it was mainly to recover the cost of running the employment tribunal service from users who could afford to pay. However, the latest accounts from the Ministry of Justice show that in 2014-15 the net income from employment tribunal fees was £9 million, while the expenditure on the service was £71.4 million. That means that the increase in net income from fees covers 12.5% of the cost of running the service. That12.5% gain in revenue was achieved at the expense of a 69% overall drop in people bringing claims to employment tribunals—tens of thousands of workers deterred from seeking justice for breaches of their employment rights. The evidence must suggest that the Government’s introduction of tribunal fees is purely ideological. It is punitive and shuts thousands of workers out of accessing justice.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan in the Chair]

I am conscious of the time, and I am keen for the Minister to reply to hon. Members who have spoken. As I said at the outset, they are probably an awful lot better informed on the subject than I am. I do not want to take up too much more time, but I have some questions that I hope the Minister will make a note of and try to answer.

What is the Minister’s assessment of the high expenditure of the employment tribunal service? If it is terribly difficult for him to come up with a full answer immediately, I am happy for him to write to me. Given that the volume of cases is down massively, will the Minister explain why there has not been a corresponding drop in running costs? We are all keen to save money—we all want to make efficiency savings wherever possible—but the evidence seems to suggest that there is no genuine saving from the completely unfair introduction of fees.

[Jo Stevens]

I just want to provide an anecdote. I was talking to an employment tribunal panel member last week. He is supposed to sit for 31 days a year, but in the past 12 months, because of the paucity of cases being brought to the tribunal, he has been able to sit for only nine. We have some expensive people sitting in employment tribunals having to string cases out because people cannot afford to bring claims.

[Karl Turner]

I said that Opposition Members have a great deal of knowledge and experience in the field, and my hon. Friend has just highlighted that. Employment judges, who are paid—I will guess at the amount—probably upwards of £140,000 a year often sit idly without any work, as a result of what the Government have done with fees.

Finally, if, as the Government have claimed, the dramatic fall in the number of cases is down purely to the removal of vexatious claims, why have we not seen an increase in the percentage of successful claims? If the necessity to introduce the fee scheme was about preventing vexatious and unmeritorious claims, surely the success of the claims that are in the tribunal system should be going through the roof, but that is clearly not happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I will not make any instantaneous decisions. I will look at everything in the round. We are considering the matter, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are undertaking a review—which I will come on to—of the whole employment tribunal fees structure, of which I am sure that matter will be a part.

[Jo Stevens]

The Minister mentions the review that is under way. The terms of reference for the review make no reference whatsoever to the question of whether the fees should be abolished. They simply say that the review will make

“recommendations for any changes to the structure and level of fees”.

Will the Government reconsider the terms of reference, and think about whether the fees should be scrapped?

[Mr Vara]

The terms of reference are a little broader than the hon. Lady says. They are “to determine how successful” the employment tribunal fees have been in achieving “the original objectives”. There were three original objectives. One was financial, to consider transferring

“a proportion of the costs from the taxpayer to those who use the tribunal where they can afford to do so”.

The second objective was to consider any behavioural aspects,

“to encourage parties to seek alternative ways of resolving their disputes”,

and the third was to ensure that we maintained “access to justice”. We are carrying out the review in terms of those three broad original objectives.

[Jo Stevens]

May I take it from the Minister’s reply that the question of abolition of fees is not ruled out, in the context of the review?

[Mr Vara]

As I said in reply to an earlier intervention, I am not making any decisions on the spot, much as the hon. Lady would like to tempt me into those waters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says. As I have said, we are undertaking a review at present.

Other policy reforms, including changes to employment law, which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston referred to, are also likely to have had some impact on the figures. It is clear, therefore, that a wider range of factors needs to be taken into account if we are to have a proper assessment of the true impact that fees have had, and that needs to be considered in the round. That is why we are doing a review, and that is what the review will seek to evaluate. If, after the review has reported, the Government believe that there are compelling arguments for changes to the fees structure or to the operation of the fee remissions scheme, we will, of course, bring forward proposals for a consultation, to which Members may wish to contribute.

We recognise that fees are never popular, but in the current financial climate we have a duty to consider all possible ways of ensuring that the courts and tribunals are adequately funded, so that access to justice is protected in the long term. Let me be absolutely clear, however, that at every step we have ensured that the most vulnerable are protected through the fee remissions scheme, so that the burden falls on those who can afford to pay. The conclusions of the review will provide us with a clearer picture of how fees have affected the way people seek to resolve their disputes.

Turning to some of the issues that were raised by colleagues in the debate, there was a charge that the fees were a sustained attack on working people. [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] I do not accept that for one moment. I refer to something that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said in his speech—I will more or less quote him—which was along the lines of, “If you are still working, taking your employer to a tribunal is the last thing you want to do.”

That is exactly why an ACAS proposal and early conciliation is a lot better than going to the tribunal. I like to think that the proposal for ACAS fits in nicely in the context of that interpretation of his sentence. The conciliation system is free. Colleagues talk about considering the working man but it seems that, by proposing to scrap or not recognise the free early conciliation system, they are showing that they would prefer a system where lawyers are instead paid by the people whom they speak about.

[Jo Stevens]

I am glad that the Minister has praised ACAS and the service that it provides. On that basis, will he please therefore speak to his colleagues in government about the fact that Government Departments are not engaging in early conciliation via ACAS, and specifically, on the point that I made earlier in the debate, about the National Offender Management Service?

Police Funding Formula

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Alongside the funding formula review was a capability review being run by the chiefs. Some of that can be driven by the chiefs, some of it will be done by the regions and some of it through the National Crime Agency, but, as I always say at the Dispatch Box, we can often do things better if we do them together, and I think forces should listen to that.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s apology today, but how can my constituents and my police and crime commissioner and South Wales police have any confidence that when the Home Office undertakes the formula, which the Minister has described, in 2016-17 he will get it right this time?

[Mike Penning]

One of the things we can ensure is that the calculations and modelling within the formula done by the statisticians are looked at very carefully. One thing we are looking at, which has been a recommendation from the Select Committee, is to get an independent peer review towards the end, but whatever happens this formula needs to change so it is fairer for everybody.