Prison Officers (Work-related Stress)

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The background to the debate is the publication last month of a report on work-related stress and the well-being of prison officers. It was commissioned by the Prison Officers Association because of the union’s ongoing serious concerns about the health of its members, especially in the light of the Government’s policy of increasing the retirement age to 68 for prison officers and the startling cuts that have taken place.

The report was undertaken by three experts in the field of occupational health, and particularly occupational psychology, at the university of Bedfordshire. I pay tribute to those researchers for their assiduous work. They were Dr Gail Kinman, who is professor of occupational health psychology; Dr Andrew Clements, a lecturer in occupational psychology; and, assisting them, Jacqui Hart, a PhD candidate and researcher. All of them are appropriately qualified and have high reputations in the field.

Let me take the House through some of the findings of the research, which many of us have found shocking to say the least. The Health and Safety Executive establishes benchmarks to measure and monitor work-related stress among employees. Those benchmarks have been developed into a framework after extensive consultation with employers and the unions, and they are agreed standards by which organisations employing staff can assess the work-related stress experienced by those staff.

There are seven elements of work activity—described as the psychosocial hazards—and they are the most critical predictions of employee well-being. They relate first to the demands of the job—the work load, pace, and hours of work—and to control of work, which is the way a person can control their working environment. There is also management support, peer support—the help workers receive from their colleagues—and relationships, which includes interpersonal relationships, interpersonal conflicts and bullying. The benchmarks also include the measurement of the role and whether the job requirements are clear, and whether or not there is belief in the objectives of the organisation. The final benchmark is about change and how well that is communicated and managed in an organisation. The Health and Safety Executive has developed a self-reporting questionnaire that is widely used across industry and the public service.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Last week I met representatives from the Prison Officers Association to discuss mindfulness in the Prison Service. Mindfulness has been accepted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as an intervention for repeat episodes of depression, but it also improves compassion, reduces absenteeism, helps with relationship building, and reduces stress. Does my hon. Friend think that mindfulness in the Prison Service could help improve job satisfaction and the mental and physical health of prison officers?

[John McDonnell]

I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend in this House in introducing mindfulness training for Members as well as staff, and developing that whole concept. I have explored the development of mindfulness which, despite elements of contention, has become extremely popular in its application in working environments. I will suggest to the Minister that we need a meeting to talk about the strategy from here on in, and one provision we could include in that is the offer of services such as mindfulness in the sector, which could prove extremely effective.

[Chris Ruane]

A new prison is to be built in Wrexham and the chief executive of North Wales health authority is predisposed towards mindfulness. Does my hon. Friend think that teaching mindfulness to prisoners and prison officers at that new prison from the outset would be a good experiment and pilot scheme for mindfulness in prisons?

[John McDonnell]

Given our concerns about that prison—a Titan prison that will house a larger number of prisoners than any other prison has housed—and about the scale of such a prison and the problems that will result from it, I think mindfulness would be an important strategy that should be built in from the beginning.

As I was saying, the health and safety questionnaire was developed in consultation with employers and union representatives. It is now used widely across the public and private sectors and is based on a self-report questionnaire. It is a standard procedure used by academics who in this case established a survey online. They received 1,682 respondents, which is as large as any national opinion poll, and it was a fairly representative sample.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman warmly on obtaining this Adjournment debate. The Prison Service is little short of being in crisis. Since 2010, prison officer numbers have been cut by 41%, but the prison population has gone up. The ratio of prison officers to prisoners has never been so bad, and that is a danger. Both the hon. Gentleman and I are officers of the justice unions parliamentary group, and I hope that the Minister will agree to meet us to discuss this important issue.

[John McDonnell]

I know that the Minister cares about this issue, and I alerted him in advance of this debate that that is one of the requests that we would make. The survey is shocking. Even the in-house survey carried out by the National Offender Management Service has some shocking results in comparison with other areas of the public service. I will come on to my request for a meeting on how we might take this issue forward.

In the survey, the prison officers scored considerably worse than any other sector on all the seven hazard indicators. There were large gaps—the well-being gap—on issues such as demands of the job; the control that people feel they have of their work; management support, which is extremely disappointing; and relationships and change. The gap was less on peer support, so prison officers appear to get better support from their colleagues than they do from management.

The survey was compared with the London prisons survey of 2010. The levels of well-being for peer support were similar, but the scores for management support, control, the roles that people play and relationships were considerably poorer. The management of change was rated considerably poorer than in the earlier survey.

The quotes from the individual members surveyed can be more revealing than the figures. One of the questions was about time and other pressures of work. I could cite numerous quotes from the report—I have provided the Minister with a copy—but I shall give just a few:

“The pressure is on from the time you walk in to the time you walk out. It is full on all the time. You try to get a moment to yourself but something always crops up and you are off again.”

Another officer says:

“Currently, with the staffing shortfalls and the new regime they’ve got in place, it is constant crisis-management every day of the week. There is no let up.”

On every question, the individual responses are stark and revealing. On management support, one officer said:

“No support or care. No compassion. More time spent defending ourselves against management than against inmates.”

Another said:

“Previously, every person I had to line manage I knew as an individual. I knew their strengths and their weaknesses. Now I’m lucky if I see the staff I report on once every couple of months.”

Prison officers work in a very specific environment, dealing with challenging individuals, so there is always a risk of violence and intimidation, but I did not realise the scale of that until I read the survey.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prison Service is not only in crisis, but is a powder keg? Somebody must be held accountable because someone, somewhere will be seriously hurt in the Prison Service. Nine members of staff are assaulted daily, which means 3,400 a year, up 9.4%. More dramatically, serious assaults on staff have increased by 36% since 2010. What does that say about the Prison Service at this time?

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend refers to the crisis in our prisons, which is a consistent theme coming out not just from this survey but from all the discussions that have taken place, including the representations we have received from both prison officers and former governors.

A total of 49% of prison officers said that they receive intimidation and threats from prisoners often and regularly, and 30% had been assaulted with more than half of those having to take time off as a result. On the level of management support, 70% said there was little support from management. There is one quote from a prison officer that I found particularly startling:

“I have seen active service whilst in the army, but I have never felt as vulnerable and threatened as I do in my current role.”

On stress, one third reported that their doctor had diagnosed them with stress-related illness—a clinical diagnosis of stress—since working for their current employer. It was also felt that there was a stigma attached to disclosing stress, and that it could make a prison officer subject to discrimination. That is extremely worrying.

The survey included a general health questionnaire that is used to assess aspects of psychological health and somatic symptoms, such as feeling run down or suffering from headaches, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction—not being able to enjoy everyday life, or not being able to make decisions—and depression, where people felt that life was hopeless. I was shocked by the figures. Six out of 10 reported that they were under strain. The worst figure was that one in 10 reported that sometimes life was just not worth living. The researchers who undertook the survey are experts in this field. They said that there were unusually high levels of psychological distress and that a high proportion required some degree of intervention to improve their well-being.

Another issue considered was emotional exhaustion— the concept of burn-out. This was extremely high, with 74% saying that they felt emotionally drained at work at least once a week. Some of that related to physical health, with 18% reporting chronic health problems. Hypertension is the most common problem. The survey also included questions about work-life balance, which is one of the psychosocial issues that comes up when assessing one’s enjoyment of work and career. Eight out of 10 responded that their time at work stopped them participating in family life, and six out of 10 frequently felt too emotionally drained to participate in family life. They were asked a question that is fairly common in such surveys: whether they dwelt on work problems outside of work. Some 70% said they could not switch off, while 50% were troubled by work-related issues when not at work. On job satisfaction, six out of 10 had considered leaving the Prison Service in the near future, and seven out of 10 said that if they could choose again they would choose a different job.

What conclusions can be drawn from this? First, it is blindingly obvious from the survey that psychosocial working conditions are far from satisfactory. None of the Health and Safety Executive’s objective benchmarks has been met. The researchers said that the psychological stress levels for this group of workers were far higher than in other emotionally demanding occupations, including police and social workers, with reports of anxiety, sleep disruption, cognitive failure including memory loss and, most worryingly, the one in 10 who felt that life was not worth living. The researchers said that there is an urgent need for employment bodies to take steps to protect the psychological well-being of their staff.

Some of these issues have to be addressed urgently. Like other Members, I have talked to POA members, front-line staff and representatives, and the same story comes up time and again. Staffing cuts have placed the service in crisis, and the staff and the prisoners they look after are suffering. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) mentioned the number of assaults. Nine members of staff are assaulted every day—up 9.4% recently—which is 3,400 a year, while the number of serious assaults is up 36%. Last year, we published a report on prison violence. It was circulated to hon. Members, but I will place it again in the Library. It was a shocking report, and I make no apologies for insisting that pictures of assault victims be published as well, because they are absolutely horrendous. Nobody should have to experience or risk that on a daily basis in their working lives.

As we know, the number of prison suicides has increased by 69%. It is a tragedy for the prisoner and their families, but it also has an impact on other prisoners and the staff who have to handle and deal with the suicide. All the evidence suggests that it can be devastating for the members of staff, and there is evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder among staff who have to deal with suicides.

I return to the conclusion that many have reached, which is that much of this is related to staffing cuts. I have asked for the figures provided by the Prison Service to the Prison Service Pay Review Body, because I thought that they would be the most accurate. There has been a cut in staff numbers from 51,212 to 37,218 in the past four years—a cut of 27.3%. In the prison officer grades, there has been a cut from 25,553 to 18,934 members of staff—a 25.9% cut. I know that various figures are bandied about—the Minister and others have presented us with various figures—but whatever the exact figures, the scale of the cuts has been acknowledged overall.

As I said in the Justice Committee, I think the Government miscalculated the prison population and cut too many staff, and I am told that they are now recruiting up to 1,700 officers—almost in a panic measure—and trying to recruit the 800 staff laid off in the last year into a reserve army to be used almost on an agency basis. As a result of the staff cuts, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said, there has been a significant increase in the staff to prisoner ratio from 1:2.9 in 2010 to 1:3.8. Overall, that means we have fewer members of staff looking after more offenders.

Staffing numbers are an issue, but staffing support also matters. The Minister has a responsibility—well, we all have a responsibility—to build sufficient staff resource into the system to address the stress and psychological well-being issues identified in the report. I have heard reports of what is available to staff now, but there seems to be a significant lack of confidence in the facilities available and in the management support given to staff.

The POA and prison officers generally have also raised the issue of the retirement age. Prison officers now face having to work until they are 68. When he reported on public sector pensions provision, Lord Hutton recommended that exceptions be made to the overall increase in pension age for uniformed services, where

“the Normal Pension Age should be set to reflect the unique characteristics of the work involved. The Government should consider setting a…Normal Pension Age of 60 across the uniformed…services…and keep this under…review.”

Unfortunately, the only uniformed services identified were the police, armed forces and firefighters. For some reason I have yet to discover, prison officers were not included, even though they are a uniformed service and even though, as we see from the research, they are suffering from greater stress and psychological problems arising from their work load—more than the police or social workers.

[Ian Lavery]

Is it right that in 2014, we as a nation should be asking 68-year-old men and women to tackle some of the most dangerous people in the country?

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. A question was put to prison officers in a survey, and 75% indicated that working after 60 would very much or significantly impair their job performance. The prison officers do not think that they can do their job effectively after the age of 60. I have to say that sometimes we just have to listen to the people who do the job.

I had some discussions with prison officers and a number of them agreed with the view that they were being asked to do an impossible job. They said that they were being put under unacceptable further pressure and that the Government needed to look again at the issue of pension age and at why this uniformed service was discriminated against in comparison with the others.

Let me suggest a way forward. We received research commissioned by the POA but undertaken independently by the university of Bedfordshire, and there is also the Prison Service’s own survey. Particularly concerning are the differences between the scores highlighted for members of the Prison Service in comparison with others in the civil service. There were large discrepancies between how people felt about their job and how they were being treated. Let me cite an example. When it came to recommending Her Majesty’s Prison Service as a great place to work, only 21% were positive. In the area on “my work” there was a score of minus 15% in comparison with the civil service survey and from high performers the score was minus 18%. On “my manager”, it was minus 24%; and on “resources and workload” it was minus 19%—and so it goes on. When it came to discrimination, bullying and harassment, 19% said that they had experienced discrimination at work over the past 12 months, while 18% had experienced the bullying or harassment themselves. Even in the National Offender Management Service survey, some of the figures are somewhat worrying.

The overall evidence from the university of Bedfordshire and even from the Government’s own survey shows clearly that we need another way forward. First, we need an urgent meeting between the justice unions parliamentary group and the Minister to discuss the research and to establish how to develop support for staff and tackle some of the identified issues of work-related stress.

Secondly, in light of this research, I urge the Government to look again at the pension age of prison officers. If necessary, they should commission further research if the current research is not satisfactory. If we need a more detailed examination of forcing prison officers to work until they are 68, I would welcome the opportunity at least to engage in a further review of that decision, backed up by further research.

The third issue is about staffing. I know that the Minister will report that new staff are being recruited. I hope that that happens as quickly as possible and that we can get them trained and into our prisons. We have, however, lost a lot of experienced trained staff as a result of the cuts. As a consequence, I believe that our prisons are now not only less safe, but are not fulfilling the role of rehabilitation that we want them to fulfil. Thus, for now and the future, lessons need to be learned from the staffing cuts that we have seen. I am convinced that we will have a constructive response from the Minister to the idea of having a meeting and working on these issues together to resolve what I find to be an extremely worrying situation.

[Mr Llwyd]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I take greater comfort from the fact that 90% of probation officers chose not to respond to their union’s survey and are getting on with the job, the excellent work they do on a day-by-day basis, and their good work to help the new systems bed in.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I find the Secretary of State’s complacency extremely worrying. Two hundred probation officers turned up last week to lobby their MPs, all of them consistently reporting that the system is not working. The Secretary of State refused to undertake pilot schemes in advance of these reforms, but he did enact what he described as assessments called test gates. There have been three of those. The fourth was meant to start on 1 June but I believe it has not started yet. Will he publish all the information from the test gates, so that we can see what they have reported regarding the implementation of the reforms?

[Chris Grayling]

These reforms are going exactly according to plan and no test gate was due to start in June. We are on time and the teams on the ground are making good progress. I and my colleagues have visited the trust’s successor organisations, and members of my team are going out to hear what is happening on the ground. This is a nine-month process of delivering change in the public sector, before we reach the point of a change of ownership. We are trying to ensure that the new system is bedded in well, and so far I am happy with the progress being made. There is, of course, still work to be done, but good progress is being made.

Oral Answers to Questions

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I give my hon. Friend that latter assurance absolutely categorically. Let me address the issue of offshoring. In my previous job, I said on the record that I did not want Departments that I ran to offshore UK jobs. My position on that has not changed.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The question concerning the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is not about which Government awarded the original contract to Steria; it is about whether, having wasted £56 million, a company should be rewarded with a contract double the size. Which Minister in their right mind would reward failure in that way?

[Chris Grayling]

The contract was awarded through the Cabinet Office as a result of a proper procurement process, and appropriate legal advice was taken.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Morris]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to take measures such as those in the Bill, which I support, to get the balance right in respect of the culture that has developed over the past few years.

As has been mentioned, there is the question of the public perception of what judicial review actually is. As a result of the culture that has built up, there is a public perception that if a judicial review goes ahead, the decision will somehow be overturned. It is felt that the review is to do with the decision rather than with a discussion about the process. For example, a group of residents in my constituency approached me about a judicial review of a fire authority’s decision, which I did not think had been great, to close a local fire station. They raised funds to take the matter to the first stage, but even if they had successfully demonstrated that the authority had not followed due process—I am not a lawyer, but on the face of it there were some grounds for saying so—the likely outcome of their spending something north of £100,000 on a judicial review would have been the authority simply re-presenting the same proposal. That example shows that we must be careful about raising public expectations about what a judicial review can achieve.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but it is not borne out by the facts. From a local government perspective, judicial review has been one of the most effective methods by which local councils have held Government to account and ensured that they follow due process. I rarely do this, but I praise the London borough of Hillingdon, my own local authority, for effectively using judicial review over issues such as the third runway at Heathrow to ensure that the Government abide by their own legislation.

[James Morris]

There is a balance to be struck, and direct accountability is an issue. We want a culture in which local authorities and Government can be held to account democratically. That is how decisions should be taken. We should not be developing and enhancing a culture—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

We may be going down a sidetrack, but I am delighted that under this Government there are fewer women and children in prison than the previous Labour Government ever managed. I am satisfied with that achievement. However, I realise that the Labour party is still in a space of wanting to lock up as many people as possible to show how tough on crime it can be.

[John McDonnell]

I do wish that the hon. Gentleman would not rile the Front Benchers, because we end up going off on tangents. If someone is listening—with regard to the offenders; I did not mean listening to the Front Benchers—who might carry a knife, my concern is this. I have seen some evidence in my constituency that people have tried to avoid the existing legislation by looking for other weapons. In a recent murder in my constituency, an axe was used, and we have also seen the spraying of acid. If people listen to the message that they will be committing an offence by carrying a knife on two occasions, my fear is that they will diversify into other weapons to avoid that, if they are sufficiently calculating.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point that I had not thought to add. He is absolutely right, and I hope that he will support us on the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I have not checked the exact wording, but I suspect that some things would not fall into that category because they have other uses. That may be one of the flaws that the Minister indicated.

[John McDonnell]

I cannot see how that is covered in the new clauses, and it might be worth getting some clarity from the Minister.

[Dr Huppert]

Perhaps that is one of the flaws. I will move on, because I am not in a position to arbitrate between the two sides while I am speaking.

I see that the Justice Secretary has said that even if such amendments were passed in some form he would have to delay their implementation because there is no space in the prisons. That strikes me as something that we should consider in deciding whether to go ahead. Incidentally, it is also a strong argument for more rational sentencing decisions to ensure that we are locking up the right people and not the wrong people. We ought also to be more rational about how many years people get for different offences.

Prison Overcrowding

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Yes, I absolutely will. We will work on rehabilitation reforms post-prison and look to improve the level of work in prisons. We will also look to continue to expand education and training in prisons. We have, for example, set in train plans to double the amount of education in the youth estate. Those things simply did not happen under the previous Government. Labour Members accuse us of warehousing offenders, but I think they were the ones who were guilty of that.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has quoted the Prison Officers Association. He is not a man who would want to mislead or confuse the House, so may I tell him what the POA has said today? It has said:

“The decision by NOMS”—

that is, himself—

“to further ‘crowd’ the already overcrowded public sector estate by an additional 440 undermines the commitment that prisons will be safe, secure and decent”.

The POA describes that as

“the perfect storm of a rising population, a lack of staff and too few prison cells.”

Could the Secretary of State start listening to the prison officers themselves, for a change?

[Chris Grayling]

When we set about the current programme of benchmarking, I did precisely that: I listened to our staff and governors and accepted their recommendation, and I am implementing their recommendation thanks to the hard work of staff at all levels across the prison estate. The hon. Gentleman talks nonsense when he suggests I am not listening to the staff.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Already in the debate we have heard, in speeches and interventions, about the relatively short period of time that young people spend in custody. That continuity is absolutely essential if we are to take meaningful strides not only in dealing with rehabilitation, but in reducing reoffending rates, which concern all of us and are a priority for the Government.

My amendment is a probing amendment, but I am keen for my hon. Friend the Minister to consider further these proposals in relation to SEN provision in secure colleges: that education providers in those colleges be required by contract to put SEN at the heart of their education provision; that those providers also be required by contract to ensure adequate and proper training for staff so that they can properly identify special education needs and meet that need when it is identified; and finally, that we give further thought to exactly who in a secure college should be responsible for working with home local education authorities when young people either have education, health and care plans, or might be eligible for them. I commend those points to the House.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I will be very brief, because other Members wish to speak. I find this whole secure college proposal abhorrent. It flies in the face of all the evidence that has been put before the Justice Committee and debated in the wider media. What do we know about trying to address the issues that confront young people once they get involved in this system? We know that the most successful units are the smaller ones. So what is the response? It is to create a mass-scale prison.

The other thing that we know works—this is absolutely critical—is for young people to be located close to their homes so that they can maintain family and community contact. The scale of this proposal in catering for about 25% of young people in the prison system means that these colleges will be located in the centre of the country, nowhere near the vast proportion of homes where these young people live, so we will be breaking down family connections. We have warnings before us, right across the piece, that in a mixed-gender establishment those most at risk will be young women. Some of the statements and evidence provided about those risks were frightening.

All the evidence tells us that a system such as that proposed will not work, and I think the Government know that. This is Oakwood for children, and we know what happened in that privatised prison—riots, assaults, and a lack of control. I think the Government know that there is a danger that that will be replicated in this large institution. That is why the Bill is allowing for the use of physical force against young people, contrary to everything the courts have told us.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Given that the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Justice Committee, was unable in the circumstances to visit Oakwood when we did so recently, I hope he would not want to give the impression that the Committee had formed the view that his description fits Oakwood as it is now rather than as it was at the beginning.

[John McDonnell]

I was unable to go on that visit because I was in hospital at the time. However, I have had the reports from Oakwood and I have met the Prison Officers Association. We have seen time and again the level of assaults there and the riots that have taken place. Only recently, a whole wing was taken over by prisoners. That is a result of privatisation. That is the agenda; that is what this is about. It is not about the rehabilitation, education and care of young people; the main thrust is reducing the overall cost of the system. That is why privatisation has come on to the agenda. As a result of this Government’s drive to reduce costs within the system, we are putting the lives of young people at risk.

I grew up on an estate where young people were sent into the prison system—that is, borstals. This proposal is bringing borstals back into the system. We thought we had got rid of them. They were like large-scale prisons where a regime of brutality could emerge because of packing so many young people in, and where costs were limited so there was not the intensive investment looking at children’s individual needs.

This is a dreadful proposal. If it is enacted, with £85 million spent on this large-scale Titan prison for young people, we will live to regret it, because it will damage young people’s lives and, rather than rehabilitate them, force them into a more brutal form of criminal practice in future.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

There is much to commend part 1 of the Bill, but, like other hon. Members, I cannot say the same for part 2.

The plans for secure colleges are a leap into the unknown that have the potential to deliver worse outcomes for the very vulnerable young people who are placed into custody across the secure youth estate. It is not just me or other hon. Members who are saying that; it is the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Prison Reform Trust, the deputy Children’s Commissioner, and the Standing Committee for Youth Justice. Like them, I worry that the introduction of secure colleges could drive up the number of young people being sent into custody—something that we are seeking to avoid. I fear that they will not meet the emotional and mental health needs of children who are placed into them, that they will not meet the excellent standards of educational attainment in some of our secure children’s homes, and that they will provide for worse outcomes for some of the youngest, and therefore most vulnerable, people we need to detain.

As the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, we are seeing a steady period of decline in youth imprisonment and youth crime, though one will not necessarily read about it in the newspapers. Overall, youth crime is down by 63% since 2002. Since 2009, there have been 55% fewer young people coming into the youth justice system and 36% fewer young people—that is, people under 18—in custody.

The introduction of detention and training orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 resulted in a large spike in the number of under-18s being sent into custody, because courts saw that as a new solution. I fear that secure colleges could create a similar spike, with children being sent into custody rather than accessing the restorative and rehabilitative options that are available to meet their complex needs.

It is clear, not least from what my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) has said, that the secure youth estate already faces considerable challenges taking account of the mental health needs, learning disabilities and difficulties, addictions, childhood abuse and neglect of the children in its care. We should not underestimate the background problems faced by those children who end up in custody.

The Prison Reform Trust study of 6,000 children in custody revealed that at least three quarters of the sample had absent fathers; a third had absent mothers; half lived in a deprived household; more than a quarter had witnessed domestic violence; another quarter had experience of local authority care; and one in five was known to have harmed themselves, and a shocking one in 10 to have attempted to take their own life. It is clear that if we are to address reoffending among that cohort, we have to first address those underlying issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

I think that we had a constructive debate in Committee, and it is disappointing that the Opposition have set their face against secure colleges. I will not be able to pick up on all the points made during the debate, but let me do my best.

Amendments 16, 17, 18 and 21 would effectively remove from the Bill all reference to a secure college, and it is worth starting with the context of our proposed reform of the youth secure estate. At present we pay around £100,000 a year on average for a place in youth custody, and yet almost 70% of young people go on to reoffend within 12 months of release. For secure children’s homes the cost rises beyond £200,000 a place, yet reoffending outcomes are little different.

To give the House the facts, the proportion of offenders who reoffended in the 12 months to March 2012 is as follows: 69.9% in young offenders institutions; 70.1% in secure training centres; and 67.6% in secure children’s homes. That is why we need to do something different, and why we are pursuing the idea of secure colleges. I have heard the arguments tonight and, indeed previously, that there are better ways to improve the youth custodial estate, and in particular that smaller establishments such as secure children’s homes are more effective. The figures for reoffending that I have given do not demonstrate that, but I understand that plenty of good work is done across the estate.

The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) asked whether we considered spending the money on the existing estate, and the answer is yes. However, if we continue to do the same things in the same ways, we can expect the same results. He seems to have said this evening that he accepts that the status quo is not acceptable but he does not think that secure colleges are the right way to go. He clearly favours a much more small-unit approach, such as secure children’s homes, but I wonder whether he has considered the cost of that. Our rough guess is that putting all young people currently detained in custody into a secure children’s home would cost in excess of £100 million more a year than we currently spend. I would be interested to hear—as, I am sure, would the House—how exactly that would be paid for by the Labour party if that is its intent. I suspect it does not know.

The truth is that no current model of youth custody is delivering the types of outcomes that we all want to see, or providing sufficient value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we want to consider secure colleges. I am conscious that there is an appetite to hear more detail on how secure colleges will operate than primary legislation can provide. It is therefore worth pointing out to the House that during the Bill’s passage we intend to publish and consult on our plans for secure college rules, including, where appropriate, setting out some indicative draft provisions. This will provide both Houses with more information on how we expect secure colleges to operate.

[John McDonnell]

During the passage of the Bill? We are on Report! This is the end of the Bill’s consideration in this House. We have one more day. We will not return to this issue unless the other place amends the proposed legislation.

[Jeremy Wright]

If the hon. Gentleman takes the time to look at the programme motion he will see that there are two days allowed on Report. This is the first day, not the second. [Interruption.] I have made the position clear.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jeremy Wright]

No, I am afraid I will not. I have 10 minutes left and a good deal of ground to cover. There will be a second day on Report and the other House will get to consider this matter. The hon. Gentleman was not present in Committee. Had he—

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Minister does not wish to mislead the House about the processes of this House. I would like absolute clarity. I am a Back-Bench Member dealing with this part of the Bill on day one, which is considering this part the Bill. On the basis of the programme motion, this part of the Bill will not come back for consideration on day two, so this is my last opportunity to consider the matter unless the other place amends the Bill on this point. I will not have the opportunity to take part in a debate informed by the publication of these rules. Is that accurate, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has described the procedure accurately. What he has said is not something from which I wish to dissent. I cannot rule on it, but what he has said is procedurally correct.

Oral Answers to Questions

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that working together to share best practice is important, and we will certainly seek to do that. There are good examples of rehabilitation to be found across the United Kingdom.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

At the heart of the Government’s reforms is the large-scale tendering of services. Does the grotesque debacle of the electronic tagging contract with Buddi not demonstrate that the Minister’s Government is incapable of managing this process efficiently? This is yet another contract where the competition has been ended. A Ministry of Justice statement says that it has had to retender the contract for the supply of new tags.

[Jeremy Wright]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I do not agree with the way the hon. Gentleman has represented the situation. The position is this. We will work with a preferred bidder to try to ensure that our needs are met and that we can reach agreement in delivering what will be impressive new technology to help us keep better track of offenders. If we cannot reach agreement with a preferred bidder, we must move on to another provider, and that is what is happening here. Four lots are involved in this particular process. On three of them, things are working as well as we could possibly have expected. In relation to the fourth, there are difficulties, but we are resolving them. What I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome is the use of the technology.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I doubt whether the Bill will be opposed today, but I hope that there will be time to consider amendments that might improve it at a later stage. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for coming so late to the debate. I heard the opening speeches and then had to chair a meeting elsewhere, but I will be brief.

I want to make three simple points. With regard to secure colleges, sometimes if we stand still long enough, things come round again. They will smack very much of the old approved schools if we are not careful. The proposed £85 million project seems to involve a 320-bed institution. All the evidence in recent years has demonstrated that tackling young offenders and rehabilitating youngsters to ensure that they do not offend in the future is better done in smaller units, rather than large ones. That is why we moved away from the old approved schools, so that more intensive work could be done with young offenders and young potential offenders in smaller units. The proposal flies in the face of all that evidence and seems to take us back, rather than forward. However, if the Government are to experiment in this way, it is important that at least some provision remains in smaller units, particularly for those young people who are vulnerable. We have had briefings from the Children’s Rights Alliance and others, and they have interpreted the Government’s commitment to maintain small secure children’s homes as somewhat ambiguous. It would be useful to hear from the Minister tonight about what the future is for small secure children’s homes under the proposed new structure. The vulnerable youngsters who are cared for in those units would be lost within the bigger establishments proposed by the Government today. There would be anxiety if we were to lose that element of specialism in the system in the future.

The second issue relates to the proposal for magistrates to sit alone when taking decisions. I read the Magistrates Association briefing, and I share some of its concerns that there is a need to ensure that justice is seen to be done. Removing cases from the courts into a side room in a police station or elsewhere with a magistrate sitting solely with a clerk may not be as open and transparent as in the past. I would welcome hearing the Government’s view on the magistrates’ recommendation about at least ensuring that lists of cases are published. Perhaps that should be incorporated into the Bill, so that we can give the assurance that openness and transparency will continue for two reasons: first, it is important that people know that justice is being done and that it is visible; and secondly, some people want to know that the perpetrators have been prosecuted appropriately and have received the appropriate sentences. Therefore, listing cases would at least maintain an element of openness and transparency in the system. I hope that the Government can take on board the Magistrates Association recommendation and build it into the Bill.

The third issue, which I am anxious about, is judicial review. In my own experience, judicial review has largely been used by an individual or small organisation to challenge decisions by state bodies; in my own area, those have largely been decisions made by local councils. At the moment, judicial review is incredibly hard to undertake, largely because of the costs involved. It takes about £10,000 to £15,000 just to get into court in any form to have a judicial review heard, which is beyond the means of most individual and many organisations, but at least there is the opportunity to challenge a decision.

In my area, a judicial review took place recently when the local authority closed down special needs centres, or undertook the exercise of closing them down. That decision was challenged by the parents of the centres’ clients. They won at judicial review, forcing the local authority to reconsider its decision and to consult properly. That is the appropriate mechanism for judicial review. The Government’s current proposals will bear heavily on those individuals or organisations that are challenging decisions by bodies such as local councils.

I refer back to the debates that we had during the passage of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, when evidence was brought forward by Transparency International about the problems with local government decision making: its closed nature and the use of commercial interests to drive decisions into part 2 of the cabinet decision-making processes. In other words, it revealed the secretive nature of decision making by some local authorities. Again, judicial review becomes the last resort for many organisations and individuals—certainly in my community—to try to get some form of appropriate and reasonable decision making, or at least some form of supervision of that decision making by the courts themselves.

I fear that these proposals will restrict the opportunity of the most vulnerable in our society to hold the powerful to account. I welcome the Government’s reassurances that there will perhaps be an opportunity to consider some amendments to the current proposals, which would allow the current process to be maintained and improved.

The Government have included a commitment to cost orders within the process itself. I agree that we should try to ensure a limit on costs overall. The problem is that the cost orders come too late in the process, The decision-making process will be more at the permissive stage, so a lot more work will be required of representatives before a cost order can even be applied for, which would provide protection from the heavy burden of costs during the process.

I would like the Government to look again at where the cost orders can be implemented. Under the Government’s proposals, just to get to the permissive stage an individual will either have to fund a considerable amount of work or it will have to be done at risk by an individual lawyer, before there is even a discussion about the cost order and cost-sharing.

This is largely about individuals fighting institutions that are well-resourced. Again, I will give an example from my own area. Many times, individual councillors have been protected by the council’s insurance against any legal action that is taken about their own decision making. So the individual is at risk, but the individual councillor or the council body is protected, bizarrely using—most probably—part of that individual’s council tax payment to enable that protection to be given. The problem in these proposals is that the cost burden, or the cost deterrent, will fall more greatly on the individuals concerned. I would welcome the Government considering, perhaps during the progress of this Bill, a more effective way of ensuring that the cost burden is limited—overall, of course, but also as it falls on the individual concerned.

The issue of interveners was referred to earlier. Every time I have been involved in a judicial review process in my area, interveners have played an invaluable role in bringing their expertise to the table and to the discussions within court itself. I would be wary of restricting the ability of specialist organisations to intervene in a particular case. I could give example after example of what is happening with my own local authority not only of individual housing cases but of individual health cases, where interveners have helped by bringing their health expertise to a case, because it then merits a wider debate about a particular aspect of that case that has a wider public interest.

I am glad that the environmental issues have been separated from this process—largely as a result of European conventions, I see—because in my own area judicial review has been one of the mechanisms by which we have at least been able to seek to protect ourselves against adverse planning decisions that have had an environmental impact on my community. That may well be an issue that we will want to come back to when we debate the proposals for a third runway at Heathrow, because we will be looking for a judicial review of the Government’s decisions at every possible opportunity if they wish to proceed with those proposals. Therefore, it is good that environmental matters are excluded from the heavy burden of costs, as far as I can see.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[John McDonnell]

I see that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench is shaking his head. I am happy for him to correct me on that matter.

[Mr Slaughter]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent speech. However, I think that some matters under the Aarhus convention are protected but other environmental matters may well not be.

[John McDonnell]

I see. Again, we may well table amendments to broaden that protection, because we will rely on judicial review powers to challenge Government decisions—we will certainly do so in the case of the third runway at Heathrow and we might do so in the case of High Speed 2 as well—if we feel that the Government have not acted appropriately or reasonably in their decision-making process.

Having made those three points, I will finish. They are about critical issues that the Government need to address. There is no opposition to the overall legislation tonight, but I hope that there will be opportunities in this process for the Government to consider amendments to improve the legislation, so that certain rights can be protected, particularly those of the individual taking on the powerful within our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

There are institutions of a custodial nature in which the numbers of people are far more than that at the moment. They will not all live in one unit. There will be separate units and different age groups and categories of people. I see no reason why, at a more cost-effective rate, we cannot seek to do what is not happening at present: reduce reoffending rates.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd also spoke of the possible use of force, and that issue was also raised by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I will just point out that the Bill sets up secure colleges but it does not speak of using force. That issue needs to be addressed later, when it comes to dealing with the rules for secure colleges. I recognise that it is an important issue, which needs to be dealt with sensitively, and I am sure that when those rules are drawn up, that is how it will be dealt with.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) gave a very supportive speech and spoke with experience of having been a Minister both in my Department and in the Home Office. His arguments were well reasoned and he spoke about early release, electronic tagging and a number of other issues. He pointed out to the House that the magistracy that we have been discussing has been with us for some 650 years.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) also raised the issue of magistrates sitting on their own and I hope that I have covered that. He also touched on the issue of judicial reviews, as did the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), in a number of interventions, and other hon. Members. Let me be clear about this point too. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor did not say that all claims were being made by left-wing campaign groups, but it is a fact that some claims have been or are made by such groups. The hon. Lady herself admitted, in one of her interventions, that before she entered the House, she ran a group and was regularly involved in judicial reviews. If people are going to throw ammunition at this side, it is important that they at least put things in context.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) spoke with experience and was right to put education at the heart of secure colleges. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston continues to mutter away, but I suggest that she looks at Hansard tomorrow morning. My hon. Friend was right to highlight the issue of education and I am grateful for his general approval for all that the Government are doing.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) also spoke of secure colleges. I emphasise to him that, as I said earlier, there will be separate units to cater for different categories of people in those colleges rather than everyone being in one structure.

As far as the magistrates courts are concerned, there was concern about openness and transparency—

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vara]

I will not give way, as I want to make progress. I believe that I have been generous in taking a number of interventions, but I have limited time.

The issue of openness and transparency was raised, and I want to make it clear that each magistrates court publishes within its court buildings daily lists of cases being heard at that court. All magistrates courts routinely make lists of case results available to the local media, and the criminal procedure rules also oblige courts to give certain additional information on cases in response to third-party requests. I also want to put on the record that we are looking at further ways of making court processes and outcomes more transparent, including exploring the possibility of publishing court outcomes electronically.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) reflected his experience at the Bar in the issues that he raised, and I am grateful for his support for the measures that we are introducing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was characteristically robust and raised a number of issues. I am delighted, as I am sure the Chief Whip is, that he supports the proposals that we are seeking to introduce today, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor is appreciative of the personal congratulations that he conveyed to him earlier on introducing these measures.

My hon. Friend mentioned the magistrates courts; I assure him that our intention is to ensure that the proposals are confined to low-level offences. He also asked an important question: why can the maximum age of jurors be raised from 70 to 75, when a similar age increase is not allowed for magistrates and judges? One of the reasons is that jurors will work on one trial, and then return to their daily, routine lives, whereas magistrates and judges have to play their role day in, day out, and of course that is completely different from jurors sitting on odd cases.

My hon. Friend will be aware that there are transitional arrangements in place. When the rule about the age of 70 came in for the judiciary, those judges who were still in place could opt to work until they were 75. He also spoke of judges being held to account. All I would say to that is that we have to be mindful that the judiciary is an independent section of our constitution.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) for her supportive comments, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who, again, spoke of his personal experience at the Bar. He was right to refer to the man on the Clapham omnibus and the use of common sense. Many of the proposals that we are introducing are absolutely that: common-sense proposals with which the majority of the public would agree.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is right to highlight Labour’s record in government, because all that Labour Members, and certainly its Front Benchers, have been doing is complaining, rather than acknowledging their errors when in government. He also spoke about secure colleges. He is right to say that no one wants young children to reoffend. He is absolutely correct when he says that we have to give them education, and the skills and discipline to ensure that they can lead productive lives. Like others, he referred to the issue of force, but I hope that he accepts that I have given reassurance on that. He was concerned about the court charges that we propose, and I have dealt with that issue.

I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), both senior Members of the House and Chairmen of important Select Committees. Their contributions reflected their expertise and breadth of knowledge.

The Bill toughens up terrorism and terrorism-related offences and ends automatic early release for certain serious, violent and sexual offences. The new secure colleges will place education at the heart of youth custody, ensuring that young people acquire the skills, qualifications and self-discipline to lead productive lives on release, and break away from the cycle of reoffending.

It has to be right for criminals who use the courts to pay towards the cost of running them, thereby reducing the burden on hard-working taxpayers. We are also putting in place important measures to deal with the growing number of unmeritorious judicial review applications that are clogging up our court system and putting additional burdens on public services. The consequences of the internet world that we live in simply cannot be ignored. That is why we are ensuring that jurors base their decisions on the evidence put before them, and not on the results of a Google search. These and the other measures in this Bill are important, sensible and necessary. They represent a critical next step in strengthening confidence in our justice system, and providing safety and security for people and their communities. I welcome all the contributions made today, and I assure the House that many of the issues raised will be debated in further detail in Committee.

Finally, I note that we have a new clock, which shows seconds, and not just minutes as the one before did. Happily, I can assure the House that I do not have to rely on the seconds today; I am more than happy to finish a little early—by minutes, rather than seconds. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 1 April 2014.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Claire Perry.)

Question agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS BILL (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under or by virtue of the Act, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Claire Perry.)

Question agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS BILL (WAYS AND MEANS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the imposition on persons convicted of offences of charges relating to the costs of providing criminal courts; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Claire Perry.)

Question agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS BILL (CARRY-OVER)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Claire Perry.)

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I join my hon. Friend in that state of grace of not being a lawyer. The difference is that we have removed the word “innocent”. There was, I think, a feeling that the original Government proposal required people to prove their innocence, which, of course, would alter the presumptions that lie at the heart of the criminal justice system. That is what could be described as the non-legal significant difference, which is none the less a significant difference.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister therefore explain to us what the difference is between “innocent of” and “did not commit”?

[Damian Green]

A lot of the debate was about the nomenclature—the thought that we were asking people to prove their innocence. I have just explained the effect of the new clause: if a new fact emerges that on its own shows the person could not have committed the offence or that an offence may not have been committed, that would entitle that person to compensation. Throughout this debate people have recognised that it is not simply a question of being declared innocent that requires a miscarriage of justice to be called.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I think I understand where the Minister is coming from, but I just think we are getting ourselves into a bit of a mess here. Let me give him a concrete example. I chaired the Guildford Four campaign for a large number of years. What happened there was the discovery that the confessions were completely wrong. They were wrong for all sorts of different reasons—the circumstances in which they were taken, the way they were taken. They were just false. At that stage it is then demonstrated that the prosecution—and the original decision of the courts—is unsound and it is then dismissed. Those people are then released. They will then have to seek to prove their innocence to gain any compensation, so practically I think we are digging ourselves into a hole here and are creating a system that will cause more problems than those we are seeking to solve.

[Damian Green]

I disagree. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying the system will in some ways be more difficult because people will have to apply for compensation. That in itself is not a huge change.

[John McDonnell]

May I explain my point again? Let us take the Birmingham Six as our example. As soon as the confessions were seen to be completely false, they were released on the basis that their prosecution was unsound. However, to gain compensation they will now have to go out and prove they “did not commit” or they were “innocent”, whichever terminology is decided on.

[Damian Green]

I think this is just a genuine misunderstanding. Someone will be eligible for compensation if the new fact—the hon. Gentleman is talking about new facts emerging in respect of confessions and so on—which led to the quashing of their conviction shows they did not commit the offence for which they were convicted. I think the particular objection he is giving rise to now would not apply, therefore.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman has had a go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing his legal mind to bear on this, and explaining the difference.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman may disagree, but he will have his chance to contribute to the debate.

We are seeking to provide greater clarity, which is why we are unwilling to accept the Lords amendment. We have listened to those who consider that the express reference to the concept of innocence is problematic. That is what lies at the heart of this change. Our amendment in lieu is intended to take this concern into account by removing what has been until now the controversial aspect of this clause: the use of the word “innocent”. I hope that removing the express reference to innocence will make our respect for the presumption of innocence clear, and I hope I can allay the concerns expressed by hon. Members.

We remain strongly committed to ensuring that compensation is paid only to those who genuinely warrant it, however. In our view compensation should be paid only to applicants where it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence. We believe that this change takes into account the points made in the House of Lords, which we have carefully considered. As Lord Phillips said in that debate, the primary objective of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which this clause would amend, is to provide redress to an applicant who has been convicted when he or she was in fact innocent. He also considered that its second and subsidiary objective was to ensure that an applicant whose conviction had been quashed but who had in fact committed the offence charged should not be compensated. Our proposed test goes a long way towards achieving both of those objectives. We consider that, while the definition of a miscarriage of justice for which we are seeking to legislate is drawn narrowly, it nevertheless provides for a range of circumstances in which compensation should rightly be paid to help people who need to rebuild their lives after suffering great injustices.

Throughout our debates, much has been said about the views of the European Court of Human Rights on compensation for a miscarriage of justice, and I am again grateful to Lord Phillips, who commented on this so succinctly during the debate on Report in the Lords. He stated:

“In substance, whatever interpretation is given to miscarriage of justice, something more than quashing a conviction is properly required”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 680.]

This much can be gleaned from the four most recent decisions of the European Court on this issue. Today, our business is to determine precisely what that “something more” is. We believe that the definition we are now providing in our amendment will make it easier for applicants to assess whether they should apply for compensation, and will make decisions on eligibility easier for the applicant to understand and less likely to be the subject of legal challenge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) made clear a moment ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

I have given way three times and have been more than happy to do so, but let me continue now.

For all the reasons I have described, Labour tabled an amendment on Report in this Chamber and then wholeheartedly backed the amendment in the name of Lord Pannick in the other place, which would ensure that compensation should be paid only if the new or newly discovered fact showed conclusively that the evidence against the defendant at trial was so undermined that

“ no conviction could possibly be based on it.”

That clearly provides a statutory definition and greater certainty in this area of the law, while adhering to the age-old principle for which I have argued so strongly. When the Court of Appeal has quashed a conviction, it is simply wrong then to require the defendant also to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he or she is, to all intents and purposes, innocent. Such a provision is incompatible with the presumption of innocence.

The framework for which I am arguing already applies in the Supreme Court, where it was brought in by the then President, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, who strongly supported the Pannick amendment in the other place, and indeed in the European Court of Human Rights. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said:

“in our view requiring proof of innocence beyond reasonable doubt as a condition of obtaining compensation for wrongful conviction is incompatible with the presumption of innocence which is protected by both the common law and Article 6(2) ECHR.”

It is worth stressing again that the amendment from the other place is not about giving people more compensation automatically or making it easier for people to get off on technicalities and then to claim compensation in all circumstances; it is about serious and rare cases in which it is entirely appropriate that the victims should receive compensation. As our amendment makes clear, asking people to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt is an affront to our system of law, and denying compensation to those who have been wrongly convicted is an affront to a decent society. Many Members of this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), have campaigned for many years on miscarriages of justice.

The simple fact is that our legal system is not perfect, and cases do go wrong. It is a tribute to our legal system that miscarriages of justice are rare, but when they do happen, it is simply wrong to expect those who have suffered to prove to all intents and purposes that they are innocent beyond reasonable doubt—it is adding to the injustice that they have already suffered.

As I argued at the start of my contribution, miscarriages of justice lead to ruined lives. Families are destroyed. People leave while their partners sit wrongly behind bars. Jobs and homes are lost and people’s reputations are left in tatters. The mental despair and anguish are never fully resolved, which is why victims of miscarriages of justice need real help on their release. People’s lives can never go back to how they were. That is where we, as a decent society, have to make amends, and that is what our amendment does.

In conclusion, I urge all Members of this House to support a rigorous and fair justice system that sticks up for its founding principle of people being innocent until proved guilty; that rejects the notion of “beyond reasonable doubt” to obtain compensation; that ensures that where a serious miscarriage of justice has happened, innocent people receive fair compensation for all they have suffered; and that reflects rulings already set out in the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. In short, we want a justice system that is serious about putting right serious injustice.

[John McDonnell]

To be frank, I am absolutely confused about where we have got to. I am confused over the difference of interpretation between innocence and “did not commit”. If someone wants to intervene on me at this stage I would be really grateful, because I cannot see the difference.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) has explained the implications of the proposal with regard to the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four. Let me put the situation in context following my involvement in the case of the Guildford Four. A number of people are locked up for many years. When they come out, they have nothing—no accommodation and no employment. The financial compensation they receive is relatively minimal compared with the suffering that they have gone through, and it is desperately needed to ensure that they have a chance of some form of normal life in the future.

In the case of the Guildford Four—it was the same in the case of the Birmingham Six—we found that not just the prisoners but whole families were devastated. There have been suicides in the family of Paul Hill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) knows, the lives of Errol and Theresa Smalley have been permanently damaged. The whole family network has been damaged as a result of that case. Gerry Conlon admitted it when he came out of prison. He was addicted to drugs, because that was the only way he could cope. The state pays compensation to try to do whatever it can to remedy the injustice that took place.

The cases of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six went to court and were quashed because the forensic evidence demonstrated that confessions were made under duress and that documents were tampered with. When they left court, it was on the basis that the system had failed in due process to prove that they had committed the crimes for which they were brought to court. We then went through a negotiation process, which was quite bizarre; I did not realise that, under the existing compensation arrangements, their compensation would be reduced to pay for accommodation charges while they were in prison. It was a real struggle to get that compensation. The Minister says that this is not the case, but under the proposed system, if a case is quashed on the basis of that type of evidence, the defendants will have to go to another level of proof to get any compensation. They will have to demonstrate not that the process was faulty in the first place and that they should never have been caught, but that they did not commit the crime, which is having to prove innocence. That is almost impossible, for any of us. Trying to prove that negative is contrary to everything in English law, and practically impossible to do.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

Let me just finish this point, then I will give way; I welcome the intervention.

In the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, the media very quickly started to say. “Well, they might have got off, but maybe they did it anyway.” A campaign then started in the gutter press. It did not matter how good the evidence was, they still came at us. They tried to damage the reputations of those individuals. What worries me is that a Secretary of State determining that a higher level of proof is required to gain compensation will affect the atmosphere that is created.

[Mark Field]

I must admit that I have quite a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He expresses a specific concern about high-profile miscarriages of justice. However, is there not a concern that this new test of a convincing case brings a whole lot more uncertainty into the law? I dare say that it will be an absolute boon for the lawyers as to precisely where that comes into play. Although I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, the benefit of what the Minister is saying is that we at least have a certain test that is already set in English law.

[John McDonnell]

In my view, the Government’s test is faulty. I am not convinced of the need for this additional test anyway. At least the House of Lords edges towards some greater level of fairness. I would rather give up on this attempt to redefine.

The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) raised the case of Barry George. There has always been an ability in our system for the court awarding compensation to take into account whether the person contributed towards their plight. That has an effect on compensation levels or even whether compensation is awarded at all. By seeking to arrive at some definition in legislation, we are digging ourselves into a very complicated and costly hole, and that cost will be on the individuals who are desperately trying to ensure that they get some compensation for the ill that they have experienced as a result of the state’s failure to live up to a proper process. Additionally, it will be extremely costly for the state. As a result of the weakness in the definition proposed by the Government, we will see case after case being dragged through the English courts and then the European courts. In trying to remedy some form of perceived ill, we will create greater damage to those who have suffered enough.

In addition, the process that is under way at the moment risks making a laughing stock of the Government. As we have heard today, there will be arguments over the difference between “do not commit” and innocence, between “conclusively” and “beyond all reasonable doubt”. The lawyers will make a fortune. I plead for a common-sense approach. The compensation arrangements at the moment are not absolutely perfect, but at least we have managed to secure some compensation for those cases that have been quashed as a result of the state’s failure, and this is about the state’s failure to act accordingly.

There are many other cases. Susan May recently passed away, unfortunately, but her case is still being pursued to demonstrate her innocence, and I think that, rather than it being proved in the long run that the evidential base was the problem, it will be demonstrated that police processes were not adhered to and it will be another case that is eventually quashed. I hope that the Criminal Cases Review Commission will posthumously provide some proof that she should never have been taken through the courts, but again, the case has been dragged out over years, demonstrating how difficult it is, even when trying to prove the failure of due process, to secure not just a decision but any compensation. The new process will make it even harder to get compensation, drag the decision-making processes out for even longer and prove to be basically unfair.

I support the Lords amendment, because at least it moves us a little further forward, although I think even it will be open to significant challenge in the courts.

[Mark Durkan]

I rise to support Lords amendment 112 and oppose the Government’s amendment in lieu. The Minister told us that the Government were moving to allay the concerns raised by the use of the word “innocence” and its abuse in the Bill as originally drafted. Of course, many of us argued that the wording used in the original Bill changed all the normal presumptions about innocence under the rule of law and that it was tilting things to say that because someone had not proved their innocence they could remain guilty, even though they had been released on a quashed conviction. We were concerned not just about the word “innocence” but about the fact that the burden of proof would be reloaded for cases subject to review on the basis of new evidence that could lead to a quashed conviction. We were concerned that the question of compensation would be tested by altering the burden of proof so that new evidence had to prove someone’s innocence. The onus was being put on that person and their legal team to show the strength of the evidence.

The Government’s response to the Lords’ fairly reasonable and measured amendment is to say that they have solved the problem of innocence by using the term “did not commit” about the offence. The Minister was asked again and again to tell us the difference. A brand of soup—I cannot remember which—used to be advertised by the slogan, “The difference is in the thickness.” We are being told that there is a big difference and the Minister is emphasising its importance, but he cannot explain, specify, spell out or measure in any way the difference between whether someone can show that the evidence proves that they are innocent of an offence or whether they can show that it proves that they did not commit the offence. Even some of the interventions from the Government Back Benches seemed to rest more on whether there was evidence that an offence had been committed than on whether there was evidence that the person had actually committed the offence.

There are cases, of course, in which we know that gross and horrible offences have been committed, but that is very different from saying that that proves that a person who was charged and convicted of that offence has committed it. At other times, offences that might or might not have been committed are subject to questions and conjecture. We might consider our experiences in this House, as we might be thrown into the spotlight of public judgment about whether or not we did something. If we consider “did not commit” and “innocent” in that context, we might start to tease out some of the differences.

If as MPs we were arrested on the basis of some allegation, the fact that we were not charged and nothing more happened would show that we were innocent, but would other people necessarily say that it proved that no offence had been committed and nothing had happened? Things might be different; there can be a difference between “innocent” and “did not commit”. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, it is hard to prove a negative. We know from recent events of major publicity and political import in which allegations were made that someone had spoken to and treated police officers in a particular way, leading to consequences and all sorts of sweeping media and public judgments—although thankfully not court judgments—that that person was put in the position of having to prove a negative. They were asked to prove that they did not say what they were meant to have said and that they did not behave in the way that they were meant to have behaved.

We need to think not only about the hard and serious cases when we consider miscarriages of justice in this jurisdiction; some of the questions about the difference between “innocent” and “did not commit” can be asked closer to home about cases that do not necessarily reach the criminal courts. If we are conscious about language and the standards, judgments and measure of such things, it might help us and make us a wee bit more sensitive about how we word things as legislators.

The Lords amendment is designed, I believe, to meet the problem that the Government were seeking to address in the Bill. The Government said that they did not want to create a situation whereby the quashing of a conviction led either to the automatic fact of compensation or to the automatic assumption or expectation of compensation. They felt that some other test or qualification was needed. That was what the Government decided; it might not have been the starting point for some of us who have campaigned on miscarriages of justice cases such as those of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. Long after the latter conviction was overturned, I worked with Gerry Conlon and his mother to try to ensure that there was an apology that fully vindicated them and voiced their innocence, because many people in the system and the media were still trying to hide behind the pretence that it was a technical quashing of the conviction but that the conviction itself was due and proper. For them, the issue is not compensation but the absolute assertion of innocence. That was why offence was taken at the use and abuse of the term “innocence” in the original Bill, but that was not the only issue. The burden of proof was altered and an attempt was made to allow in the system for someone who had been convicted and imprisoned for a long period not to be entitled to compensation, because they could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence or their innocence.

Lord Pannick’s amendment accepts the Government's premise that there needs to be a definition and bases that definition on many issues that have been tested in other cases, including, as we have heard from the Minister, the Adams case. Based on the working and practical use of the law, the Lords amendment is wise and considered in its suggestion that a new or newly discovered fact should show conclusively that the evidence against the person at trial is so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based on it. That is not a hard test, as it does not open up things to conjecture. It basically allows courts to do what many appeal courts and more senior courts often have to do in considering the material evidence that would have been in front of a lower court and to make a judgment on that basis.

The Lords amendment would simply allow someone, after their conviction has been quashed, to pursue compensation on the basis that the quality of the new evidence shows that there would not have been a conviction in the first place. By refusing that, the Government are basically seeking to return to a situation in which the courts, the police and the prosecution service could be seen as part of a nexus of pursuing and achieving a miscarriage of justice. The beauty of the Lords amendment is that it would clearly take the lower court out of the frame, because it states that had the lower court known about such evidence, it would never have achieved the conviction.

Shrewsbury 24 (Release of Papers)

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I shall give the last word in this debate to the person who cannot be here, which is Dessie Warren. Dessie went into the dock against the advice of his lawyers. They advised him, “Dessie if you go in, you will most probably be sentenced double,” and that is most probably what happened, but he addressed the central question we have asked here today: was there a conspiracy? Let me use Dessie’s words:

“Was there a conspiracy? Ten members of the jury have said there was. There was a conspiracy, but not by the pickets. The conspiracy began with the miners giving the government a good hiding last year. It developed when the government was forced to perform legal gymnastics in getting five dockers out of jail after they had only just been put there. The conspiracy was between the Home Secretary, the employers and the police. It was not done with a nod and a wink. It was conceived after pressure from Tory Members of Parliament who demanded changes in picketing laws.”

He was asked about the law. He said:

“the law is, quite clearly, an instrument of the state, to be used in the interests of a tiny minority against the majority. It is biased; it is class law, and nowhere has that been demonstrated more than in the prosecution case in this trial. The very nature of the charges, the delving into ancient Acts of Parliament, dredging up conspiracy, shows this to be so.”

Then he was asked about intimidation. He said:

“The jury in this trial were asked to look upon the word ‘intimidation’ as having the ordinary everyday meaning. My interpretation is ‘to make timid’, or ‘to dispirit’, and when the pickets came to this town to speak to the building workers it was not with the intention of intimidating them. We came here with the intention of instilling the trade union spirit into them, and not to make them timid, but to give them the courage to fight the intimidation of the employers in this area.”

That is the spirit that has been instilled in us for the past 30 years, all the way through this campaign. It is also the spirit that has been instilled in all those others, including Ricky Tomlinson, Eileen Turnbull and the others who have been campaigning over this period. In that spirit, we will not let go until the truth is revealed, until we have full openness and transparency, until those people’s names are cleared and until it is accepted that this was a class attack. It was a class attack involving the intimidation of a group of workers to ensure that others did not fight in what was, and is, a class struggle to improve wages and conditions and, yes, to assert some sort of power and control over people’s working conditions. I support that struggle; that is what this debate today is all about.