HMP Birmingham

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of her statement. I want to pay tribute to the tornado teams, the prison officers and the emergency services, but the Secretary of State has a prisons crisis on her hands, and it would be helpful if she finally admitted this to the House and to the country. The riot at the privately run Birmingham prison on Friday has been described as

“probably the most serious riot in a B Category prison since Strangeways”,

which was back in 1990. However, this riot is not the crisis; it is a symptom of the crisis. In recent months there have been disturbances at Lincoln, Lewes and Bedford, and incidents at Hull and elsewhere. Assaults on prison staff are at an all-time high, and prison officers are leaving the service in such great numbers that 8,000 will need to be recruited to meet the Secretary of State’s 2,500 target.

The Secretary of State has questions to answer, and so do the Government as a whole. When the independent monitoring board said back in October that an urgent solution was needed to the prevalence of synthetic drugs in Birmingham prison, what action did the Secretary of State take? How much has Friday’s disorder cost, and who is footing the bill for the damage? Will G4S be reimbursing the public purse for the use of public sector staff to sort out the disorder? Does the Secretary of State think it is acceptable that private sector prisons do not have to reveal staffing levels in the way that prisons in the public sector do? If, like me, she does not believe it is acceptable, is she going to do anything about it? Does she regret her vitriolic attack on prison officers in the Chamber on 15 November? It even shocked many of her colleagues. Is it not about time that the Secretary of State starting listening to prison officers on the front line?

Of all prisons in 2015, Birmingham had the highest number of assaults on staff. There were 164 assaults on staff in 2015 alone. The Prison Officers Association, the Public and Commercial Services Union and the Prison Governors Association have warned of this crisis since 2010. It is about time that fundamental questions were asked about the way our prison system is working—or not working. The Secretary of State needs to consider whether or not it is right that private companies such as G4S at Birmingham or Sodexo at Northumberland, where there are also big problems, should be making profit from prisons and from society’s ills.

The Secretary of State needs to turn her mind to the fact that where rehabilitation fails and prison education is cut, reoffending rises. This is a failure to protect society. Privatisation of the probation service, savage cuts to prison staffing, overcrowding in our prisons and cuts to through-the-gate services all stop prison working and put the public at avoidable and increased risk. The Secretary of State should admit that in her overcrowded, understaffed prisons, shorter-sentence prisoners are leaving prison with drug addictions that they did not have when they went in and are leaving more likely to commit more serious crimes than those they were put away for in the first place. This is not protecting society; it is endangering society.

Such is the crisis in our prisons that the Secretary of State needs to develop an open mind on the future of our prisons. Is there anything we can learn from how prisons work in other countries? Perhaps we can learn from some of the experiences in Norway and elsewhere. But one thing is for sure: the USA model of huge, privately run super-prisons is not the way to go.

To conclude, 380 prisoners have been transferred from HMP Birmingham. Where have they been transferred to? Is G4S back running things in Birmingham now? Will the Government review the role of G4S and private companies in running our prisons? Does the Secretary of State finally realise that it was wrong and dangerous to cut 6,000 front-line prison staff in the first place? The crisis in our prisons is a symptom of a failing Government who have lost control.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Since I was appointed Secretary of State for Justice in July, I have been absolutely clear that we need to improve safety in our prisons and that the levels of violence we currently have are unacceptable. We are investing a further £500 million over the next three years, which was announced in the autumn statement, as part of our prison safety and reform plan to do just that.

The hon. Gentleman talked about psychoactive drugs and asked what we had done about them. We have put in place tests to detect those drugs and also trained up officers to detect them. We have rolled that out across the prison estate. We are also rolling out new measures to deal with mobile phones and investing in a £3 million intelligence unit.

The most important thing is our staff. I have huge respect for prison officers and their work. That is why we are strengthening the front line by 2,500 officers. That will ensure that we have one officer for every six prisoners, which will enable us not only to make prisons safer, but to turn lives around. We are getting a new apprenticeship scheme and creating a fast track so that we train existing officers and get them promotion within the service. That is a long-term programme—we are taking immediate action but hon. Members need to recognise that it will take time to bring those people online and get them trained up. In the meantime, we are ensuring that there is a full investigation at HMP Birmingham. There is a full police investigation and the perpetrators of the incident will feel the full force of the law. The reality is that their actions put both staff and prisoners at risk.

The hon. Gentleman asked about G4S. It will cover the cost of what happened at HMP Birmingham, including the resources employed by the public sector, but we need to be honest that this is a problem across our prison estate—we have seen issues at our private sector prisons and our public sector prisons. That is why our staff investments will be across the board, and why our reform measures and increased transparency, which the hon. Gentleman asked about, will apply to both public sector and private sector prisons.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the prison population. The reality is that it rose by 23,000 under the Labour Government between 1997 and 2010. It has been stable under this Government since 2010. He talked about short-sentence prisoners. The number of short-sentence prisoners has actually gone down by 1,500 since 2010; the increases have been in the number of, for example, sex offenders rightly being put away for those heinous crimes.

We are reforming our prisons but it will take time. We have the right measures in place to turn the tide, and we need to turn our prisons into places of safety and reform. We have taken immediate action to reduce risk across the estate, but everyone in the House must recognise that it will take time to ensure that our prisons become the places we want them to be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have been very clear that the independence of the judiciary is a vital part of our rule of law. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Courts and Justice has just said, it is important for the UK that British courts make those decisions, and that is precisely what we are going to achieve.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, said at the beginning of the article 50 appeal:

“This appeal is concerned with legal issues, and, as judges, our duty is to consider those issues impartially, and to decide the case, according to law. That is what we shall do.”

Does the Lord Chancellor agree that if she had done her duty and spoken out at the time to defend the judiciary, those words would not have been necessary?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I said earlier, I frequently make it clear that the independence of the judiciary is a vital part of our constitution and our freedoms. I also think that it is absolutely right that the President of the Supreme Court, who has absolute integrity and impartiality, should make that case as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

It is appalling that some taxi drivers refuse to take assistance dogs. That is an offence under the Equality Act 2010, and it can result in a fine of £1,000. I know that the Department for Transport is looking at improving training for drivers, and at the role that taxi licensing can play in eradicating this discrimination.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Given the Government’s climbdown on their outrageous plan for immigration and asylum tribunal fees, and if they really believe in access to justice, is it not about time they listened to opposition to their unaffordable employment tribunal fees and their small claims limit changes, which hit injured people on lower incomes, and to the urgent demands that they finally begin a review into their savage legal aid cuts?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have already announced a review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—we will shortly be announcing the timetable—but we need a system that is both open and affordable, which is exactly what the Government are delivering.

Prison Officers Association: Protest Action

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on today’s protest action by the Prison Officers Association.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the chance to update the House on this important issue.

Prison officers do a tough and difficult job, and I have been clear that we need to make our prisons safer and more secure. I have announced that an extra 2,500 officers will be recruited to strengthen the frontline. We are already putting in place new measures to tackle the use of dangerous psychoactive drugs and improve security across the estate.

I met the Prison Officers Association on 2 November. Over the past two weeks, my team has been holding talks with the POA on a range of measures to improve safety. Those talks were due to continue this morning. Instead, the POA failed to respond to our proposals and called this unlawful action, without giving any notice. The chief executive of the National Offender Management Service, Michael Spurr, spoke to POA chairman Mike Rolfe this morning reiterating our desire to continue talks today. That offer was refused. The union’s position is unnecessary and unlawful, and it will make the situation in our prisons more dangerous. We are taking the necessary legal steps to end this unlawful industrial action.

The Government are absolutely committed to giving prison officers and governors the support that they need to do their job and to keep them safe from harm. In addition to recruiting an extra 2,500 prison officers, we are rolling out body-worn cameras across the prison estate and we have launched a £3 million major crimes taskforce to crack down on gangs and organised crime. In September we rolled out new tests for dangerous psychoactive substances and we have trained 300 dogs to detect these new drugs. We have set up a daily rapid response unit, led by the prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), to ensure that governors and staff have all the support that they need.

Taken together, these measures will have a real and swift impact on the security and stability of prisons while we recruit additional front-line staff. I urge those on the Opposition Front Bench to join me in condemning this unlawful action, and in calling on the POA to withdraw this action and get back to the negotiating table.

[Richard Burgon]

The Justice Secretary has been told repeatedly that the prisons she presides over are dangerous and volatile. Assaults on staff and prisoners are rising. In the 12 months to June 2016, there were nearly 6,000 assaults on staff, 24,000 prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, and 105 self-inflicted deaths of prisoners. There are 6,000 fewer officers on the frontline than in 2010. Staff shortages are stark and morale is low, and officers and prisoners alike feel unsafe. The Government’s White Paper does not provide the rapid action that our prison system so urgently needs and has so long asked for.

The Secretary of State has consistently failed to acknowledge that this is a service in crisis. Today’s protest action by prison officers is the clearest sign yet of the fact that this is a crisis over which she and her ministerial colleagues have lost control. Will she confirm when she last spoke personally to representatives of the POA and when she will talk to them next? What solution was put to the POA to address urgently its concerns about safety? Does she accept that the increase in violence on staff and between prisoners is a direct result of her Government’s staff cuts? Does she regret her Government’s decision to cut 6,000 prison staff, and how does she intend to increase the number of prison officers now, not in two years’ time? This is a Secretary of State in denial. She has let down our judiciary, lost the confidence of our prison staff and failed to take effective action in the face of a crisis of violence in our prisons.

[Elizabeth Truss]

It is disgraceful that the hon. Gentleman refuses to condemn illegal industrial action that is putting our hard-working front-line prison staff at risk—it is completely irresponsible. I have made it absolutely clear ever since I was appointed to this role that safety is my No. 1 priority. That is why we are rolling out new tests for psychoactive substances and making sure that all staff have body-worn cameras. It is also why we are already recruiting new staff, for which we have announced a £100 million increase in the prison budget. The hon. Gentleman needs to act more responsibly. He needs to work with me, as does the Prison Officers Association, to make sure that our prisons are safer. Sanctioning illegal industrial action in our prison estate is actively putting people at risk of harm, and I ask him to reconsider his disgraceful stance.

Prison Safety and Reform

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

This morning the Secretary of State said that it was in July that she had realised that there was a problem in our prisons. The rest of the country was aware of that reality well before then. There is a crisis in our prisons, although the Secretary of State refuses to admit it openly. The story of our prison system since 2010 is a story of spiralling violence and drug use. The root cause of the prison crisis is the political decision to cut our prison service back to the bone, and today’s announcement feels a lot like “too little, too late”. The Secretary of State wants the headline to be “2,500 extra prison staff”, but 400 of those jobs have already been announced, and, in fact, it is 2,500 “extra” after a reduction of more than 6,000 on the front line.

It is deeply concerning that it was only after a threat of unofficial action that the Secretary of State was prepared to meet representatives of the Prison Officers Association to discuss the safety crisis in our prisons. However, she has finally met the leaders of the officers of whom she has asked so much, and they have made the scale of the crisis clear to her. Will she now admit that there is a Conservative cuts-created crisis in safety in our prisons? In his annual report, published in July, the chief inspector of prisons, Peter Clarke, described our prisons as

“unacceptably violent and dangerous places”.

Only if it is recognised that there is a prisons crisis can a prisons crisis be solved.

The Secretary of State clearly now feels that she needs to be seen to be doing something, but the provision of 2,500 extra prison officers is not a cause for celebration, given that more than 6,000 front-line prison officer jobs have been cut since 2010. We have a prison capacity of 76,000 and a prison population of 85,000, which has remained at about the same level since 2010. We had 24,000 prison officers to deal with 85,000 prisoners; now we have 18,000 to deal with the same number. Our hard-working prison staff are overstretched and overwhelmed, and what has that meant? It has meant a record number of prison deaths, including a record number of suicides. The rate is nearing one death every day. There have been 324 deaths this year, including 107 suicides. Overall, we have seen 1,416 deaths since 2010, including 473 suicides. There are now more than 65 assaults each day, and this year there have been nearly 24,000: there has been a huge surge in both prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and assaults on our hard-working prison staff. The statistics show that there have been more than 100,000 assaults in prisons since 2010.

Why is that? It is because the austerity experiment in our prison service has failed. The presence of fewer officers, overstretched and overwhelmed, means a stricter and increasingly unsafe prison regime, and it means that prisons cannot effectively reform and rehabilitate in the way that prisoners and wider society need. Working in prisons has become less appealing and more dangerous. The Government have said that they have recruited more than 3,100 prison officers since January 2015, but there has been a net increase of only 300 in that time. It is clear that they are failing on staff retention. Prison officers are now expected to work until they are 68, in conditions that the Prison Officers Association has described as

“dangerous for everyone, staff and prisoners alike.”

I am afraid that this Conservative Government have not valued hard-working prison staff; in fact, they have driven experienced staff out of our prisons.

Former Conservative Home Secretary and party leader Michael Howard famously said “Prison works.” Under this Conservative Government, prison isn’t working. Prison isn’t working for prisoners, prison isn’t working for our prison staff, and prison isn’t working for wider society. Reoffending rates are far too high, and the Government have failed on rehabilitation. Because prison isn’t working under this Government, it is not protecting our society properly.

The Justice Secretary has undoubtedly grabbed headlines by promising an increase in the number of prison officers, but she needs to tell us how she will attract new staff. She also needs to understand that building new prisons is not a panacea in itself. There are problems over how league tables would work in practice, and there is a tension between more autonomy for prison governors and new powers for the Secretary of State—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much indeed. I gave him an extra half minute, which I think was fair.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

The principle should be that if someone cannot pay and mitigation is required, then there should be a system of mitigation of fees. If someone is able to pay, given that this costs the country a huge amount of money, why should they not make a contribution if they are using these facilities?

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

In our country, it is a cornerstone of access to justice that there should be equality of arms in court. I was therefore shocked last week to hear the Minister of State for Courts and Justice tell us in an Adjournment debate on the Birmingham pub bombings that only

“an element of equality of arms”—[Official Report, 26 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 400.]—

is necessary. Will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and either reassure us that this was a mere slip of his well-trained legal tongue, or, alternatively, admit that his Government are reducing, not defending, access to justice?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

That is a bit rich when, at that debate, I was able to announce that the families had got a legal aid certificate through the Legal Aid Agency. The hon. Gentleman is now talking semantics. I was saying that the element that was needed of equality of arms was being met in accordance with the rules of the agency. When it comes to Labour politicians talking about cuts and concerns about legal aid, it is worth remembering why it was necessary to make those cuts—it was because of the mismanagement of the economy, which the Government inherited in 2010.

[Richard Burgon]

On the subject of that Adjournment debate of last Wednesday, Lynn Bennett died—[Interruption.] I will not give it up. Lynn Bennett died aged 18 in the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974. Her father, Stanley Bennett, and her sister, Claire Luckman, are still searching for the truth. On principle, they refuse to fill in means-testing forms for legal aid representation in the inquest into Lynn’s death. They believe that the state is forcing them effectively to beg for access to justice. Will the Justice Secretary today agree to go back to the Home Secretary and ask her to reconsider this, so that Stanley and Claire can have access to justice on behalf of Lynn?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Legal Aid Agency, which is independent, has considered two applications for legal aid. One has been granted, and on the other, as was pointed out in the debate, a way has been described and set out in which it would be possible for those families to have legal aid, too. There is no question but that the families can be, and will be, represented. I accept that the Birmingham pub bombings were the most dreadful incident of a generation. I said in the debate that I remembered, as a young student, the powerful effect on the whole country of the worst bombing incident since the second world war, in which 21 people died and 222 were injured. All our thoughts in this House are with the families, their loved ones, and those who had their lives affected. On how we deal with these very difficult inquests in a very special category of cases, I made it clear in the debate that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are working on that matter, looking at the precedents of what happened with Hillsborough and waiting for Bishop James Jones’s report. We will also look at all the matters that were discussed in that debate.

Domestic Abuse Victims in Family Law Courts

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I want to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), along with the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), and all the other hon. Members who have together secured this vital debate. I should also like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for affording Members this time in the Chamber to discuss this issue. Having listened to today’s discussions, I am sure we can all agree that the contributions have been powerful, moving, thought-provoking and well informed. I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute, as other hon. Members have done, to Claire Throssell and to thank her for all her work with Women’s Aid in trying to ensure that other mothers are protected in a way that, tragically, she and her children were not.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) has mentioned, the issues that we have discussed today have been brought into focus in recent weeks and months by a storyline in “The Archers”, which has dominated the news cycle over the past week. It is inspiring that a charity appeal inspired by the storyline on that radio show has raised more than £150,000 for the charity Refuge. I read this week about the tragic case of Mary Shipstone, whose estranged father murdered her before taking his own life. She and her mother had fled a life of violence and were living in a safe house. It was an act described by the serious case review as a “spite killing”, cynically designed to take the child from her mother and leave an indelible memory of Mary’s death. Another high-profile case, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), was that of Ellie Butler, who was murdered by her father following her return to her parents. These are events that no mother and no family should have to endure.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge told the Backbench Business Committee when she applied for this debate, it is important that the voices of these women should be heard. I especially want to congratulate her on fulfilling her promise to the Committee in her speech today. She made sure that the voices of those women were heard and put on parliamentary record the words of Claire.

I also congratulate Women’s Aid on publishing its urgent and important work, “Nineteen Child Homicides”, 12 years on from a similar shocking report. Much time may have passed since that original report’s publication and, although progress has been made in respect of domestic violence and the family courts, much more needs to be done. That 2004 report influenced the landscape of the family courts, and there is every reason to hope, following the debate today, that the latest report will also have a big effect. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), there needs to be a transformation of our family courts. They need to be an arena for justice, not a weapon with which those who have done wrong can seek to inflict further pain on those who have been wronged.

The case studies described in the report are truly shocking. All the perpetrators were fathers to the children they murdered, and all the murders took place in the context of child contact, whether informally or formally arranged between the parties. The cases to which the Women’s Aid report refer tend to show a deeply worrying pattern in which the fathers involved are actually known to agencies as perpetrators of domestic abuse. The reports’ findings show that a culture of “contact at all costs” has unfortunately arisen in our family courts. As long ago as 2006, however, the then Lord Justice Wall said in response to the first report from Women’s Aid on this subject:

“It is, in my view, high time that the Family Justice System abandoned any reliance on the proposition that a man can have a history of violence to the mother of his children but, nonetheless, be a good father.”

Against that background, it is particularly alarming that Women’s Aid found that the justice system still views the abuse of a mother by a partner or husband as somehow separate from the child’s safety. Anyone reading the report will agree that a review is necessary, but as shadow Justice Secretary I was particularly struck by the barriers identified in the report to ensuring that granting of child contact is safe.

Access to justice is no access at all if it does not also include access to advice and representation. As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), the coalition Government inflicted large cuts on the legal aid budget, and private family law cases were no exception to that damaging trend. Although the Government introduced interim regulations for family legal aid earlier this year, the picture has scarcely changed. Those seeking publicly funded legal representation must provide evidence. The time limit for submitting evidence may have been extended from two to five years, but many will wonder why there is a time limit at all. It may be more appropriate for an assessment of relevance to be made rather than to set an arbitrary period of time. It is the provision of evidence itself that causes difficulty and the report makes it clear that much of the required evidence is either “unavailable or unobtainable”. Practitioner groups I have met also report reluctance by some professionals to put the required evidence in writing. Those who do sometimes find their form returned because it is not in the prescribed format and so the process begins again.

At the time, the Government committed to review the effects of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 within three to five years. To date, not only has a review not been published, but no such review has started. It is alarming that some 38% of women were not in a position to obtain the necessary evidence to persuade the Legal Aid Agency that, as victims of domestic violence, they should be eligible for legal aid. More than a quarter of those women had no option other than to represent themselves in court as litigants in person. As outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), that can mean being cross-examined in court by the perpetrator of the abuse and the extra stress of having the sole responsibility for navigating the complex case law and legal processes. As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, when a defendant has no legal representation in the criminal courts they will be prevented, quite rightly, from cross-examining a complainant who alleges domestic violence. Instead, the court will appoint an advocate, paid for with public funds, to conduct cross-examination. If that is good enough for the criminal system, why is it not good enough in the family court system?

At her first Justice Committee appearance last week, the new Secretary of State for Justice stated that one of her three objectives was to realise a justice system that works for all, something with which we can all agree. If that is the case, she must turn her mind rapidly to the experiences we have heard today—the experiences of those in the family courts—because the clear evidence of this report is that this is not working for all. To that end, I was disappointed to hear that the all-party group on domestic violence has received no response to date to its “'Domestic Abuse, Child Contact and the Family Courts” report. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the all-party group and its chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley. I hope the new Justice Secretary will do more. I hope that she will take on the task of responding directly to the work of the all-party group and consider carefully the seven recommendations its report makes. As with the Women’s Aid report, it emphasises the need for better adherence to practice direction 12J. As we have heard, that relates to protecting the child and the parent they are living with, and ensuring that the best interests of the child are elevated above other considerations when determining child contact.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) so eloquently said, combating violence against women and girls must be a priority for all parties. Labour’s general election manifesto committed to establishing a commissioner on domestic and sexual violence, to influence priorities across all Departments. We also said that we would publish a violence against women and girls Bill, and provide more stable central funding for women’s refuges and rape crisis centres. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned, we welcome the Government’s change of position on women’s refuges and changes to housing benefit. But, fundamentally, the Government should heed this motion and implement a review as soon as possible. I commend the motion to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I would point out that this was in the Conservative party manifesto and we secured a majority at the general election. As I said, I will be in touch with the Scottish Justice Minister; I look forward to talking to him about this subject.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to her new role. It is good to see a Leeds person at each Dispatch Box. I understand that, like me, she comes from good, left-wing Leeds stock, and I look forward to our exchanges.

At the Secretary of State’s swearing-in ceremony, she quoted with approval the late Lord Bingham. On the Human Rights Act, Lord Bingham said in 2009:

“Which of these rights, I ask, would we wish to discard?”

He went on to say:

“There may be those who would like to live in a country where these rights are not protected, but I am not of their number.”

To give the Secretary of State another chance, because she failed to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), which of these rights does she wish to discard?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. It is great to have somebody who is also from Leeds facing me, although I learned the error of my ways after growing up in a left-wing household in that great city.

[Elizabeth Truss]

All I can say is that I believe that everyone is capable of reform, even those on the Opposition Benches. I have not yet given up hope on the shadow Secretary of State for Justice.

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to enhance human rights in this country. We have led the world in human rights since Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights that was published in Wales in 1689, and we will continue to do so.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the Secretary of State for that response, but let me say this:

“We were very clear that we will replace the Human Rights Act, which isn’t working for British people, with a British Bill of Rights that gives the ultimate power to citizens in this country.”

Those were the words of the Secretary of State on the “Today” programme in May 2015. Given that, and in the light of the answer that she has just given, can she explain to the House why she wants to rob the people of Britain of their rights? Will she admit that talk of a so-called Bill of Rights is simply posturing and making concessions to the hard right of the Conservative party?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Human rights were not invented in 1998 with the Human Rights Act. There are major issues with the Human Rights Act and we need to move forward. We need a British Bill of Rights that enshrines our ancient liberties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lee]

As I understand it, victims are now getting more of an opportunity to make a victim impact statement because they can do so online. I agree with my hon. Friend that that should be possible.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

As has been mentioned, today’s report on violence against women and girls shows an increase in prosecutions. However, victims charities remain concerned about their futures, as was stated by the chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Supporting Victims Group when asking the Ministry earlier this year to clarify what funding is available to PCCs. The Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that he will be “keeping an eye on this matter”. With respect, keeping an eye on the matter is not good enough. Will the Secretary of State now confirm that victims services will receive the full funding that they require?

[Dr Lee]

The victims services budget has increased significantly from £48 million in 2010-11 to about £95 million in the current financial year. In 2016-17, for example, we have allocated about £7 million to 99 rape support centres to provide therapeutic and practical help to male and female victims of rape and child sexual abuse. I do not recognise the description given by the shadow Secretary of State. The Government are committed to protecting victims, particularly women who have been victims of crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am a huge fan of apprenticeships. The new apprenticeship levy brings a big opportunity for some of our large legal services firms, and right across the board, to increase the number of apprenticeships. I will certainly be talking to those firms about that over the coming months.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

At one London provider of legal education, fees for the academic year ahead are as follows: nearly £11,000 for the graduate diploma in law; more than £15,000 for the legal practice course; and near to £19,000 for the Bar professional training course. That is on top of the cost of university education. Such fees are beyond the reach of many people from ordinary backgrounds. Given that reality, how will the Minister ensure a diverse legal profession?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have been discussing this matter right across the legal profession. At the younger end we are seeing a lot more diversity; the question is how people progress through the pipeline. I would like more transparency so that we can look at people moving through the system. I have no doubt that the Lord Chief Justice and leading judges want to see more diversity. They are very keen to work with me on this agenda.

Safety of Prison Staff

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for making those points. The report was exemplary, and, as I mentioned earlier, it has been a great help to the Ministry. I absolutely agree that we will bring forward an action plan and provide the House with regular updates on the steps that we are taking. He is also right to point out that the recruitment and retention of staff are critical. In response to his questions and those of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), I want to underline the fact that I want to work with the Prison Officers Association and all trade unions to ensure that legitimate concerns—all concerns, indeed—are addressed. I also want to ensure that we continue to attract high-quality people to the Prison Service, because it is a vital job.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The situation in our underfunded prisons is deteriorating. There have been consequences of the Government’s decision to cut £900 million from the Ministry of Justice budget. Assaults on staff and on prisoners are up. There are 13,000 fewer prison staff than there were in 2010, but there are more prisoners. The Government have made prisons less safe for staff and for prisoners. It is a service in crisis. On Friday, members of the Prison Officers Association held meetings outside prisons across the country to discuss what they call the “perpetual crisis” in the Prison Service. The Secretary of State has accepted that there are “significant problems”. The chief inspector has said prisons are “a lot more dangerous” and that staff shortages have had an impact. The Justice Committee has demanded an “action plan”. In the light of all this, will the Secretary of State tell us whether he or the National Offender Management Service have spoken to the Prison Officers Association since Friday’s meetings outside the prisons?

What is the Secretary of State’s plan to reduce staff assaults, which have increased by 36% in the past year? On the £10million that he has allocated to staff safety, if he finds, as I suspect he will, that the significantly higher spending he has experimentally allocated to Bristol, Hewell and Rochester does indeed have a much greater impact, will he increase safety spending elsewhere? In relation to the prisons identified for greater operational freedom in the upcoming prison and courts reform Bill—a process the Secretary of State has likened to school academisation—will he confirm that we will not see any watering down of staff terms and conditions or creeping privatisation? Is it not time that this Government stopped failing prison staff, failing prisons and failing our society in this regard?

[Michael Gove]

First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role on the Front Bench. I know that he has a distinguished legal career behind him, and that he has represented some of the most vulnerable in our society. His questions today go directly to the heart of the matter and I am grateful to him for giving me this opportunity to respond to them. We have spoken to the Prison Officers Association. Senior figures in the National Offender Management Service have been in touch with the POA, and we will continue to be in touch in the future. When the Prime Minister made a landmark speech on prisons earlier this year, I had the opportunity to talk to senior figures in the Prison Officers Association and found their approach to be constructive and cordial, and I want to maintain good relations with them.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that the £10 million may need to be increased and that we may need to invest more money in staff safety. We will of course monitor how the money is spent. It has been given to individual governors to spend as they think fit, but we will do everything possible to ensure that the resources are there to safeguard not only those who work in our prisons, but the welfare of those in custody.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the prison and courts reform Bill and the principle that the six reform prisons should have a greater degree of autonomy. He asked whether academisation, as an analogy, is a prelude to privatisation. The governors of those six prisons do exercise a greater degree of autonomy, but it is not intended that that should come at the cost of staff terms, conditions, security, safety or prospects. We want to ensure that staff in every prison feel that the idealistic work that they do is valued and rewarded, and that outstanding governors who are taking forward change in such prisons live and breathe respect for their staff every day.

Draft Civil Proceedings, First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and Employment Tribunals Fees (Amendment) Order 2016

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 General Committees

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I thank the Minister for his kind remarks, and I look forward to having many a constructive conversation and debate with him and his colleagues.

This is our second opportunity this week to debate court and tribunal fees, following the debate on Monday in the Chamber, during which we had the opportunity to discuss the Select Committee on Justice’s recent report on the issue. Hon. Members will recall that although it was an estimates vote on Monday night, Labour decided to treat it as a vote on tribunal fees in order to make clear our opposition to the Government’s policy on employment tribunal fees, so strong is our belief that they are a barrier to justice. Today we have an opportunity to make another clear statement on barriers to access to justice, as we discuss the proposed increases in court and tribunal fees set out in the order.

On Monday, I made it clear that I see it as my priority in my new role as shadow Justice Secretary to speak up for all those whose access to justice has been deliberately obstructed by this Government and the coalition Government who preceded them. We will assess the order on two grounds: affordability in providing access to justice and the Government’s evidence base for the proposals.

In principle, we can be in no doubt whatever that civil litigation fees discourage claims, particularly from those least well placed to afford them, such as people in receipt of benefits, whether unemployed or on low pay, women, black or minority ethnic individuals, the disabled and those seeking asylum. The introduction of fees in employment tribunals has coincided with an enormous fall of 70% or thereabouts in claims being brought, particularly those relating to sex discrimination, pregnancy or maternity rights, race discrimination and disability discrimination.

[Chris Stephens]

Is the shadow Secretary of State aware that there has also been a 70% drop in workers pursuing claims for non-payment of the national minimum wage?

[Richard Burgon]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important and alarming point. The reason for the drop in claims, whether those for enforcement of the national minimum wage or the other claims that I have outlined, is not that bad employment practices have suddenly become much rarer since the introduction of employment tribunal fees; it is that the fees are deterring people from making claims. That is not good for anybody, because employment tribunals deter bad employers from following bad practices and even protect employees who would never dream of making a claim themselves.

Today, the Government are proposing a 10% increase in civil litigation fees across the board. When did anyone who has to pay those fees have a 10% pay rise? I know from my previous brief as shadow City Minister that there are some people who might expect a 10% pay rise, but which council worker, health worker or factory worker—which of our constituents—last received a 10% pay increase? We need to be clear: this inflation-busting increase will lift access to justice further out of the reach of ordinary people on ordinary pay who receive ordinary pay awards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East put that point well in his intervention.

Today’s debate is also about the principle of court fees and how the legal system is increasingly used, in the words of the Law Society, as “a profit centre”. On Monday, I highlighted in the Chamber how concerned I was that litigants are increasingly treated as customers. As I said, I remember the first time, as an employment lawyer, I assisted a claimant to make a claim following the introduction of employment tribunal fees. I was sickened to see the following words on the Employment Tribunals Service website: “Customer, please enter your credit card details”. I was shocked and saddened to see that we are not treating people as citizens trying to assert their statutory rights; we are increasingly seeing them as consumers or customers. That shows the wrong priorities on the Government’s part.

We also need to be clear that the fee remission system in employment tribunals often requires people to provide a humiliating level of detail. I remember receiving remission forms requiring bank statements, and on one claimant’s remission form the Employment Tribunals Service had highlighted the fact that in December they had received a bank transfer of £12 from a relative. They were asked to explain what that £12 was for and why it was sent to them. If I remember correctly, it was money relating to a Christmas present, but that is the kind of intrusion that people are subjected to. It is almost as though the service did not want people to apply for fee remissions. Of those who do apply, only about 3.7% get any joy.

So why are the Government doing this? On Monday we discussed employment tribunal fees, which contribute something like £7 million of the £70 million-plus that it costs to run the Employment Tribunals Service. Today we are discussing a measure that the Government’s impact assessment says will bring in £5.9 million, but which will see fees leap up in a way that will make individuals think twice before applying. Some of those increases are as follows. A request to reconsider at a hearing a decision on permission in the immigration and asylum chamber will increase from £350 to £385; the High Court fee will increase from £480 to £528; and the fee for a contested hearing in the magistrates court will increase from £515 to £567. In the civil court, the fee for permission to proceed with a judicial review will increase from £700 to £770. Those increases are simply unfair and will deny access to justice.

The Government are clearly concerned enough by the fall in applications to employment tribunals that they have agreed, correctly, to initiate a review of the impact of employment tribunal fees. They are yet to produce or publish that report, five months after it was given to the Minister. Now they wish to push ahead with increasing civil litigation fees in a number of areas—including the property chamber, the immigration and asylum chamber and others—without publishing their review of employment tribunal fees or carrying out a further review of the affordability of civil court fees and the fee remission system. Such a review should take place, and it is not just those on the Labour Benches saying that. A number of stakeholders advocated that approach in response to the Government’s consultation. I am sad to say that the Government do not seem to be listening to those stakeholders.

The Government conducted a consultation on the increases in court and tribunal fees, following which they concluded that they still wished to impose a general 10% increase in civil litigation fees. That decision flies in the face of the submitted evidence. I would argue that the key question in that consultation was the one that asked:

“Do you agree with the proposal to uplift all civil fees not affected by one of the other specific proposals by 10%?”

The Government’s response noted that of 82 responses to that question, four agreed and 78 disagreed, and stated:

“Those who disagreed raised a number of opposing arguments,”

including that

“it would deter people from bringing claims”

and

“prevent people from accessing justice”.

There were 46 responses to the question:

“Do you agree with Government’s proposal to increase the fees charged for proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)?”

Some 37 of those responses disagreed with that proposal, saying that

“people seeking asylum in many cases were vulnerable and would be unable to afford the fees”,

and that

“the fees would prevent access to justice”.

The Justice Committee report, the words of which should weigh heavily on Members from all parts of the House, highlighted considerable concern at the Government’s proposals to set immigration fees at a cost recovery level.

I wish to highlight some of the arguments that the Law Society set out in opposition to the increase in fees in its submissions to the Government consultation and the Select Committee inquiry. I will quote the Law Society at some length, because it is worth listening to. It said:

“It is wrong in principle for the court service to be treated as a profit centre—the courts have a vital social function which it is for the State to provide, and should not be treated as a commercial activity to subsidise other work…The Government’s decision will discourage people from bringing legitimate cases, thus reducing access to justice…The proposals are not supported by any evidence or concrete proposals to indicate how the Government will use the money gained to improve the court service ... The research on which the decision was based is inadequate.”

The submission says that there is limited evidence of the impact on the poor in society, particularly in the immigration field.

The submission continues to say that

“fee increases will shift the burden of responsibility and costs onto innocent parties, deterring individuals from seeking redress and creating another barrier to access to justice…The income level at which fee remissions is available is far too low to be of any assistance to the majority of individuals—it is below the threshold for eligibility for civil legal aid…Increased fees could lead to the prospect of clients having to take out loans to fund court fees. This will only serve to create a further barrier to justice as many clients will not want to take out a loan or will not meet banks’ lending criteria. Those who do take out loans will have to pay interest…The process of applying for the remission of court fees is also highly complicated, designed seemingly to deter ordinary people from applying and in urgent need of simplification.”

I apologise for quoting at such length, but it is important that the Law Society’s comments are heard, heeded and put on record. They are damning words from a respected body of professionals who keep our legal system running.

I will also take a moment to highlight the concerns of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. It highlighted the fact that the Immigration Act 2014 dramatically reduced rights of appeal in immigration and asylum cases. It said to me that in many cases, access to judicial review

“will provide the only remedy to challenge the certification of a case as one in which the appeal may be conducted from outside the UK without leading to a breach of human rights including serious and irreversible harm”.

It said that access to judicial review

“will therefore be an essential safeguard against poor quality decision-making in this context and the risk of removal leading to breaches of human rights breaches.”

It concluded that in many cases, applicants

“will be facing imminent removal. Finding the funds to pay court fees or completing complicated applications for remission of the fees”

is complicated by the urgency of their cases. It also blames the Home Office for creating those court costs through

“poor decisions with (high overturn rates on appeal), to create delays in immigration proceedings and to fail consistently and timeously to give effect to the decisions of the courts.”

On the back of those concerns, we also have the latest proposal to increase immigration and asylum chamber fees, but I will leave that point there.

The one positive item in the order is the proposal to reclassify posted workers’ claims against employers in the employment tribunal as type A rather than type B claims, meaning that a lower fee will be payable. But one swallow does not make a summer, and in any event we remain committed to the abolition of employment tribunal fees under a Labour Government.

The Law Society has advised me that

“in light of the damning report from the Justice Select Committee on the impact of fee increases, the Law Society believes that any further increases should not be implemented until at the very least the MoJ has responded to that report, and preferably until a proper review has been carried out of the impact.”

I agree. I therefore ask the Minister the following. Will he listen to stakeholders from across the legal profession and conduct a review of the impact of civil litigation fees? Since it is three days since our last debate, is there any news on when he will publish the review of employment tribunal fees?

Given the evidence that court fees are a barrier to justice and given that the Government have refused to conduct or publish sufficient reviews of the impact of court fees, I confirm that we will divide the Committee to demonstrate the Opposition’s commitment to access to justice and to oppose the across-the-board, inflation-busting increase of 10% that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East so eloquently described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that where it is necessary for cases to go to the tribunal, people can recover their costs if they win.

[Richard Burgon]

On the subject of lawyers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw mentioned, I have been thinking about what the Minister said earlier. He said that to say that fees were about treating courts as a profit centre showed—I think these were his words, as Hansard will show—“a complete misunderstanding” of the court system. If I remember correctly, the quote to which he was responding was from the Law Society. Is he saying that the Law Society has a complete misunderstanding of the court system?

[Mr Vara]

There are various stakeholders involved in this debate and there are a variety of views. I disagree with the views that have been put forward, and that is why these fees are being introduced. I simply say as far as fees are concerned—this applies to employment tribunal fees as well as all the other fees that are relevant to the order—that a remission process exists. Subject to meeting the right criteria, people can apply for remission of the fees.

The Government estimate that the measures in the order will generate about £6 million per annum in additional income, with every pound that is collected being spent on providing an efficient and effective courts and tribunals system. The purpose of these reforms is to increase fee income and so reduce the costs of the courts to the taxpayer, and to ensure that access to justice and to the Courts and Tribunals Service is protected. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Question put.

Courts and Tribunals Fees

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond for the Opposition. I am following in the footsteps of a very learned gentleman: Baron Falconer of Thoroton. In terms of my legal career, I am not quite so learned. Before I was elected to represent my constituents, I was a lawyer for 10 years in my home city of Leeds. In eight years as an employment lawyer, I saw—like my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders)—many changes to employment law. As an employment lawyer, I was angry at what the introduction of employment tribunal fees in 2011 did to access to justice. Today, I am here at the Dispatch Box to speak up for all those whose access to justice has been deliberately obstructed by this Government and the coalition Government who preceded them.

I want to share with hon. Members my memory of the first time I lodged an employment tribunal claim after the introduction of employment tribunal fees in 2011. I was shocked and saddened to see the following words appear on the computer screen: “Customer, please enter your credit card details”. That made me sick to my stomach. Are we saying that people attempting to assert their statutory rights, such as the statutory right to be paid the national minimum wage and the statutory right not to be discriminated against at work on grounds of gender, sexuality, religious belief or disability, are reduced to being consumers or customers?

[Mr Djanogly]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Burgon]

I will not be giving way because there is limited time and I want to give the Minister as much time as possible to answer.

Are we saying that these people are reduced to being customers? In fact, they should be viewed as citizens trying to assert their statutory rights and to seek justice. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) is annoyed, but not as annoyed as many across the country who have seen their access to justice so unnecessarily restricted.

The Select Committee’s report, which I commend, recommends that

“the overall quantum of fees charged for bringing cases to employment tribunals should be substantially reduced”

and that

“the Ministry…should introduce a system for regular rerating of remission thresholds to take account of inflation”.

I think, as do plenty of people outside this place, that we need to go further than that, but the report is nevertheless to be commended.

We have heard excellent contributions to this debate from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I particularly welcome the opening speech by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who is Chair of the Justice Committee, which, as he explained, unanimously supported the report’s recommendations. In response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), we do recognise the concerns of the Campaign for Freedom of Information.

How can it be disputed, after what we have heard today, that access to justice has been harmed, not helped, by this Government and their coalition predecessor? Many of us know of this from our own experience as MPs, with our constituency advice sessions overflowing with people who do not know where to turn when they cannot access or afford legal advice or legal representation. Legal aid has been attacked, employment tribunal fees have been introduced, and fees are being increased in divorce proceedings and in immigration and asylum cases. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) explained, these fees risk dissuading people from litigating at all, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) indicated, they have a discriminatory impact.

The Select Committee is right to be concerned about the effect of court and tribunal fees on women in particular. The increase in the divorce petition fee from £410 to £500 disproportionally hits women, who are the vast majority of divorce petitioners. Why should the Government be increasing what could be termed a “divorce tax” on people, including women, who have suffered domestic violence or emotional abuse? Why are the Government charging more for a divorce petition than it costs to process it? Should the state really be making money from people’s misery? What have people bringing cases in the immigration and asylum chambers done to deserve a proposed 600% increase in fees? This is an attack on some of our society’s most vulnerable people—those seeking asylum. As we heard here last week, this takes place against a backdrop of growing attacks on people who are perceived to be migrants.

Let me turn to the Select Committee’s concerns about employment tribunal fees. The report quotes from the Odysseus Trust, which describes tribunal fees as

“a tax on justice imposed to enable HM Treasury to profit from people seeking to enforce their legal rights”.

The same paragraph quotes the organisation, Working Families, which says that

“these fees imperil the rule of law.”

That is also the view of legal experts. The Select Committee heard from Jonathan Smithers, the president of the Law Society, who said that there was the possibility of

“a two-tier justice system for the rich and the poor”

and that any increase in fees will militate for that rather than against it. Chantal-Aimée Doerries, chair of the Bar Council, said:

“Our members who practise in the employment tribunals have very much formed the conclusion that the challenge at the moment is the level of fees in terms of access.”

The Select Committee concluded, and I hope that the whole House weighs these words very carefully:

“Where there is conflict between the objectives of achieving cost-recovery and preserving access to justice, the latter objective must prevail.”

I could not agree more.

Employment tribunal fees have cut access to justice. As we have heard, there has been a 70% or so reduction in employment tribunal cases being brought. Cases on unauthorised deductions from wages are down by 56%. Cases on unfair dismissal are down by 72%. Cases on equal pay are down by 58%. Cases on sex discrimination are down by 68%, and cases on race discrimination are down by 60%. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) observed so effectively, is anybody seriously arguing that this drop in the number of claims being brought means that there has been a sudden damascene conversion of all the employers in the country and that bad treatment has been abolished and consigned to the history books? Of course not; it is just that claims are not being brought. We must remember the deterrent factor. Employment tribunal claims do not just help those who bring them; they also help those who would never dream of doing so. The possibility of the claim being brought acts as a deterrent against employers engaging in bad and discriminatory behaviour.

The true nature of the remission system must be discussed. I remember, when I was an employment lawyer, helping people to fill in the remission fees forms and watching them do so, with the amount of humiliating detail they are expected to go into in providing so many bank statements and all their other details. I remember getting documents back from the employment tribunals service where people had highlighted in yellow on someone’s bank statement the fact that they had had £12 transferred into their bank account by a relative and asked them to explain what this money was for, where it had come from, and why. Unison is correct to say that the remission system is not working. Unison argues that the equality impact assessment of July 2012, before the introduction of fees, said that it was expected that 23.9% of claimants would benefit from full remission and 53% of claimants would benefit from the variable discounts on fee rates up to £950, but the actual figures suggest that only 3.87% of claimants benefit from any remission. That is shocking.

With these statistics in mind, I welcome the Select Committee’s criticism of the Ministry for failing to publish the review on the impact of employment tribunal fees. The Select Committee said:

“On the basis of…evidence to us on 9 February, we assumed that the review would be published shortly”.

It also said:

“We have not appreciated being strung along in this fashion”,

and that it is “unacceptable” that it remains unpublished six months later. Who would not agree with that when ordinary people continue to miss out on justice? It is therefore welcome that as well as the pressure brought to bear by the Select Committee’s report we continue to see a legal challenge to employment tribunal fees by the trade union Unison, which has now taken its case to the Supreme Court, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) mentioned.

I would like to say more, but I wish to give the Minister an opportunity to address some of the concerns that I and others have outlined today. I reiterate my support for the Select Committee’s request that the Government publish their review on the impact of tribunal fees and reconsider their approach of treating court users as customers.

Sir Hartley Shawcross, who was Attorney General from 1945 to 1951, when we had a fantastic Government who changed things for the better, said about the Legal Aid and Advice Bill in 1948:

“It is a Bill which will open the doors of the courts freely to all persons who may wish to avail themselves of British justice without regard to the question of their wealth or ability to pay…indeed, going back further to the time when Magna Charta decreed that: ‘To no one will we sell, deny, or delay right or justice.’—it is an interesting historical reflection that our legal system, admirable though it is, has always been in many respects open to, and it has received, grave criticisms on account of the fact that its benefits were only fully available to those who had purses sufficiently long to pay for them.”—[Official Report, 15 December 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1221.]

Nobody could put it better or advocate those principles more effectively, but regrettably they are up for debate again.

This is an estimates day debate. I can make it clear now, with no ifs or buts, that a Labour Government, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) as Prime Minister, will abolish employment tribunal fees and pursue the principle of access to justice for all. The usual convention is not to vote on estimates day. However, such is the strength of feeling in the parliamentary Labour party that we will vote against this motion on a point of principle.