Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

When I spoke in this House on 1 April, I set out the Government’s intention to introduce emergency legislation, because I believe that our justice system must be above all else fair, and that, standing before a judge, we are all equal, no matter the colour of our skin or the question of our faith. Given the existential nature of this matter for our justice system, I was clear that we would move at pace to change the law. The Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill was introduced that same day. With Second Reading taking place just three weeks later, we are forging ahead with plans to legislate as quickly as possible.

Before I set out the contents of the Bill, it bears repeating how we came to be in the current situation and why expedited legislation is necessary. In the last Parliament, the Sentencing Council put forward revised guidelines on the imposition of community and custodial sentences. I should note that during a statutory consultation they were welcomed by the last Conservative Government in no uncertain terms. The shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who was a Justice Minister at the time, should be able to furnish his colleagues with the details, but as he is absent today, I will do so.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Can the right hon. Lady clarify whether the guidelines proposed under the previous Government were the same as those with which she is dealing now, or did they differ—and if they differed, how did they differ?

[Shabana Mahmood]

They did not differ in any substantial way. All the guidelines, in so far as they concern issues relating to race, religion, culture or belief, are exactly the same as those to which the Justice Minister responded under the Conservative Administration. Hiding behind that, I am afraid, shows a failure to reckon with the Opposition’s own track record, which has become quite a hallmark of theirs in recent weeks and months.

These guidelines help judges, when sentencing an offender, to determine whether to impose a community order or a custodial sentence, providing guidance on the thresholds for disposals of this type. In the process of deciding which threshold has been met, judges are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report, except in circumstances where they consider such a report to be unnecessary. The reports are used to give the courts more context of the offending behaviour in a given case, and set out any factors that should be considered as part of the sentencing process. As I said to the House on 1 April, generally speaking I am in favour of the use of pre-sentence reports, and in fact I have recently freed up capacity in the Probation Service precisely so that it has more time to produce reports of this type.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

However, it is always up to the people in this House, if they feel that a law is being applied in ways that were not intended, to put that law right. I am afraid the right hon. Member’s comment is a rather damning indictment of 14 years of Conservative Government, with 14 years of sitting back and allowing other people to do the policy work that Ministers in the previous Government perhaps did not have the time or inclination to do themselves.

I do not think that judges, in applying the law, are doing anything wrong; they are doing their job. They are public servants, and they do their job independently. It is right that we have an independent judiciary in this country. We are very lucky to have a judiciary that is world class and highly regarded. One of the reasons why so many businesses from all over the world want to do business in this country is that they know they can trust our courts system and the independence of our judges. I think it is incumbent on the whole of this House to defend the independence of the judiciary, because that independence was hard won. It is one of our absolute USPs as a rule of law jurisdiction in this country, and none of us must ever do anything that puts it at risk.

If there are issues about the way in which the law is applied—if Parliament or Ministers ever consider that it has strayed too far from the original intention—we can always legislate, and I am doing just that today. I hope this is an example that others, if they have issues in their areas, may consider taking as well. It is a question of policy, and that should be decided and debated here in this place, in this House, and the public must be able to hold us to account for the decisions we take, rewarding or punishing us at the ballot box as they see fit. This is the domain of government, politics and Parliament, and today we reassert our ability to determine this country’s policy on the issue of equality of treatment before the law.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The right hon. Lady is making a point about the wider justice system and the importance of equality before the law. What has she done to assure herself and the House that, in all aspects of her Department’s work, people are being treated equally under the law—whether in relation to parole, how they are treated in prison, bail conditions and so on?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have ordered a wider review of all guidance across all the MOJ’s work in so far as it relates to equality before the law to make sure that the problems we have uncovered here are not replicated elsewhere. There is the issue of bail guidance, which was discussed in the House earlier. I have already ordered a review, and that guidance is being redrafted as we speak. That particular guidance has been something like 20 years in the making—it has been added to over many years—so the redraft has to be careful and we must make sure it does not have any unintended consequences. However, we are cracking on with that work at pace, and I will make sure that, by the time I am done, we can all be absolutely clear that this sweep towards allowing potential differential treatment is sorted out once and for all.

[Dr Johnson]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make more progress. I think I have been more than generous.

That brings me to the Bill before us today. While the updated Sentencing Council guidelines are currently paused, if we do not act they will come into force— [Interruption.] Well, there was a lot to say, gentlemen, about the previous Government’s track record and it needed to be said. And I do not think the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) should mind me taking interventions from people on his own side. That is a novel approach for the shadow Front Bench.

Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. It is tightly focused, containing just two clauses. Clause 1 amends section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which brought the Sentencing Council into existence. It dictates that the guidelines the council produces may not include references to personal characteristics, including race, religion or belief, or cultural background. Clause 2 relates to how the Bill will be enacted: that it will apply only to England and Wales, and that its measures will come into force on the day after it passes.

It is also important to be clear about what the Bill does not do. It does not stop the Sentencing Council from issuing broader guidance concerning requests for pre-sentence reports in those cases where it is helpful for the court to understand more about an offender’s history and personal circumstances. The Bill does not interfere with the courts’ duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases, for example those involving primary carers and victims of domestic abuse. And, as detailed in the Bill’s explanatory notes, it does not change existing precedent where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable, in cases such as: Thompson, where the Court of Appeal recently emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; Meanley, in which the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants; or Kurmekaj, where the defendant had a traumatic upbringing, vulnerability, and was a victim of modern slavery. Instead, the Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand, putting beyond doubt a principle which finds its ancient origins in Magna Carta and has developed over the centuries to serve the interests of justice not just here but in jurisdictions around the world: that each of us, no matter who we are, where we come from or what we believe, stand equal before the law of the land.

Wider questions remain about the role and the powers of the Sentencing Council, as I have noted. The council does important work, bringing consistency to judicial decision making, but it is clear in this instance that it went beyond its original remit. It sought to set policy, which stood out of step with the Government of the day. Therefore, it raises the question: who should set sentencing policy? Today’s legislation only addresses this question in the narrowest terms, considering the guidance on pre-sentence reports. It does not give us a definitive resolution as to whether it is Government Ministers or members of the Sentencing Council who should decide policy in the future. As I noted, that leaves us with a democratic deficit.

As I told the House on 1 April, the question of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council must therefore be considered further. That work is already under way in my Department. Should a further change be required, the Government will include it in upcoming legislation. The Sentencing Council plays an important role in our justice system, and any changes to it must be made carefully and with the consideration it deserves. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead, and I welcome the opportunity to debate them.

The Bill we are debating today is small, but the issues it contains could not be of greater significance. I know the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this House would agree that the Sentencing Council’s intentions on this issue were noble, but in trying to reach for equality of outcome, they sacrificed too much, undermining the sacred principle of equality before the law. It is right that we, as policymakers, stop the updated guidelines from coming into force. We must stand up for the idea that no matter our race or religion, no person should receive preferential treatment as they stand in the dock before a judge, so I beg to move that the Bill now be read a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I can see that, when it comes to this legislation, I am in a minority—it is not the first time, and I suspect that it will not be the last. There has been a great deal of misinformation about the Sentencing Council’s original guidelines, both in the run-up to and during the debate, so I, with all humility, want to insert some facts into the debate.

First, it is important to recognise what the Sentencing Council actually is. Much of the debate today and in recent weeks has seemed to presume that it is a bunch of heedless young barristers and social workers. On the contrary, the Sentencing Council is largely composed of some of the most senior judges in the land. They include: Lord Justice William Davis, its chair, who was called to the Bar in 1976; His Honour Judge Simon Drew, a circuit judge sitting in the Court of Appeal; Lord Justice Tim Holroyde, lord justice of appeal and vice-president of the Court of Appeal; and the honourable Mr Justice Mark Wall, who was appointed a High Court judge in 2020. There are also some senior probation officers and magistrates. That is hardly a cohort of men and women who need the firm hand of an MP on their shoulder to explain to them what the rule of law is.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The right hon. Lady is making the important point that the Sentencing Council is comprised of senior and learned individuals. Given that, what circumstances does she think conspired to let it get the guidelines so very wrong? It is clearly felt on both sides of the House that they are wrong.

[Ms Abbott]

I can say with confidence that the Sentencing Council is talking about issues to do with race and criminal justice because of a history, going back decades, of problematic issues in relation to race and criminal justice. I will come to those later. The independence of the Sentencing Council is crucial, and the idea that anybody in the Chamber is standing up for law and order yet seeks to undermine its independence—and by implication, that of the judiciary as a whole—is quite remarkable.

Next, what do the guidelines actually say? Much of the debate implies that black and minority persons are singled out for pre-sentence reports under the guidelines. On the contrary, there is a whole list of people in the guidelines on whom, the Sentencing Council suggests, judges and magistrates might ask for a pre-sentence report. Those persons include those at risk of committing their first custodial sentence; young adults; women; ethnic minorities; yes, cultural minorities, of course; pregnant and post-natal women; and the sole or primary carer for dependent relatives. The Sentencing Council is clear that that is not an exclusive list; ideally, every defendant should have a pre-sentence report. The aim of the guidelines is to ensure that judges and magistrates get the most information possible. Who could object to garnering more information on any defendant? It is certainly not the intention of the guidelines to dictate the sentence in any given case.

Yet it is being argued that a pre-sentencing report will discourage a judge from sending an offender to jail. We are asked to believe that our judiciary is weak-minded and susceptible, and that it will not live up to its centuries-old standards, which, as we heard earlier, go all the way back to Magna Carta. However, the House was also told earlier that our judiciary is world-class and highly regarded. Both propositions cannot be true.

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Secure 16 to 19 academies, otherwise known as secure schools, are an innovative new form of custody for children and young people that the 2019 manifesto committed to trialling. They will be schools with security, rather than prisons with education. Normally when children commit an offence, they are managed in the community with community sentences, but sometimes the offences committed are so awful or the offending is so frequent that a custodial sentence is necessary. Thankfully, that is not common; there are currently around 530 children in the secure estate, and the House may be interested to know that fewer than 12 of them at any time in the last year have been female children.

Many of these children have significant social, emotional or mental health issues, which are root causes of some of the offending behaviour. Even if they have very long sentences, they will come out into the community at a relatively young age, which means that they will have a long time free to contribute to society if they can be effectively given greater rehabilitation opportunities in prison.

In Sleaford, we have a secure children’s home that takes younger children into a small environment and gives them a better chance of turning their lives around. The first secure school will be built in Medway in Kent, providing education to a small number of young people —up to 49 of them—and giving them a good opportunity to bring themselves on to the straight and narrow.

The Government have already acted, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, to establish the secure 16 to 19 academies in legislation, and this Bill makes further necessary amendments to the Academies Act 2010 to make specific provisions relevant to the establishment of new secure schools, as opposed to other types of academies.

The changes proposed cover the termination period in which the Government continue to fund the secure school should there be a need to end a funding agreement into which they have entered. In general, normal academies would have a seven-year period, but the Bill will reduce that to two for the secure estate. The seven years is calculated on the basis that students would normally spend seven years at a school, but in the case of secure schools, the sentences vary considerably, and the amount of time that a child spends in such an establishment is determined primarily by their legal status. The Bill will enable the Government to prioritise value for money, which we would expect a Conservative Government to continue to do. It will also provide more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a school provider.

For such an important part of our vision for the future of the youth custody estate, it is important that we have efficient processes for opening new schools. The Bill will modify the consultation requirements in the 2010 Act so that they do not apply to secure schools, and help future secure schools to open with minimal delay. For example, anyone who wants to open an academy is required to consider the impact that it will have on pupil numbers in other local schools, but clearly that is not a relevant consideration for a secure school. Engagement with local communities is a key part of the Ministry of Justice selection process for new custodial sites. The Bill gives providers the opportunity to engage with their local community, ensuring a more constructive consultation process that will seek to consult on how the secure school works with local partners. It should be noted that a proposal to build an entirely new site would of course go through the regular planning procedures too.

By supporting the Bill, the House has an opportunity to tailor the legislative framework for secure schools, thereby creating better services and strengthening the impact of secure schools on the lives of children in the justice system. I have been most grateful to hon. Members across the House for their support and valued contributions during the Bill’s passage so far. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth (Dr Evans), for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for Southend West (Anna Firth), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) and for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for Neath (Christina Rees), and the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) for participating in the Bill Committee. I thank in particular my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and the hon. Member for Neath for their valued contributions in Committee. I also thank the Ministry of Justice officials who have been so helpful to me with the Bill; the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), for his support with it; Anne-Marie Griffiths in the Public Bill Office; and my great team for Sleaford and North Hykeham.

I hope I have addressed the aims of the Bill and the positive impact it can have, and I am proud to move its Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I rise to thank again those who have helped with the passage of the Bill. In Sleaford, we have a secure children’s home that runs a small unit providing great education and rehabilitative care to those young people. I welcome the fact that the Bill will help to extend that educational and holistic approach to helping young people to turn their lives around.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I again congratulate the hon. Lady on piloting her Bill through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Question proposed, With this, it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased to deal with clauses one and two together.

Secure schools are an innovative new form of custody for children and young people, which the 2019 Conservative manifesto committed to trialling. Essentially, they will be schools with security rather than prisons with education. The Government have already established secure 16 to 19 academies in legislation, and the Bill makes further necessary amendments to the Academies Act 2010 to make specific provisions in that Act relevant to the establishment of new secure schools.

In 2016, Charlie Taylor published his landmark “Review of the Youth Justice System”. The report made a number of important recommendations, including the need to reimagine how we care for children who commit offences serious enough to warrant detaining them in custody. He proposed the creation of a new type of custodial environment, one that is focused on the delivery of education and offers children the opportunity to gain the skills and qualifications necessary to prepare them for their release into the community. The Taylor review made a compelling case for change. The need to transform the environments in which we detain and provide care for these children is as necessary now as it was then. The 2019 Conservative manifesto restated our commitment to trialling the new model. The first secure school is set to open in Medway in Kent this spring, and is to be run by the Oasis Restore trust.

Since the Taylor Report, the Government have been working to create the legislative and regulatory framework that will govern secure schools. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 established secure schools in legislation as secure 16 to 19 academies under both the Academies Act 2010 and the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015. As work has continued and we near the opening of the first secure school, this Bill is needed to ensure that specific provisions in the 2010 Act are relevant to secure 16 to 19 academies.

The proposed changes cover the termination period in which the Government continue to fund the secure schools, should there be a need to end a funding agreement. The Bill also amends the duties placed on providers that enter into funding agreements with the Government prior to opening a secure school. These changes will essentially reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, provide for better and more integrated services, and protect the public purse.

With that background in mind, I now turn to the clauses themselves. Clause 1 sets out three main measures. First, it amends section 2 of the Academies Act 2010 to reduce the minimum notice period for termination of a funding agreement from seven years to two years for secure 16 to 19 academies. Having a two-year termination period will enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and give them more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. The reduction to two years strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period in which the Government are committed to funding the school longer than is necessary and ensuring that secure school providers have the certainty of funding needed to avoid problems with recruiting and retaining the specialist staff required to work in that environment. Although the Government are already able to terminate funding agreements with secure school providers in the event of poor performance, the Bill provides an important “last resort” option to terminate a funding agreement for any other reason.

Secondly, the Bill disapplies section 9 of the 2010 Act for secure 16 to 19 academies, which would otherwise require the Secretary of State to consider the impact on other educational establishments in the area of entering into a new academy funding agreement. Although it is important that secure schools are established as academies to ensure that they mirror best practice in the community, they are fundamentally different from other schools in the community because they do not compete with other schools. As such, we do not expect them to have any impact on the viability of local mainstream schools. The Bill therefore disapplies that duty to help any future secure school to open with minimal delay.

Thirdly, the Bill amends section 10 of the 2010 Act, which currently requires an academy provider to consult appropriate persons on whether a funding agreement should be entered into. We recognise the importance of considering the impact on local communities when opening any new school. The Bill amend that section to require the provider to consult appropriate persons on how the secure school should work with local partners; for example, a provider may deem it appropriate to consult elected representatives or health and education services.

Clause 2 establishes that, when enacted, this legislation will extend to England and Wales, but apply only to England, given that the academy system under the 2010 Act has not been adopted in Wales. The clause also establishes that the provisions of the Bill will come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning on the day it receives Royal Assent and is passed. Finally, the clause establishes that, once in force, the Bill may be referred to as the Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act 2024.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I will not detain the Committee long, but I want to voice my wholehearted support for my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in introducing the Bill. I also wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to her for her well-known and long-standing commitment to children, both in her professional career as a doctor and in this place. It is perhaps a testament to that commitment that she has been instrumental in bringing forward this small but important piece of legislation. The people of Sleaford and North Hykeham are very lucky to have her as their representative in this place, and long may that continue.

It is a sad reality that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their liberty in order to protect the public. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that they receive the appropriate support to prepare them for their eventual release and to turn their lives around.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware from his time doing my job some years ago that we have within our youth custodial estate young offenders institutions, secure training centres and secure children’s homes. The secure school is a new addition to that. It will be the first of its kind in the country. With that in mind, it is important that we establish this first secure school, see how it works and learn from that experience. If it works, my ambition is to see the concept expanded, subject in the future to any funding or spending review decisions. However, it is important that we learn from the real experience once the school is open before we make any longer term commitments or decisions.

The Government fully support the Bill on the basis that the amendments will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and create better services, thus strengthening the impact of secure schools on the lives of those children in our justice system. Through the Bill, we have an opportunity to enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer, and have more flexibility should there be need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. Although one hopes that will not be necessary, it is prudent and appropriate to have that power in place.

We also have the opportunity to modify consultation requirements that do not apply to secure schools, and therefore help future secure schools to open with minimal delay. Engagement with local communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has highlighted, is a key part of the selection process for any new custodial site. The Bill will give providers the opportunity to engage with their local community, facilitating future secure schools should the school prove to be the success that we hope and anticipate it will be. That will ensure a more constructive consultation process that will seek to consult on how the secure school should work with local partners.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing forward the Bill, and I confirm the Government’s full and continued support for it.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank those who have contributed today, and the Government and the Minister for their support. I thank the hon. Member for Neath for coming along today and for her contribution. As she has in Neath, we have a secure children’s home in Sleaford in my constituency. These homes provide care, support and education to children in a secure environment, many but not all of whom have been placed there by the criminal justice system. Rehabilitation is a key part of the criminal justice system, particularly for our youngest people. Extending it to the formal school-based approach for 16 to 19-year-olds in particular will help us to rehabilitate those young people.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.

[Edward Argar]

I will take this opportunity to put on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for her work on the Bill, to those right hon. and hon. Members who are here today, to you for chairing proceedings, Mr Hollobone, and to the fantastic parliamentary and Bill team at the Ministry of Justice for their work on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)]

9. What plans he has to improve support for victims of crime.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

12. What plans he has to improve support for victims of crime.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

17. What plans he has to improve support for victims of crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that the victims Bill focuses on delivering improvements to the quality and consistency of victim support services, backed up by more funding than ever before, with £192 million by 2024-25—a four times increase on 2009-10—as well as a multi-year commitment that gives victim support services confidence to plan for the future. That will benefit people in East Devon, and it is fair to say that this Government are committed to delivering on our promises.

[Dr Johnson]

With the victims Bill, a quadrupling of money for support services and the lengthening of sentences, it is clear that this Government are on the side of victims. One key expectation of victims is that justice will be served and prisoners will not escape, yet twice this year violent sexual offenders have escaped from a Lincolnshire prison, causing anxiety and danger to my constituents. What is the Minister doing to ensure that that does not happen again?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend for her support for the measures we are introducing through the victims Bill, and I know that the prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) would be willing to speak to her about the specific issue of absconding. What I can say is that we are tightening the rules governing open prisons with a tough three-step test and greater ministerial oversight, which I hope will give her confidence on this issue.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I will speak briefly about the parts that apply to Scotland, which are significant and potentially extremely damaging to people’s rights to access justice. Because Scotland is currently compelled to do as we are told as part of this Union—we do not have the normal powers of a normal independent country—even our own democratically elected Government can do nothing about that damage. If that is not an argument for voting yes in the 2023 independence referendum, I do not know what is.

It is also interesting that, on this Bill, as with the Nationality and Borders Bill and the policing Bill, it has been left to the House of Lords—the unelected House—to represent the views of the people and attempt to get rid of the most egregious parts of each horrible piece of legislation. As a big fan of democracy, that does not make me any more inclined to support an unelected Chamber, but I want to pay tribute to those Members who have worked so hard, often into the early hours of the morning, on all of the amendments to try to make an awful Bill a tiny bit more palatable.

Lords amendment 1 removes the power to include provision and quashing orders, removing or limiting their retrospective effect. Those on the Opposition Benches, and in particular those of us who were on the Bill Committee, tried hard to get the Government to understand that if quashing orders are not to be applied retrospectively, there will be a very chilling effect. Many of us talked about the landmark case of Employment Tribunal fees that Unison brought to the Supreme Court in 2017, where the Court found that Parliament was wrong to limit people’s access to justice by charging them to use the Employment Tribunal. It found in favour of the claimants, and the quashing order had immediate effect, so the fees were abolished immediately and the Government were required to refund anyone who had paid them in the past. Given that people were being charged up to £1,200, that was a great outcome that will have made a big difference to many.

However, if the Government get their way and Lords amendment 1 is not agreed to, should something similar happen in the future, anyone who had paid such fees would be unable to claim their money back. Who would put themselves through all that for no tangible outcome? There will be zero incentive to challenge the Government or other public bodies, so those public bodies and the Government will be able to proceed safe in the knowledge that they can do whatever they like. The Scottish National party therefore absolutely supports the very sensible Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3.

At last, the Government have seen sense and agreed to Lords amendment 4. There was something sinister about the Minister wanting the power to tell the judiciary how to do their jobs. Judges have a suite of remedies at their disposal, and they should decide which are the most appropriate, so I am relieved that they finally agreed to that amendment.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady is making an argument that contradicts her previous one. On the one hand, she said that she does not want retrospective quashing orders to be available to a judge to make a decision on, and the other hand, she argued that judges should be trusted to make their own decisions. Surely judges can be trusted to make decisions on whether a retrospective quashing order is or is not appropriate in an individual case.

[Anne McLaughlin]

We have had this discussion so many times before. The hon. Member needs to go and look up the meaning of the word “presumption”.

Lords amendment 5 is about Cart judicial review—in Scotland, it is Eba judicial review. The amendment would insert a new clause to enable appeals of an upper tribunal decision to refuse an appeal to the High Court and then to the Supreme Court if considering a point of law or if it is in the public interest. It is a compromise, and surely the Government can accept one further minuscule compromise. After all, as we have pointed out to Government Members on numerous occasions, the Government claim that their measures were motivated by a high number of attempts versus the low rate of success, but the evidence to support their position was so flawed that the Office for Statistics Regulation decided to launch an investigation, which found that the real success rate was at least 15 times higher than the Government were telling us. I do not think that we have had an apology for that obfuscation yet, but these days Government apologies tend to have something of a hollow ring to them. Therefore, instead of apologising, why do they not just accept that their stats were flawed and accept the compromise amendment?

Worse: the Government insist on thinking that a Cart judicial review is successful only if the appellant actually wins. The truth is that a successful Cart judicial review is one where the flawed decision of the upper tribunal is appealed and reversed. That has nothing to do with the final outcome of the case. If we base the figures on that, the stats show just how vital a safeguard Cart judicial reviews are. Using accurate figures, the Public Law Project calculated that 40 people every year would be otherwise incorrectly denied their right to appeal in cases where, as we heard from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), the stakes can be incredibly high. We are talking not about trivial cases, but sometimes life-and-death cases. The tribunal system considers access to vital benefits, and removing that layer risks leaving people with disabilities and those facing destitution and homelessness without a last line of defence.

The tribunal system also considers immigration cases, as we heard. If it is so flawless, how am I able to tell the story again of the Venezuelan man who fled to the UK after witnessing the violent murder of his friend by state actors who would most certainly have come after him, had he remained in Venezuela? The first-tier tribunal and the upper tribunal surmised that he had nothing to fear. Thankfully, he had that last line of defence, which the Government are trying to take away and the Lords are trying to save, and he was able to judicially review the decision. The upshot was that the man was allowed to appeal. He won and was saved from deportation and almost certain persecution and death.

Retaining the restricted supervisory jurisdiction, as proposed in Lords amendment 5, would help to avoid injustice. However, voting against the Lords amendment would be a clear demonstration that people such as the man I mentioned, people who are dependent on disability benefits, and people facing homelessness are irrelevant to the Government and to Conservative Members.

Lords amendment 7 is on the online procedure rule committee. We were disappointed that neither House accepted our very reasonable request to include just one representative on the committee with knowledge and experience of the Scottish legal system. When we proposed such amendments during previous stages, I said that accepting them would

“allow the Government to keep up their pretence about respect for Scotland”.—[Official Report, 25 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 939.]

They have declined to do even that, as has the House of Lords. It is extremely disrespectful to Scotland and our distinct legal system.

The Bill is just one part of a broader programme of constitutional reform designed to allow the Government to restrict the rights of their citizens and, in particular, some of their most vulnerable people. The Bill needs to be seen as part of a whole alongside the independent Human Rights Act review, which is under way, a review of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which is on its way, and a succession of relevant pieces of legislation that are currently before Parliament—very currently, in fact; some are being considered this week and even today—such as the Elections Bill, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill.

Those proposals all have something else in common: they are decisions that should be taken by the countries affected. We should not have one country deciding for other, smaller nations. Why do the people of Scotland have to put up with what Liberty called

“a concerted attempt to shut down potential routes of accountability and exert the power of the executive over Parliament, the courts and the public”

when they have consistently voted for parties opposed to those things? I will tell hon. Members why: because a slim majority of people were frightened into voting against independence in 2014.

The people of Scotland will be far more afraid of all this legislation being imposed on us than any daft scare stories that the coalition of Unionist parties can come up with next time around. We will always show solidarity to people in the rest of the UK who are fighting these terrible wrongs, but next time, in 2023, I am confident that the people of Scotland will vote yes to independence and yes to making far better decisions for ourselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, all tabled by Lord Marks in the other place. I appreciate that the Government have made some concessions and I thank the Minister for his meeting with me.

Amendments 1, 2 and 3 would remove from the Bill the power to make prospective-only quashing orders. They are backed by the Law Society and Justice, and I urge Members across the House to back them too. Judicial review is one of the most powerful tools that an individual has to enforce their rights. Challenging the Government through the courts when they get things wrong is one of the core principles of our parliamentary democracy.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Wera Hobhouse]

No; I am conscious of time and Madam Deputy Speaker is anxious that we proceed.

The principle should not be party political but one shared across the House. It is disappointing to see the Government pushing ahead with plans to restrict judicial review by opposing the amendments. Unamended, the Bill is described by the Law Society as “chilling”; clauses 1 and 2 undermine judicial review. Prospective-only quashing orders could be hugely harmful to those seeking justice: they would not only deny redress to someone who had been harmed by a public body’s unlawful action, but actively serve as a disincentive to those seeking justice through judicial review.

Let us imagine a person who had incorrectly been deemed ineligible for carer’s allowance by the Department for Work and Pensions. That person successfully challenges the decision through judicial review. Prospective-only quashing orders would mean that the person did not receive the back payments unlawfully denied to them. Those payments could mean the difference between a person heating their house or going cold, or between eating or going hungry.

To make matters worse, extensive delays in courts mean that decisions could be put off for even longer. Prospective-only quashing orders arbitrarily discriminate between those affected by an unlawful measure before a court judgment and those affected after one. There are numerous examples. In 2017, the High Court ruled that a Home Office policy to deport EU rough sleepers was unlawful and discriminatory. The policy was scrapped. If a prospective-only quashing order had applied, then potentially only those receiving a removal notice would be protected; all those who had already faced removal or had had a removal notice issued against them would still have faced deportation. That would not have been justice.

Important as they are, the damaging effects of prospective-only quashing orders go far beyond individual cases. They damage the basic principle that underpins our democracy: that individuals must have the power to challenge the powerful when the powerful get things wrong. If the Government or public bodies are spared the risk of retrospective legal consequences, the motivation for good decision making is lower. Public bodies will take their chances, particularly in issuing welfare benefits, because the cost of getting things wrong would still be lower than getting them right in the first place. That is bad not only for those seeking redress from the courts but for all of us. It should ring alarm bells for all of us.

The Bill is just another Government programme of constitutional reform that weakens the institutions and rights that hold them to account. We saw that in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Government’s voter ID proposals. We Liberal Democrats will continue to stand against any attempts to weaken the institutions and rights that hold the Government and the powerful to account. I urge Members across the House to do the same and vote in favour of Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3.

Ten-Year Drugs Strategy

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

First, all those in the secure estate who have a drug dependency or drug problem will receive a treatment place. We have made the commitment that 100% will be covered, and that obviously includes female offenders. On top of that, we want to ensure that as they exit the secure estate and rejoin society, they can also access high-quality treatment places configured to their own requirements, demographics and geography. It will be down to local partners to design those services off the back of the funding that we are providing. Our only ask is for a rigorous evaluation and results framework in each area of the country to show that the money we are investing has the desired impact.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Sobriety tags—wearable devices that monitor alcohol consumption in offenders—were trialled first in Lincolnshire and have been rolled out due to their success in preventing 90% of people from consuming alcohol while wearing them. Could such an approach be useful for those taking drugs?

[Kit Malthouse]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on an extremely good question, and a very topical one. She will be pleased to hear that this morning I met the Korean ambassador and that country’s superintendent of police, with whom we do an awful lot of work, not least on international money flows. I raised in particular my interest in the research and invention by a Korean research institute of a drugs tag—a wearable device that detects drug consumption in somebody’s sweat. We are very interested in the technology and have a fund that we can invest in such technological developments. She is right that, on sobriety ankle tags, we are seeing 97% compliance, and we think that there is a role for such checking in drugs.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 2
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) [V]]

The first duty of any Government is to protect members of the public from harm, and I welcome the swift progress that the Government have made on that. Despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, the Government have beaten the target of recruiting 6,000 extra officers by March 2021 and are ahead of schedule to recruit, as promised, 20,000 more police officers by 2023. With a new cohort of police officers protecting our communities, we should give them the protection that they need to do the job to the best of their ability.

At a time when we are battling an invisible enemy—the coronavirus—our exceptional frontline workers should not be at risk of violence from the very people they are trying to protect. I am glad that the Government have shown that they will not tolerate such attacks and are legislating to double the maximum penalty for assaults on emergency workers from 12 months to two years in prison—the penalty that fits such an abhorrent and selfish crime.

At a time when we have been tragically reminded of the senseless violence perpetrated against women and girls, it is important that our communities are protected from the most serious offenders. A previous Labour Government introduced automatic early release at the halfway point; we are legislating to ensure that that stops and that those convicted of the most serious violent and sexual offences must serve at least two thirds of their sentence before parole is considered.

I welcome the fact that more robust sentences for the worst offenders will be combined with greater efforts to rehabilitate. For offenders stuck in the revolving door of crime there will be things such as electronic monitoring tags to ensure that long and restrictive curfews are adhered to. Sobriety tags, which were first piloted here in Lincolnshire, will ensure that individuals comply with alcohol abstinence orders. Such measures will ensure that once criminals have left custody, robust monitoring is still in place both to stop further harm and to break the cycle of reoffending.

I am pleased to see that those who use their car as a weapon will receive longer sentences, but as we increase sentences for careless driving I look to the Minister for reassurance that we will not criminalise those who have a momentary lapse in concentration—something most of us experience at some point.

Burglary is a particularly invasive crime that many of my constituents fear, and it leaves people feeling unsafe in their home. Will the Minister consider increasing sentences for those who commit this particularly invasive crime?

The Bill represents a significant strengthening of our judicial system, with the flexibility to tackle both serious crime and the causes of crime. I am proud to see this Government delivering on their manifesto commitment to empower our judicial system and make our country safer, and I will support the Bill today.

Courts and Tribunals: Recovery

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady is right to quote me, because I do believe in local initiative and I have seen it in action from HMCTS staff, who know the buildings, in which some of them have worked for many years, better than anybody. I take very much on board what she says. Of course, each court building is pretty different from the other; there is no set template and we all know they are pretty unique. The work that is done to make our courts safe is done in conjunction with Public Health England and Public Health Wales. I will consider the matter she raises further in more detail in order to satisfy myself that everything properly is being done.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I welcome the statement and the considerable investment, effort and energy that my right hon. and learned Friend has put into getting the courts up and running in a covid-safe environment. As a paediatrician, I am particularly concerned about the welfare of children, including in the justice system. Will he advise the House as to what he is doing to ensure that the youth justice system is prioritised and these cases are dealt with as quickly as possible?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her concern about children in the system. She will know that there are existing protocols applied by the courts to ensure that cases involving children are heard as early as possible, which is particularly important when it comes to the Crown court. The overall number of children in a secure setting, whether it is a young offenders institution or other secure accommodation, has continued to fall. It is now around 600. The numbers on remand remain about the same as they did before the pandemic but are proportionately higher because of the overall reduction in the sentenced population. We have been dealing as carefully as possible with the regime that is applied to ensure that young people are safe but that their frustrations when it comes to exercise and activity, which are natural, are dealt with. I am particularly interested in ensuring that education and skills training is improved during the pandemic, bearing in mind that in the first wave, apart from one institution, we were not able to run those programmes. I will keep her updated.

Sentencing White Paper

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that. We have met to discuss this matter. It seems to me that existing types of order—for example, crime prevention orders and serious crime prevention orders—could potentially be used, particularly where somebody has completed their term of imprisonment and licence and therefore the probation service’s involvement has come to an end. I will welcome further engagement with him, because he not only speaks for past victims; he speaks for people whose voice has yet to be heard and whose voice must be heard if we are to effectively protect the victims of sexual abuse.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

They say that an Englishman’s home is his castle, and it is certainly a place where all people should feel safe and secure. As a result, when someone burgles a home, they do not just take possessions; they violate a person’s safety in their own home. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that his new sentencing guidelines will ensure that the people who commit these crimes are appropriately punished and appropriately rehabilitated and that the public will be protected from further occurrences?

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of veterans. It is important to remember that many of our veterans serve in our Prison Service as prison officers, probation officers and other dedicated public servants, and the learning they bring is often the best possible support that can be given to veterans who end up in the criminal justice system. I assure him that a lot of work goes into that issue, but yes more can be done—the identification of veterans is very important, although not the easiest thing to solve—and I take on board his comments and welcome his commitment.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to increase prison capacity.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

We are investing £2.5 billion in an additional 10,000 prison places. This is on top of the 3,500 prison places already being built and in the pipeline.

[Dr Johnson]

Which types of offenders will my hon. and learned Friend be prioritising for these new prison places, and what will she do to make sure they are given opportunities for reform and that they are places of rehabilitation, not just incarceration?