| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I recognise that the burden of the hon. Gentleman's case is that the CPS is guilty of discrimination on racial grounds, but is he also contending that it is guilty of discrimination on grounds of sex or sexuality, or both?
Mr. Dismore: I make no comment on those issues. There is some suggestion, particularly in the case of Mrs. Bamieh, of discrimination on the grounds of gender. There is more general evidence in the media of possible discrimination on the grounds suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but that is not the thrust of my argument. The evidence that I have come across relates primarily to issues of race, and that is what I intend to focus on. That is not to say that I give the CPS a clean bill of health on the other issues, but I do not seek to make a case about them today.
There has been progress on the prosecutions policy. The 1997-98 annual report of the racial incident monitoring scheme showed that 1,506 cases were sent to the CPS for prosecution and were identified as racial incidents, and 1,324 of those were prosecuted, which is an increase of 10 per cent. on the previous year. The CPS identified 63 per cent. of cases as racial incidents, and the police identified only 37 per cent. of cases as such, so the CPS has a good record of spotting the cases in question. Prosecutors highlighted racial features to the courts in 85 per cent. of the cases prosecuted, and the courts increased the sentence in 22 per cent. of those cases.
In 1999, a Home Office publication, "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System", highlighted the suggestion that
- compared with white defendants, the CPS discontinued a higher proportion of cases involving black defendants on evidential grounds and were more likely to reduce charges . . .
The CPS response to the Lawrence inquiry made it clear that all prosecution advocates should know that they should never accept a plea of guilty on condition that evidence of a racist motivation is excluded. That is a welcome development, as is the work by the CPS in multi-agency panels in the community which involve the police, the probation service and local authorities.
That is all very good news, as is the report that was published by a university of Hull researcher, Dr. Mhlanga, last October. That seemed to suggest that defendants from ethnic minorities are not receiving a harsher deal than white defendants. Against that must be balanced the Denman report's comments on the university of Hull work which suggest that the CPS may simply be redressing the balance in respect of action taken by the police. There is concern among CPS ethnic minority lawyers about the suggestion that there might still be discrimination against black and Asian defendants. The problem was again highlighted last year in Judge Gerald
Butler's report on CPS decisions about prosecutions arising from deaths in custody. That is all that I shall say on prosecution policy because, although such mixed evidence exists, progress is being made.4.30 pm
Under amendment No. 1, I suggest that the inspectorate should highlight in its report the progress that has been made to eliminate discriminatory practices from prosecution policy and decisions. That would be a useful tool to allow progress on prosecution policy to be monitored. It would perhaps provide an additional spur to those in charge at the CPS and down the chain of prosecutors, and ensure that not only the policies on which they act, but the individual decisions that they take, would be non-discriminatory. It would be welcome and beneficial if the inspectorate were asked to prepare such submissions for its report.
As I have said, my main concern is less about prosecution policies than about CPS internal employment policies, which is what I address primarily in amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I am concerned that, although there is increasing evidence of discriminatory policies and practices in the CPS, its management seems not to have taken them on board as well it perhaps should. That is why the inspectorate should be charged with a much stronger role in overseeing such matters. We should be satisfied that it would re-examine them. That would encourage management to get their act together and to report progress in the annual report.
This is a serious issue. On 11 May, The Guardian reported that there have been no fewer than 22 employment tribunal claims against the Crown Prosecution Service since 1993. Three cases were decided last year, all of which involved my constituent, Mrs. Bamieh. A case involving Mrs. Amin was decided the previous year. The Commission for Racial Equality referred in its 1997 annual report to the complaints about discrimination in the CPS that it had received from ethnic minority barristers and solicitors. In its 1998 annual report, the commission said that it continued to receive complaints from ethnic minority staff about unequal access to promotion opportunities. An employment tribunal took the unusual step of referring specifically to the CRE's powers of investigation to address some of the wider issues. If the inspectorate were charged with properly investigating such issues, there might be an additional reason why the CRE should not have to investigate the CPS, but I shall return to the CRE's role shortly.
Mrs. Amin's case was decided in 1998. Four days later, she was relocated against her will and claimed that she had been victimised. Her complaint was ultimately supported. My constituent Mrs. Bamieh has brought four cases against the CPS so far, one of which was settled. I understand that the others went to hearings. She was subjected to discrimination even while her cases were under way. One of her cases last year arose out of the CPS's failure properly to consider her for promotion. She went before a promotion board on 18 February 1999, and was told on 26 February that she had passed. In the meantime, in March and April 1999 an employment tribunal heard the case arising from the failure to promote her previously, but no decision was promulgated. On 19 April 1999, she was given feedback by the Director
of Public Prosecutions himself. That was after the evidence had been taken and the tribunal had heard her case, but before it had given a ruling.The DPP said to her--it is what he admits to having said:
- If you now obtain a promotion, you will be seen as a trouble maker rewarded. If you did not, you would feel you were being punished for being a trouble maker.
The tribunal that examined Mrs. Bamieh's case gave its decision on 8 June 1999. It found unanimously that she had been discriminated against and victimised. She had made two previous applications: in 1995 and 1997. Two cases involving co-applicants, Mr. Shah and Mr. Navapurkar, had been settled. They arose out of the conduct of the same promotion board.
The tribunal found that the promotion board conducted its interviews and marking system subjectively; it abandoned the guidelines that it had been given; it failed to give full account to performance reviews; it failed to keep a proper record of its discussions; and it did not fully mark Mrs. Bamieh's performance. One of the people on the board was intemperate towards her and failed to mark on that very question, which led to the remark about which she complained. His notes were marked with the words "extra care". The tribunal found that that was simply a reference to her previous tribunal cases. It found that she had suffered a detriment, and that she had been victimised in the way that she had been treated. The inference was that the reason for that was her race.
I have quoted only briefly from the tribunal judgment. It is a full decision. It seems that the CPS management has yet to take on board the lessons from those conclusions. My amendment suggests that such decisions should be subjected to study by the inspectorate. That would be a good way in which to try to take that issue forward.
After or around the time of the judgment, the DPP spoke to a meeting of ethnic minority lawyers. He said in response to a question from my constituent--why were people with "racist minds" still in senior positions--that he preferred finding "non-confrontational ways" of dealing with staff. He added:
- Every offence, whether it be an offence of a racist kind or any other, has to be looked at in the round . . . The CPS can ill-afford to lose lawyers of real talent.
In May 1999, in an article in The Lawyer magazine, the DPP said
- I have conceded previously that the CPS is far from perfect--
- but I do not believe it is "inherently racist".
To add insult to injury, three of the people who were involved in that employment tribunal case were later promoted. Those are the sort of issues that the CPS inspectorate should look into. It should look into why the three people who were directly involved in the complaint to the employment tribunal, and whose role was examined by the tribunal, were thereafter promoted in preference to the complainant, who should have been promoted in the first place.
If the inspectorate is serious about its role of looking at the way in which the CPS operates, that is exactly the sort of issue that it should look at. Why are the people whom the employment tribunal effectively found guilty--in the general sense--of direct or indirect discrimination promoted, while my constituent, who was found worthy of promotion--the employment tribunal found that she should have been promoted--is denied promotion?
That is a serious issue which is yet to be addressed by the CPS management, but could be addressed by the inspectorate in studying the conclusions of employment tribunals, as suggested by amendment No. 2. It could ultimately, I hope, come to conclusions, which it could refer to in the annual report--which is suggested by amendment No. 3--in order to deal with those criticisms.
I mentioned the role of the Commission for Racial Equality, which was planning to hold a formal investigation into the CPS and its employment role. Unfortunately, that seems not to be going ahead. That goes back to my point about the need for the CPS inspectorate to adopt an on-going monitoring role on such issues rather than the CRE conducting a one-off, big-hit investigation.
On 28 July, the CPS published an equality statement, and there has been a plethora of similar statements and policy documents since. None the less, the problems continue. I refer briefly to the second employment tribunal decision last year for my constituent Mrs. Bamieh. Again it was found that she had been directly discriminated against on the grounds of her race and sex while employed at the Artillery Row branch. I raised the issue with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General during Question Time on 21 October last year. In reply, he rightly referred to the equality statement and the setting up of the equality committee to promote a programme of change. He continued:
- An action plan on race will be drawn up by the end of the year. The selection and appointment of a new diversity manager is in hand.--[Official Report, 21 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 568.]
Some race awareness training has been introduced, but it is generally accepted that it is inadequate. The CRE announced that it was no longer to conduct its inquiry solely on the basis of the Sylvia Denman inquiry, to which I have just referred and on which I will need to comment again.
The last employment tribunal decision that I shall mention was that of 31 January, again for my constituent Mrs. Bamieh, which resulted in the tribunal awarding her £39,000, or thereabouts, in compensation and being ordered to change its policies on the awarding of temporary, acting-up posts of prosecution team leaders.
The aggravating factors identified by the employment tribunal are entirely damning and ought to be looked into by somebody. My concern, which is supported by Mrs. Denman's conclusions, is that the CPS management simply does not seem to be addressing many of the issues. If the management is not able to address them, who can? The answer must be the CPS inspectorate, as suggested in amendment No. 1.
The aggravating factors included the management's intemperate attitude and the scorn with which my constituent was treated; allegations that she was lying;
- the . . . decision which it is now clear lay behind all
- publication of a newsletter proposing . . . a meeting
- the hollowness of an apology
- fallen below that which we would have expected of a corner shop,
- rub her face in the dirt.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |