Official for Judicial Complaints (Annual Report 2011-12)

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Friday 13th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

With the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, I will today publish the sixth annual report of the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC). The OJC provides support to the Lord Chief Justice and myself in our joint responsibility for the system of judicial complaints and discipline.

I welcome the publication of this report which provides details of the important work undertaken by the OJC over the past year.

I am pleased to note that the OJC continues to provide a transparent and effective complaint handling service; dealing with over 1,600 complaints and 500 enquiries in last year, while continuing to deliver improved efficiency and value for money in the services it provides.

I note also the encouraging progress which has been made with the ongoing review of the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2006 (as amended) which is seeking to improve and streamline the judicial disciplinary process. The public consultation on the proposed regulatory changes closed on 23 May 2012 and the Lord Chief Justice and I look forward with interest to receiving the recommendations of the working group, which is currently considering the consultation responses.

The next 12 months look set to present a significant challenge to the OJC as, in partnership with key stakeholders, it seeks to define and implement a revised regulatory framework and improved disciplinary processes.

Copies of the report are available in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. Copies of the Report are also available on the internet at:

http://judicialcomplaints.judiciary.gov.uk/publications.htm.

Community Payback

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Friday 13th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

In the range of community sentences, Community Payback is primarily a punishment. It also enables offenders to be reformed and to make reparation for their crimes by doing unpaid work which benefits the community. We want to improve Community Payback provision through innovation, higher standards of quality in delivery and better value for the taxpayer. We also want to increase public confidence in this sentence so that offenders are seen to be punished for their crime, to make amends for the damage caused to individuals and communities and to be prepared for an honest hard-working life after the end of their sentence.

We seek to ensure that, in delivering Community Payback, we open up public services to draw on the skills and innovative capacity of the private, voluntary and social enterprise sectors. In June 2011 we launched a competition for the provision of Community Payback services in the London Probation Area. This opened the way for three private sector bidders to compete for the provision of these services. This is the first time that a major area of probation work has been opened up to the private sector through a competitive bidding exercise. It follows that the contract award that I am announcing today represents a significant step forward in using competition to improve the delivery of probation services, in line with the proposals set out in the Green Paper “Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders”.

The winner of the competition to provide Community Payback services in the London Probation Area is Serco. The winning bid delivers substantial savings to the taxpayer of £25 million (37 %) over the life of the four-year contract. They will work closely with a range of providers to deliver the service, including London Probation Trust. The new contract arrangements will see greater involvement of local communities in how Community Payback services are delivered in their areas. There will also be better coordination of services across London as a result of the establishment of a dedicated control centre to oversee operations on a day to day and real time basis. The new service will begin in October this year. The contract will run for four years initially. We expect to re-compete the service after that.

Serco will have a number of contractual and delivery requirements to meet, which are intended to raise the performance and quality of service provision. These include offenders being allocated to work promptly after sentence, offenders successfully completing their Community Payback requirement and where they do not comply, enforcement action being taken quickly. Work has to be visible and of demonstrable benefit to local communities.

As I have indicated, the result of this competition shows that it is possible to achieve considerable savings on the current cost of Community Payback provision while at the same time developing other non-financial benefits such as innovation in the delivery of the service, higher quality, improved compliance, more rapid commencement and intensive working for unemployed offenders. We are also expecting to see wider engagement with the public which will improve levels of confidence in the Community Payback service. Overall, our intention is to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system while reducing the cost to the taxpayer.

I turn now to updating the House on our wider programme of offender services competitions.

A key element of the “Open Public Services” White Paper published last year was that the provision of public services would be opened up to a wider variety of organisations as part of the Government’s commitment to improving the quality of public services. Competition not only promotes greater diversity in our provider base, but is also a powerful driver of more efficient and effective offender services. The Ministry of Justice’s “Offender Services Competition Strategy” published a year ago is making this policy a reality.

In the “Competition Strategy” I made a commitment to publish an annual update. The update covers activity on offender services competitions over the past year, gives an overview of current activity, and lists competitions that we plan to run in the following 12 months. It will be clear from the update that this amounts to a large and continuing programme of activity.

As well as the Community Payback competition in London, the update covers Prisons Competitions Phases One and Two, Prisoner Escort and Custody Services, Electronic Monitoring, Payment by Results pilots and the Offender Learning and Skills Services.

In relation to custodial services, for example, we have already completed the competitions for four prisons (HMP Birmingham, HMP Buckley Hall, HMP Doncaster, and HMP Oakwood) and we expect these to generate significant savings of £216 million over the life of the contracts A further nine prisons are currently subject to competition and we expect to award contracts in November this year. At that time we also expect to announce the custodial services that will be subject to competition in the next phase of our reform programme.

For community based offender services, we are engaged in a major competition to improve and enhance electronic monitoring, with contract award planned for early 2013.In the autumn we will publish our response to the consultation on “Punishment and Reform: effective probation services” setting out how we will accelerate a wider programme of competition for non-custodial services.

This Government are committed to public service reform and the success of our programme to date demonstrates how competition can be used effectively to open up the market, stimulate innovation and improvement and reduce cost to the taxpayer.

Copies of the annual update have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The document is also available on the Ministry of Justice website.

Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (Public Records Provisions)

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Friday 13th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

My noble Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, has made the following written ministerial statement:

Today, I am announcing further details of how the Government will reduce, from 30 to 20 years, the point at which historical records are made available at the National Archives and other places of deposit. This is in response to a report delivered by a committee chaired by Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail, which was commissioned by the previous Government.

The change to a “20-year rule” is a key part of our transparency agenda and will see a wealth of historical material opened to the public much earlier than under current arrangements. The aim is to provide greater openness and accountability, strengthening democracy through more timely public scrutiny of government policy and decision-making.

This is a major change and it is therefore important that it is introduced in a manageable and affordable way. A phased approach will be adopted. The point at which records are transferred to the National Archives (largely central Government records) will be reduced from 2013 over a 10-year transitional period, with two years worth of records being transferred to the National Archives every year until transition is complete. From 2023, when this transition is complete, we will transfer the single year’s worth of records which are caught by the “20-year rule” each year. This first stage of the change will affect an estimated 3.3 million records and cost an estimated £34.7 million to £38.5 million over 10 years.

We then intend to begin from 2015 a similar 10 year transitional period for records transferred to 116 local authority places of deposit, subject to the outcome of further detailed work on costs and the impact to the local authority archive sector. Current estimates of the cost of the second phase are £5.6 million to £15 million over 10 years. This will ensure that the “20-year rule” is implemented in an affordable way that achieves the greatest level of transparency.

The maximum lifespan of a number of exemptions provided by the Freedom of Information Act will be reduced for all public authorities in parallel with the first transitional period. From 1 January 2014 the maximum duration of the following exemptions will reduce by one year per annum over a 10 year period: sections 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities); 32 (court records); 33 (audit functions); 35 (formulation and development of government policy); 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), except in relation to Northern Ireland and the work of Executive Committee of Northern Ireland Assembly; and 42 (legal professional privilege).

The transition to a “20-year rule” will be a transparent process. The National Archives will report annually to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice on the progress made by ministerial Government Departments. Department-level data will be published on the National Archives’ website, including volumes due for processing each year, numbers transferred, and progress against declared transfer plans.

European Union Act 2011 (Section 8)

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

A parliamentary statement has been laid before the House today, 11 July. This has been laid under section 8 of the European Union Act 2011. In the opinion of the Secretary of State, the Council decision establishing a multi-annual framework for 2013-17 for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, published on 13 June 2012, relates to an exempt purpose within the meaning of section 8(6)(a) of that Act.

Copies of the parliamentary statement are available from the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. Copies of the draft Council decision have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

Secure Training Centres and Young Offender Institutions (Physical Restraint)

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

Today I am announcing that I have formally approved a new system of restraint for use in secure training centres (STCs) and under-18 young offender institutions (YOIs) in England and Wales, titled “Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint” (MMPR).

The new system is a major step forward in improving the way young people are safeguarded in the under-18 secure estate. A comprehensive programme of work has resulted in a new system of restraint that has been specifically designed for use on young people in custody. This has been independently assessed by the independent Restraint Advisory Board (RAB) chaired by Professor Susan Bailey.

The “Independent Review of Restraint in Juvenile Secure Settings” in 2008 called for a significant cultural change in the way challenging behaviour is managed and this has been the premise on which MMPR has been designed and developed.

The behaviour of some young people in custody is extremely challenging and can put the safety of themselves, other young people and staff at risk. It is important that custody staff are given the necessary skills to ensure the safety of those in the custodial establishments including when restraint needs to be used.

The Government are clear that restraint should only ever be used as a last resort where it is absolutely necessary to do so and where no other form of intervention is possible or appropriate.

The Restraint Advisory Board’s report sets out the comprehensive assessment process the Restraint Advisory Board followed in order to make recommendations on minimising and managing physical restraint. After careful consideration, the Government have accepted all the recommendations. To support the delivery of MMPR, the Youth Justice Board and the National Offender Management Service will introduce a range of improved data collection and monitoring arrangements.

A programme of work will now begin to roll out MMPR in secure training centres and under-18 young offenders institutions. We will publish the full Restraint Advisory Board report, Government response and a version of the MMPR manual.

I am also announcing a replacement for the Restraint Advisory Board whose primary objective of assessing minimising and managing physical restraint has been completed. The Independent Restraint Advisory Panel (IRAP) will retain a similar breadth of expertise to the Restraint Advisory Board and will be chaired by Professor Susan Bailey. The Independent Restraint Advisory Panel’s objectives will be assessing the systems of restraint commissioned for use in secure children’s homes and supporting the implementation of MMPR. Details of the Independent Restraint Advisory Panel will also be available on the Ministry of Justice website, www.justice.gov.uk.

Justice and Security Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

Today I have laid before Parliament the Government’s response to the House of Lords Select Committee on the constitution’s report on the Justice and Security Bill, which was published on 15 June. We have sought to respond promptly in order to help inform the upcoming debates on the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

2. What recent representations he has received on the implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

None.

[Mr Ruffley]

I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that detailed reply. He will know that there is concern, certainly on the Government Benches, that the European Court of Human Rights gives insufficient weight to the decisions of national courts, and that in addition, given the backlog of more than 150,000 cases, the Court is not devoting its entire time and attention to truly serious abuses of human rights. In that context, what are the Government doing to ensure that votes of national Parliaments and decisions by national courts are better taken into account by the European Court?

[Mr Clarke]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We addressed that during our chairmanship of the Council of Europe. We had a conference at Brighton of all 47 member states and produced the Brighton declaration. Our considerable achievement there was not very widely reported because, not surprisingly, the media regarded it as a footnote to the Abu Qatada case which was in the newspapers at the time. Forty-seven countries agreed that we should have a greater margin of appreciation, to use the jargon, and that more regard should be paid to those decisions of the courts of nation states which had obviously addressed their obligations under the convention. That will have a considerable impact on future cases.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Is it not long overdue that the Government move to ensure that the courts of the United Kingdom, rather than the European Court, have supremacy in the area of human rights, including protection of Christian liberties and freedoms?

[Mr Clarke]

We are taken to the Court much less than other members and we lose only about 2%. Sometimes that 2% includes cases where there is widespread support here for the decision, such as the holding of DNA and other information belonging to people who have never been convicted of a criminal offence, which was a recent judgment. The convention still has a very important role to play across Europe. It is hugely significant in the 47 member states and it enables standards to be applied in places all the way from Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan across to us and Iceland. We have always been subject to the rule of law. We have always bound ourselves under the convention to accept the judgments. These are the standards that we all agreed upon after the second world war, which were not challenged in this country till 10 or 15 years ago, when some judgments here began to annoy sections of the media.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Paul Mahoney on his election as the UK judge to the European Court of Human Rights, and does he share my satisfaction that the new judge is committed to ensuring that the principles of subsidiarity are held high in the Court—for example, in relation to the right of individual countries to decide issues relating to national religion?

[Mr Clarke]

I personally disapprove of a parliamentary vote on the appointment of judges, but that is the system that has prevailed there since 1947. Fortunately, the British put forward three excellently qualified candidates for the judgeship, so I congratulate Mr Mahoney on his election and I am sure he will make a very considerable contribution.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I am sure the Justice Secretary will agree that it would be inappropriate for him as a member of the Executive or me as a Member of the legislature to interfere with the appointment of judges in the UK. In the light of that and of his last answer, what are his views not on the vote but on the political interference that appears to have taken place with the appointment of the UK representative to the European Court of Human Rights?

[Mr Clarke]

The Council of Europe works on the basis that the Parliamentary Assembly votes from a shortlist of three people provided by the member state, and now steps are taken to ensure that all three come up to certain standards, which I am glad to say the British nominees quite easily did. It sounds as though the right hon. Gentleman and I would not start from here, and I agree that normally politicians should not vote on which judge ought to be appointed to any judicial post, but they did and Mr Mahoney, I am sure, will prove an excellent choice.

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of arrangements for handling sensitive information from the intelligence services in court proceedings.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

The Government have introduced the Justice and Security Bill to introduce a process by which such material may be considered by the courts in civil cases in future. The Bill is currently being considered and scrutinised in the House of Lords.

[Rebecca Harris]

I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Does he agree that if we do not make reforms in this area we run the risk of allowing a substantial industry to develop in expensive legal claims, which we are forced to pay out of court because the Government are unable to defend themselves in open court?

[Mr Clarke]

The Bill stems from our recent experience in the so-called Guantanamo Bay cases, when a very large sum of money was paid out to satisfy claims and legal costs when the security and intelligence services insisted that they had an adequate defence. An increasing number of those cases are coming along, and it is not for me to pre-judge any of them, but I should like the judge to be able to hear all the evidence in the circumstances that are possible—closed material proceedings—so that we as citizens obtain some judgment in the end about the merits or otherwise of the complaint. We certainly must not encourage people to go along for both the political publicity and the potential funds that might flow from bringing a claim that they know cannot be defended.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

On what basis has the Justice Secretary decided not to allow closed material proceedings at inquests? Surely if there is a highly sensitive piece of intelligence that would help to explain the cause of someone’s death, the coroner should be able to see that information, albeit on a protected basis.

[Mr Clarke]

We canvassed that proposal in the consultation, and I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman’s view, but we have responded to the consultation, in which there were strong feelings against the procedure being applied to inquests—despite the support that we had from coroners’ associations.

The argument is that the coroner cannot consider such material in closed material proceedings because it means that the family, the press and other interested parties will not be able to hear what the spies have to say, and that is the basis on which we have introduced the Bill—we are a listening Government. But I did canvass the measure that the right hon. Gentleman proposes.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

4. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on providing high-quality services for women within the criminal justice system following the election of police and crime commissioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What progress he has made on his proposals to reform the probation system.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

On 27 March, in the consultation document “Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services”, the Government published proposals to deliver more effective and efficient probation services. Alongside that, we published proposals to deliver more credible and effective community sentences. We are currently considering the responses to the consultation, which closed on 22 June. We intend to publish the Government response later in the year.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Under a marketisation of the probation service, how can he assure the House that fragmentation of the service will not put the public at risk? What safeguards are in place to ensure that cherry-picking by private sector providers of individuals on probation does not occur?

[Mr Clarke]

I am somewhat astonished by the reaction of some Opposition Members. We are following the policy first laid out in the Offender Management Act 2007. The probation trusts have now all been set up and we are introducing principles to bring some competition and diversity of provider. There are very good people who can provide some aspects of the probation service. We believe that that will both enhance the quality of the service and achieve better value for money and better outcomes. Plenty of people in the probation service welcome our proposals; indeed, some are surprised by their modesty.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

At a recent multi-agency public protection arrangements, or MAPPA, meeting that I sat in on, a probation officer reported that his client was having problems meeting a curfew of 7 o’clock at night. When the officer was asked what he was doing to deal with the curfew’s being breached, he said that he had changed the curfew to 9 o’clock to aid compliance. Will the Secretary of State tell me what he is going to do to stop such outrages, which make a complete mockery of the probation system and the criminal justice system?

[Mr Clarke]

I cannot comment on an individual case, although I am sure that my hon. Friend did when he had the pleasure of listening to that exchange. We are seeking to make both the probation service and community sentences more effective, by which I mean more punitive when necessary but also more effective in controlling the behaviour of the offender.

We have taken powers to extend the hours of curfew. We intend to make more use of tagging to enforce curfews, among other things. We are testing more effective equipment and consulting on how best to use tags and modern technology effectively.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now looking for stunning succinctness. I call Mr Elfyn Llwyd.

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

I shall try to stun you, Mr Speaker.

The Secretary of State knows that the relationship between probation officer and offender is crucial to the rehabilitation process. How will he assure the House that opening up to the private sector will not undermine that crucial relationship?

[Mr Clarke]

In all these things, I take the view that the status of the person involved—whether they are classified as public sector or private sector, or who exactly they work for or which union they belong to—is a slightly subordinate issue. This is a rather sterile debate of a few decades ago about whether there should be private sector or public sector provision. What matters is the quality of what is done, the quality of the person, the relationships they develop, and what is available to them to make a community sentence more effective.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the system for recovery of criminal fines.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

Yesterday, the Government published their response to the consultation entitled “Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses”. For too long, many victims have felt themselves to be an afterthought for the criminal justice system. Our reforms will ensure that victims and witnesses get the support they need when they need it. Our proposals include an aim to raise an additional £50 million from offenders to be spent on victims’ services. Responsibility for commissioning most victims’ services will eventually go to democratically accountable police and crime commissioners, ensuring that decisions about service provision respond to local need. We will reform criminal injuries compensation so that it is focused on victims of serious crime and is sustainable, and there will be a new victims code making it clear what victims can expect from the criminal justice system and ensuring that they are treated with dignity and respect.

[Mr Ruffley]

A UK prisoner is litigating in the European Court of Human Rights asserting his right to vote. When does the Secretary of State expect that decision to be handed down by the Court, and does he expect the House of Commons to be able to vote on the issue of votes for prisoners?

[Mr Clarke]

There has been repeated litigation involving several member states that do not allow prisoners to vote, as we have never done. The most recent litigation was Scoppola v. the Italian Government, in which our Attorney-General intervened on behalf of the British Government to argue that Parliament was more responsible for this issue than the Court. The Government will respond to that judgment, which went against a blanket ban, in due course.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

There are 6,500 prisoners who have been ordered by trial judges to serve indeterminate sentences for public protection. It is important for public safety that they be released only after a proper risk assessment, but more than 3,500 are waiting for appropriate programmes and a risk assessment. Does the Justice Secretary have any plans to increase the number of programmes and assessments to address this issue?

[Mr Clarke]

This system, which we are getting rid of, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) reminded us earlier, has put a tremendous load on the prison service in terms of programme design, availability of suitable places and the Parole Board system. We are addressing that and trying to reduce the delays, but it will take us some time to get through the system. Of course, some will remain indeterminately imprisoned, but we want as many as possible to finish their proper sentence, to get them out and to put behind us this rather shameful chapter in the history of sentencing in this country.

[Sadiq Khan]

As is normal, the Justice Secretary did not answer the question I asked. Let me try another. His ministerial colleague said that there were no immediate plans to change the release test. Yesterday, Lord McNally said that the Government may use Executive action to release those serving IPPs, and would also change the balance of judgment to be made by the Parole Board to free up prison places. Those two actions could lead to prisoners who are currently serving IPPs being released without due regard to public safety. Which Minister should we believe, and is it really worth taking a risk with public safety to reduce prison numbers?

[Mr Clarke]

I will check what Lord McNally actually said. We are not contemplating either of those steps at the moment. We are putting extra resources into programmes and into addressing the problems that the Parole Board is faced with. We are quite determined not to take risks with public safety, but indeterminate sentences really were one of the worst ways of trying to do that, as they left a grave sense of injustice and difficulty coping with the proper assessment of people, for open-ended release.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

T2. My right hon. and learned Friend recently announced extra financial support of £50 million to be provided for victims of crime, with offenders being forced to make the financial contribution. I strongly welcome that, but could see no information on the Department’s website about when the scheme will start. Can he help with that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T9. Many countries outside the UK have legal systems that are based on ours, and this is particularly true in the Commonwealth. What has my right hon. and learned Friend done to market the legal services in the UK to those countries?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

We are making a considerable effort to market British legal services, both within the Commonwealth and across the wider world, in many important emerging markets and elsewhere. I am glad to say that we are working closely with the Bar Council and the Law Society in doing so. Legal services in this country are held in the highest regard in the world—our judges are more trusted and our system is more effective than most others—and they contribute 1.3% to the GDP of this country. Legal services are second only to financial services in the City of London, and are something we should promote and support.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

T6. Is the Minister able to put a figure on how much the repeated failure of Applied Language Solutions to provide interpreters in court proceedings has cost the taxpayer through delayed proceedings?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

On 4 September, the European Court of Human Rights will hear the case of Nadia Eweida v. the United Kingdom Government. I understand that the Government are resisting the case. Miss Eweida is the lady who effectively lost her job with British Airways for wearing a cross, a symbol of her religion, at work. Is it any part of the British Government’s policy to support the denial of people’s religious rights at work? If not, will we reconsider our position on that case?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I will consult the Attorney-General, who is no doubt preparing the Government’s defence in this case. This is obviously a hugely difficult issue; the case has gone through the courts here and is now going to be heard in Strasbourg. Whatever one’s feelings about the narrow facts of the individual case, there are wider issues about the enforcement of religious rights in employment, and I have no doubt that they will be properly canvassed. I will consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Will the Justice Secretary confirm that, despite Ministers’ claims to the contrary, judges will be left with no option under the proposals in the Justice and Security Bill but to grant closed material proceedings?

[Mr Clarke]

I disagree. It is certainly my intention—this is the way in which the Bill is drafted—that there will be closed material proceedings only when the judge is satisfied that there would be a risk to national security if the evidence were to be given in open court. We are not taking into secrecy or excluding from the court any evidence that is heard in court at the moment. For the first time, we are creating an opportunity for the judge to consider intelligence evidence, but that will happen only in those cases in which the judge is satisfied that national security is involved.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I am sure that Ministers would agree that causing death by dangerous driving is a serious offence, particularly when drivers are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, yet it is not regarded as serious by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I have had two constituency cases in which the families have suffered not only the appalling loss of a family member but huge financial loss. Unlike the families of manslaughter and murder victims, they are not eligible for any compensation.

[Mr Clarke]

Compensation is for criminal offences, and it depends on the severity of the injury. We are concentrating on the most severe injuries that can be suffered. It would be very nice to extend it to all road traffic cases, particularly those that cause outrage or particular damage, but it would be impossible to ask the taxpayer to pay compensation in such cases.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Last week, I had the opportunity to have an excellent meeting with the courageous and very impressive chief crown prosecutor of Greater Manchester, Mr Nazir Afzal. He has given his full personal backing to the pilot of Clare’s law, which will identify serial perpetrators of domestic violence and is due to be launched in Greater Manchester in the next few weeks. Will the Minister ensure that criminal justice systems across the country support those pilots so that we can protect people from domestic violence?

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The failure to bring criminal prosecutions against those who have wrought such havoc to our banking system continues to cause huge public concern. Has my right hon. and learned Friend had any discussions with ministerial colleagues about how the proposed fresh investigations will be properly supported and resourced?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

On reading what I have of these cases, it seems to me quite plain that possible crimes are involved in what has been described. I am glad to say that the Serious Fraud Office is, I am assured, investigating. It is properly a matter for it and not in the end a matter for Ministers whether anybody is prosecuted for anything. I think we are all reassured to know that this is being inquired into, as anybody guilty of crime must be brought to justice.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

There is evidence in the south-west of companies setting up internal companies to pursue debt—in effect, two companies pursue the same debt. The Office of Fair Trading describes this as an unfair practice and the direction guidance says that such practice constitutes harassment when two bailiffs chase the same debt. There are clearly Chinese walls in this practice; is it going to be looked at as part of the regulation review?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Let us hear about the case of Mr Plumb.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituent on his birthday yesterday. The argument for retaining a retirement age of 70 for judges of all kinds—I agree that this is a mere stripling for most occupations—is that, unlike me and most other people in their 70s, they cannot be removed from office: they are there for life, and can be removed only for quite serious bad behaviour. If we let everybody go on until whatever age, we will get into difficulties and politicians or somebody else will have to start appraising their performance, as they cannot be dismissed peremptorily. That is what has made us hold back from raising the compulsory retirement age for magistrates and judges at every level.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

On 15 May, I asked the Minister when he was going to respond to the recommendations of the Justice Select Committee on the presumption of death in guardianship, which were published on 22 February. He responded, “Shortly”. May I please ask the question again?

Victim and Witness Strategy

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

The Government will, today, publish their response to the consultation “Getting it right for Victims and Witnesses” which began on 30 January and ended on 22 April 2012.

When I published the consultation document I observed that victims too often feel themselves to be an afterthought for the criminal justice system. Despite improvements over the last two decades, the system has continued to fall short—whether in relation to helping victims recover in the aftermath of a crime, supporting them through the stresses of investigation and trial, or providing the right services, funded as far as possible by offenders rather than the taxpayer.

That is why I set out a package of proposals to remedy these weaknesses, and deliver a more intelligent and coherent service for victims. My plans included increasing spending on victims’ services, with extra money coming from offenders themselves; reforming the criminal injuries compensation scheme so that it is focused on seriously injured victims of serious crime, and strengthening victims, rights so that victims feel less like accessories to the system, kept in the dark about their case, or expected to sit next to families of perpetrators in court.

The consultation elicited over 350 written responses, which we have carefully considered. They have helped us refine our proposals. We are taking forward a package of reforms that will, I believe, meet the whole range of ambitions I set out in the consultation document.

The response I am publishing today includes summaries of the comments received on our proposals and it sets out the policies we will now take forward. The reforms are wide ranging.

First, I intend to proceed with plans to make improvements to the support available for victims, raising up to an additional £50 million from the perpetrators of crime through the victim surcharge and other financial impositions. The way in which support for victims is purchased will also be subject to reform. We will move to a mixed model of national and local commissioning. The budget for the bulk of services will be devolved at local level to police and crime commissioners who will decide which services are needed in their communities. For some specialist support services, including rape support centres and support to those bereaved by homicide, my Department will continue to commission services nationally. Police and crime commissioner (PCC) elections will be taking place this November. The decision on when funding for victims services will transfer to PCCs will be made in due course but we would not envisage this happening any later than April 2015.

Secondly, our system of criminal injuries compensation will be reformed so it is properly focused on victims of the most serious crimes. The revised scheme will, for the first time, be placed on a sustainable footing. There will be an end to payments for minor injuries, and to those with serious criminal convictions.

There will be a revised victims’ code, setting out more clearly what victims can expect from the criminal justice system and ensuring that victims are treated always with dignity and respect. We will consult on a new draft code next year.

These reforms will also, among other things, aim to increase the use of restorative justice and of the victim personal statement. Both can help victims to cope and recover, both have a valuable role to play in the criminal justice process.

We will also put in place the first statutory compensation scheme for British victims of terrorist atrocities abroad. It will see Britons who are targeted in future terrorist attacks overseas compensated in the same way as domestic victims of terrorism.

In the light of the major reforms that the Government are announcing today to improve services for victims and introduce greater local accountability, the Government will consider how best to ensure that victims’ interests are well represented and review the role of the victims’ commissioner while the new framework for victims is established.

I will lay the following secondary legislation before Parliament today:

The draft Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012. This replaces the 2008 scheme. It provides compensation to victims of violent crime in Great Britain, including bereaved relatives.

The draft Victims of Overseas Terrorism Compensation Scheme 2012. This is a new scheme to compensate British, EU and EEA nationals resident in the UK who may be injured or have a relative killed in a future act of overseas terrorism designated as such by the Foreign Secretary for the purposes of the scheme.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) Order 2012. This will increase the victim surcharge payable by an adult on a fine and extend the surcharge to conditional discharges, community sentences and custodial sentences including suspended sentences. Similar provision will be made in respect of juveniles.

Copies of the draft schemes and their associated documents will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

Copies are available in the vote office and the printed paper office. The response to the consultation can be found on the Ministry of Justice website at: www.justice.gov.uk.

Fraud Act 2006

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

I have today laid before Parliament the Government’s memorandum to the Justice Committee on post-legislative scrutiny of the Fraud Act 2006. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

The Fraud Act 2006 reformed the law on fraud and created a general offence of fraud that can be committed in three ways: by false representation, by failing to disclose information and by abuse of a position of trust.

These reforms have been implemented, in line with the stated objectives of the Act, as detailed in the memorandum.

The memorandum also reviews the use of the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud and concludes that this remains a useful tool in prosecutors’ armouries.

Justice

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Ministerial Corrections

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I am sorry for the delay in responding to the right hon. Member. 24 of the 27 cases referred to concern material related to national security.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I am sorry for the delay in responding to the right hon. Member. 26 of the 27 cases referred to concern material related to national security.