Prison Competition and Efficiency

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

In July 2011 the Government announced the start of a new programme of competition for the management of nine prisons: Acklington and Castington (now together known as Northumberland), Coldingley, Durham, Hatfield, Lindholme, Moorland and Onley, all currently managed by the public sector, and Wolds, currently managed by G4S.

I have already signalled that I intend to reform community sentences and that most offenders on court orders and on licence will be managed on a payment by results basis by the end of 2015.

In prisons we must reduce costs further and faster without compromising public safety and I am determined to do so. I can therefore provide an update on this competition programme and outline how I will build on its success to drive down costs quickly across the whole system to improve outcomes and deliver value for money for the taxpayer.

HMP Northumberland and the South Yorkshire group of Moorland, Hatfield and Lindholme prisons will proceed to the next stage with three remaining bidders, Sodexo, Serco and MTC/Amey before contracts are awarded next year. This competition process produced a compelling package of reforms for delivering cost reduction, improvements to regimes and a working prisons model in these prisons.

This was not the case for HMPs Coldingley, Durham and Onley, so the competition for these prisons is not proceeding and they will remain in the public sector. For the Wolds—currently managed by G4S—the benefits of the competition when compared to the option of clustering the Wolds with the nearby prison Everthorpe, did not represent best value to the public. I have therefore decided not to progress with the competition. This means that when the current contract expires in July 2013, the prison will move to public sector management.

This current competition process has identified the means to accelerate cost reductions. It has set a new benchmark for running prisons which we will now apply to all public sector prisons to maximise savings over the next two spending review periods.

In response to the competition, a model was proposed that would retain direct delivery of core custodial functions by the public sector at considerably lower cost, with ancillary and “through-the-gate” resettlement services provided through market competition. When applied to the whole public sector prison estate, this option enables us to utilise the market to drive down costs and provides the potential to rapidly expand the payment-by-results approach to improve rehabilitation outcomes. I have decided that this is the right thing to do.

We estimate an additional £450 million savings will be generated over the next six years by applying this new public sector benchmark and by competing ancillary and through-the-gate resettlement services across all public sector prisons. This is a challenge the public sector must rise to. The approach I am announcing today does not rule out further prison-by-prison competitions in the future.

I am determined that we will provide enough prison places to accommodate all those committed by the courts. However, prisons must cost less and do more to prevent offenders coming back and we will continue to use competition to drive down costs and improve outcomes.

The approach I have set out today provides the most effective and intelligent way to achieve this. It is not an end to competition, but rather sets a very clear challenge to the public sector to respond at pace and deliver the reforms required to reduce unit costs across the whole system whilst utilising the market to transform rehabilitation for offenders.

Atos Healthcare

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Ministerial Corrections

[Tom Greatrex]

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with reference to the answer of 1 May 2012, to the hon. Member for Cardiff West, Official Report, column 1407W, on Atos, what the monetary value was of each contract between his Department and Atos in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10 and (c) 2010-11.

[Official Report, 22 May 2012, Vol. 545, c. 643W.]



Letter of correction from Chris Grayling

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on 22 May 2012.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Chris Grayling]

The spend values for the five DWP contracts with Atos are as follows:

[Chris Grayling]

The spend values for the five DWP contracts with Atos are as follows:

Effective Community Sentences (Consultation Response)

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I am today publishing the Government’s response to its consultation “Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences”, which began on 27 March and ended on 22 June 2012.

While community sentences can be effective in tackling the causes of reoffending, they do not always inspire public confidence. Some community orders do not contain an element that the public would consider demanding or punitive. The average length of a community order has fallen in recent years, and the percentage of successfully completed orders is also still too low. There is also scope for community sentences to do more to repair the harm that crimes cause to victims and communities.

That is why the Government set out a package of proposals to increase public confidence that community orders provide a proper sanction for criminal behaviour, while also reducing reoffending and ensuring a better deal for victims. The consultation received nearly 250 written responses. The response I am publishing today summarises the responses we received and sets out the policies we will now take forward. The Government will be tabling amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill to deliver a number of the reforms.

The reforms include:

Requiring courts to include a punitive element in every community sentence, unless there are exceptional circumstances;

Making use of new technology, subject to appropriate safeguards, to track offenders during their sentence to protect the public and help prevent criminals committing further offences;

Working with the courts, judiciary and probation trusts to explore improvements in operational procedures for dealing with breaches of community orders, so that offenders are aware of the consequences of breach and face swift sanctions if they do so.

Expanding courts’ powers to defer sentencing so that restorative justice can take place pre-sentence between victims and offenders. This will form part of the Government’s wider strategy to develop a coherent vision of how restorative justice should apply across all stages of the justice process: including how we build local capacity within available funding, and how we ensure a consistently high quality of delivery through accreditation and training standards;

Making clear that courts can take into account criminals’ assets as well as their income when setting financial penalties;

Giving the courts access to benefits and tax information from the Department of Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs when setting and enforcing financial penalties;

Removing the current £5,000 limit on compensation orders in the magistrates’ courts.

Copies of the Government response document will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Both the Government response and associated documents will also be available online at:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/effective-community-services.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

1. What steps he plans to take to ensure the future effectiveness of the integrated offender management framework through the funding of key partners.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

Integrated offender management arrangements are helping to reduce crime and reoffending in local areas through effective partnership working and multi-agency co-ordination. A key strength of the approach is that it makes best use of the resources available locally. Many probation trusts and prisons are following an IOM approach. We hope that local partners will continue to invest in such approaches where they are delivering strong outcomes and offering best value for money.

[Nic Dakin]

I spent a day looking at IOM in Scunthorpe recently and was impressed by what I saw. Will the Secretary of State work with colleagues from the Department for Work and Pensions to give probation services using IOM the flexibility to provide intensive support to get offenders into jobs through projects such as Empower in north Lincolnshire, rather than allowing them to languish on an unresponsive Work programme?

[Chris Grayling]

Given my last job and my current job, I am probably pretty well positioned to ensure that the two Departments work closely together. I strongly believe in the linkage between the rehabilitation of offenders and work to try to get former offenders into employment, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the two Departments will work closely together to achieve that goal.

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

On behalf of the Select Committee on Justice, may I welcome the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor to his office and wish him well?

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he is responsible for spending a lot of public money to ensure that people who come out of prison are effectively managed and assisted so that they give up on crime, and that we use prison for those for whom it is necessary, but use other means to get other people away from crime?

[Chris Grayling]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words of welcome. I look forward to having many dealings with his Committee, and no doubt some sharp questioning. Let me assure him that I view rehabilitation very much as a significant element of our criminal justice system. It will be a major theme of the work I do at the Ministry of Justice. Although people may have to go to prison in recognition of the offences they have committed, it is absolutely right and proper that we should do everything we possibly can to ensure that they do not go back.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am pleased to see the Minister in his new role. Will he take a look at the “Choose change” project, which has been running in Manchester for a number of years, working with offenders in prison to prepare for all aspects of their lives on release? It has been an extremely interesting exercise in dealing with all the things that may lead prisoners back into crime on release, and practitioners in Manchester would very much welcome it if the new Minister paid a visit.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady is making an early bid. I can assure her that I have every intention of spending as much time as I can away from Westminster, looking at the work being done in the public sector, as well as by those working with the public sector, to try to understand where we can improve and build on existing successes. I am sure that if I am in Manchester and the opportunity arises, I shall do as she suggests.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Let me take this opportunity to welcome the Justice Secretary to his place—and, indeed, the prisons Minister and the other Ministers to their places. They say a new broom sweeps clean, so let us have a go. The last Justice Secretary thought that indeterminate sentences were a scandal. We are all hoping that the new Justice Secretary, given his comments in the past, is looking at how to introduce some form of risk-based release. However, given the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights this morning, how long are we likely to have to wait?

[Chris Grayling]

The ECHR ruling this morning was very much about rehabilitation, about which I feel strongly and which needs to be clear and present in prisons, as well as after prison. However, I am very disappointed by the ECHR decision this morning. This is not an area where I welcome the Court seeking to make rulings, and we intend to appeal this morning’s decision.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

2. What recent progress he has made on changes to the arrangements for no win, no fee agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

5. What steps he plans to take to reduce the size of the prison population.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I have no plans to reduce the prison population. The only changes that I want to see in it will result from our returning more foreign national prisoners to their countries of origin, and—crucially—doing a much better job in rehabilitating offenders, so that far fewer people come back to prison.

[Paul Flynn]

I am not grateful for that cynical, backward-looking answer, which did not recognise the fact that not one of the fresh, dynamic teams that have been welcomed to the House for the past 42 years has reduced recidivism by one iota. People are still committing crime, and the same percentage of them are returning to prison. Can we say a word of regret for the loss of one of our few civilised, vintage politicians, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who demonstrated that he had a working brain and that he understood the benefits of remedial work in prison? Have we not, sadly, exchanged old lace for arsenic?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman can go on thinking what he likes, but as I have made absolutely clear, I also see it as a priority to ensure that this time we tackle the rehabilitation challenge, and that we stop people going back to prison again and again.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Has the new Secretary of State, whom I warmly welcome to his post, had a chance to look at a report from the National Audit Office which was published today? It says that the dropping of the previous Secretary of State’s proposal to let prisoners out early if they pleaded guilty, or to reduce their sentences, would lead to an increase in prison numbers, and that we therefore need to maintain our full prison estate.

[Chris Grayling]

I would have been very uncomfortable about inheriting a policy that allowed people to escape prison sentences by pleading guilty early. The National Audit Office report suggests that financial issues might be created for us. I can say that in the two weeks for which I have been in the Department, I have looked at the financial position, and I am comfortable that it is on track to achieve the savings that it should achieve during the spending review period. However, I want to ensure that that happens while also ensuring that the right people are still in our prisons.

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

One way of reducing the number of short-sentence prisoners would be to extend the intensive alternative to custody programme, which has been pioneered in Greater Manchester. When the Secretary of State makes his early visit to Manchester following the invitation issued earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), will he take a look for himself at how that programme is reducing reoffending, and how it could be rolled out still further?

[Chris Grayling]

I have had several bids from the Manchester area, and I am sure that I shall be in the city in the not-too-distant future. I shall happily consider whether I can look at the best projects there. Clearly there is good experience showing how it is possible to increase the likelihood of offenders’ returning to a life of non-offending, and any lessons that we can learn will be welcome.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and his team to their posts. Does he agree that, with the annual cost per prisoner standing at about £40,000 and that figure rising to about £100,000 for young people, it is very sensible, partly in order to save money, to look for alternatives, in particular with regard to short-term schemes? Will he at least look at saving money in that way, which would also enable us to deal better with these people and help make sure rehabilitation happens?

[Chris Grayling]

My two initial thoughts are that the cost of prisons is too high but, alongside that, that the best way for us to save money is to break the cycle of reoffending that has people going back to prison, and back to prison, and back to prison. We release young people on to our streets with £46 in their pocket, to go back to the same places where they offended before and where the same people are, and we are surprised when they return to prison. That is what has got to change.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the language services for courts provided by Applied Language Solutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

14. What plans he has for the future of the role of the victims commissioner; and if he will make a statement.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

As a former chairman of Epsom and District Victim Support, I well understand the importance of the support we provide to victims. I am making an early assessment of how to take forward the role of the victims commissioner.

[Mr Bacon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that very welcome answer. Does he agree that when those whose job it is to help victims of crime turn out to make things worse, so that a victim has to complain, the subsequent inertia can make them a victim all over again? When a new victims commissioner is appointed, will my right hon. Friend ensure that their remit is expanded, so that such examples can be taken into account, which are in effect in the civil rather than criminal area?

[Chris Grayling]

I am aware of the circumstances that prompt my hon. Friend’s question. He makes a valuable point and I would like to discuss the issue with him further. I am open to providing appropriate and more broadly based support to victims if that proves necessary.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

15. What recent representations he has received on coroners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

17. What steps he plans to take to ensure that home owners have the right to protect their property from intruders.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

My hon. Friend knows well that I feel strongly about this issue. The Government and my predecessor have already made changes to the law, and I am now examining whether they go far enough.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and welcome him and his ministerial colleagues to their new positions. Will he consider introducing legislative changes to give certainty to home owners on the level of force they can use to protect their families and properties from intruders?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely believe that a householder who finds themselves in the unbelievably stressful situation of facing a violent intruder should believe that the law is on their side. I give my hon. Friend an assurance that I will make sure that that happens.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

18. If he will assess the effectiveness of the fitness tests that prisoner officers are required to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

Delivering an effective justice system is a key priority of this Government, so I am delighted to have been appointed Secretary of State for Justice and I am grateful to all hon. Members who have welcomed the new team. I am pleased to have such an experienced team who bring a wealth of legal knowledge to their portfolios, building on the excellent work of their predecessors. I should also tell the House that I have agreed with the Chief Whip that, on occasions, when necessary, the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), will provide support to the team and the House. Our shared goal is to focus relentlessly on a rehabilitation revolution, improving our system so that it both punishes and reforms offenders.

[Amber Rudd]

There are British girls at risk of being taken abroad to be subjected to horrific, permanent violence. I know that the Ministry of Justice has been working with the Home Office on a draft declaration against female genital mutilation for at-risk girls to carry in their passports. Will my right hon. and hon. Friends ensure that the most robust legal language possible is used to maximise the document’s deterrent effect and better protect British girls?

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The new Justice Secretary has already said this morning that he does not believe in reducing the size of the prison population. Will he tell the House how else his approach and policies will differ from those of his predecessor?

[Chris Grayling]

I look forward to many months of debate with the right hon. Gentleman. I believe absolutely that the rehabilitation revolution should be at the top of the agenda. We want to deliver a system whereby we no longer send young people inadequately supported back out on to the streets, to reoffend and then go back to prison. I believe in having the right number of people in prison. We need our courts to send to prison people who need a prison sentence, but I also believe in doing everything we can to prevent them from going back.

[Sadiq Khan]

We will wait and see whether the right hon. Gentleman keeps his brief, but I hope we will be debating for more than a few months; we could do with more certainty in the Justice Department. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has pointed out, the National Audit Office has said today that, as a result of this Government’s botched policies over the past 28 months, there is now a £130 million black hole in the MOJ budget. We also know that our prisons and probation services are overstretched. Will the Justice Secretary reassure the House and the British public that, unlike the previous Justice Secretary, he will not risk public safety or let victims down in his attempts to fill the black hole?

[Chris Grayling]

I can absolutely give that assurance. As I said earlier, I have looked at the Department’s finances and it is on track to deliver the savings that it needs to deliver. My view is that reform is about delivering more for less, not about endangering public safety.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

T2. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those who sit on jury service are not in the country illegally? That point was raised with me by a member of the judiciary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

T4. In welcoming the Secretary of State to his role, may I ask what are his initial impressions of how his Department’s relationship with the European Court of Human Rights will evolve?

[Chris Grayling]

Although good work is being done to encourage initial reforms, decisions such as today’s in the European Court of Human Rights suggest that its focus is wrong. Through the work of our commission and discussions across the coalition, we will put considerable effort into ensuring that the human rights framework in this country is something that we can all have confidence in, as the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said earlier.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T10. What assessment has the Department made since the riots last year of the initial lengths of the sentences that were imposed, the extent to which those sentences were reduced on appeal, and the extent to which proper pre-sentence reports were available at the initial hearings?

[Chris Grayling]

I have not yet had a chance to look at the detail of the sentencing packages after the riots, but it is clear that members of the judiciary responded in a robust way to a set of circumstances that was wholly and utterly unacceptable, and I praise them for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Further to Question 6, is there any indication that any prisoner has received an inappropriate sentence because of the failings of Applied Language Solutions, given that, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), said, it has failed to fulfil 5% of its bookings even after the improvements that she talked about?

[Chris Grayling]

We have seen no such evidence. If the hon. Gentleman has a constituency case that he wants to bring to us, he should feel free to do so.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

T7. What progress has been made on the disposal of core buildings that are surplus to requirements and, in some cases, unsellable?

[Chris Grayling]

There is an ongoing programme to rationalise the estate across the MOJ, as there is across Government. We should always look to maximise the utilisation of public sector office space, and we will continue to do so.

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

Will the Secretary of State shed more light on reports in the press today that the Government are seeking to change the definition of domestic violence?

[Chris Grayling]

That matter is being dealt with by the Home Office and the Government Equalities Office. We are continuing to review it. We regard domestic violence as a particularly serious offence. It does untold damage to the lives of women. The Government will continue to work to find ways of reducing the likelihood of people suffering from domestic violence.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

T8. Does the Minister agree that the British people have lost confidence in the Human Rights Act, with many seeing it as a charter for criminals? Will he consider bringing forward a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. When I took over as Secretary of State, I made a decision to take two weeks in which to get around the task and not make decisions about anything. That means that the Department will not announce the outcome of the tendering process until after the conference recess, but it is better for a new set of Ministers to ensure that they know what they are talking about before they act.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

May I warmly and genuinely welcome the new Secretary of State to his post—unlike some Opposition Members—and may I give him a heads up to keep a beady eye out later this year for the report into youth justice by the Justice Committee of which I am a member? I encourage him to look seriously at any credible ideas that seek to divert young people from the criminal justice system in the first place.

[Chris Grayling]

I assure my hon. Friend that I will do that. I do not believe that any ministerial team or Department has a monopoly of wisdom, and we will look for best practice and good ideas that will help us to deliver a better level of support to offenders so that they do not come back and reoffend. I particularly look forward to working with members of the Justice Committee. They will no doubt scrutinise our actions intensely, and I hope that we can have a constructive relationship.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Further to his earlier answer, how will the Justice Secretary fill the £130 million black hole in the National Offender Management Service budget that has been highlighted today?

[Chris Grayling]

As I have said, I will not give a detailed accounting statement today, but I have looked at spending trends in the Department and I am satisfied that we are on course to meet our goals for the spending review period.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

My constituent, Lorraine Fraser, tragically lost her son who was brutally murdered by a gang of 30. Four of the murderers received life sentences, but two have been moved to an open prison under the Guittard arrangement, thereby depriving my constituent of the opportunity to attend the parole board, or present a victim impact statement. That has obviously had a devastating impact. Will the Minister agree to meet me and my constituent to discuss that worrying development?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

In his previous job, the Secretary of State responded to a debate in Westminster Hall on work capacity assessments, and one issue raised concerned the long backlog in dealing with appeals against decisions made in the Department for Work and Pensions. In his new role, what is the Justice Secretary doing to deal with the backlog of cases in the Ministry of Justice?

[Chris Grayling]

Having done my previous job and given my current job, I will obviously examine that matter carefully. Of course, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the backlog was not created under the current Government. We inherited it, on a much larger scale, two years ago.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Too often, victims of crime get inadequate information about their case. What are the Government doing to ensure that better information technology is used so that victims are given the right information at the right time?

[Chris Grayling]

I regard the provision of information to victims as one thing that we really need to focus on. I have sat with many victims of crime and their families who have said that one of the biggest frustrations has been not having information about what is going on. I assure my hon. Friend that, although it is early days in the job, that is very much on my mind.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I understand why Ministers chose to withdraw proposals on criminal injuries compensation whereby innocent victims of crime would not have been able to make claims, but I do not understand why they also chose not to press ahead with proposals on victims of overseas terrorism. Will the Secretary of State explain that and say when those proposals will be brought back to the House?

[Chris Grayling]

The key issue related to last week’s criminal injuries debate is that I want to ensure that we prepare for the unexpected. I do not see that there is a case for targeting resources at minor injuries that do not have a significant effect on the lives of those affected. I want to concentrate resources on people who suffer life-changing circumstances as a result of crime. However, I want to ensure that we have enough flexibility to deal with unexpected lower-level cases that do not conform with the overall norms of the scheme.

[Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is a non-state organisation that can bring prosecutions in its own name. Unlike the Crown Prosecution Service, however, when it loses cases because it has got either the law or the facts wrong, costs orders are never made in favour of the successful defendant. Will he investigate why the courts never award costs orders against the RSPCA and in favour of successful defendants?

Judicial Diversity Taskforce (Progress Report)

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Friday 14th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

The judicial diversity taskforce has today published its second report, which outlines the progress achieved over the last year in driving forward change in this area.

In 2010, the advisory panel on judicial diversity made a number of recommendations aimed at increasing the diversity of the judiciary and legal professions, in response to concerns that the judiciary did not reflect the make-up of society. The judicial diversity taskforce, comprising the Ministry of Justice, senior members of the judiciary, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), the Bar Council, the Law Society and Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, was set up to take those recommendations forward.

Significant progress has been made by members of the taskforce, having already completed 20 of the 53 recommendations. The taskforce’s recent achievements include:

Sharing diversity data and using it to develop a baseline against which to measure progress in increasing diversity;

Opportunities for judicial office being more widely promoted to eligible members of the legal profession, and applicants being offered more robust support throughout the process;

Innovative outreach activities being held to help dispel the myths surrounding the appointments process; and

Proposals being included in the Crime and Courts Bill to introduce flexible working patterns into the senior courts, and enabling the JAC to appoint a candidate from an under-represented group when two candidates are equal on merit.

Even though we are making good progress, all members of the taskforce recognise that there is still a lot of work to be done and we must not lose this momentum. We will continue to work together to implement the remainder of the recommendations and provide strong leadership so that we start to see real change in this area.

Copies of the progress report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The document is also available online, at:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/policy/moj/improving-judicial-diversity-judicial-diversity-taskforce-annual-report.

Boundary Commission for Wales (Appointment of Deputy Chairman)

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I should like to inform the House that I have made the following appointment under schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986:

The honourable Mr Justice Wyn Williams appointed as Deputy Chairman of the Boundary Commission for Wales effective until 30 September 2015.

Defamation Bill

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

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

I am pleased to be here for this Third Reading debate. I thank my two colleagues, the Under-Secretaries of State for Justice, my hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) and for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), for their role in the debate so far, and for picking up the subject so quickly. We have all been in our jobs for only a few days. I also look forward to sparring with the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), in the Chamber over the coming months. I pay tribute to Members for the quality of today’s debate, which has been constructive. These are serious matters and we need to get them right.

The Bill has now proceeded through its scrutiny stages in this House. The issues that it addresses go to the core of what it means to live in a free and open society. The right to speak freely and to debate issues without fear of censure are a vital part of a democratic society. However, that freedom should not be used to damage the reputation of others without regard to the facts. Lives and careers can be destroyed by false allegations that go unanswered. The issue for our defamation laws is ultimately one of striking the right balance between the protection of freedom of expression and the protection of reputation.

The Bill reflects our view that the law is out of kilter, and that our defamation regime is out of date, costly and over-complicated. It needs urgent reform so as to offer more effective protection for freedom of speech and to stop the threat of long and costly libel proceedings being used to stifle responsible investigative reporting and scientific and academic debate. We also need to stop powerful interests overseas with little connection to the United Kingdom using the threat of British libel laws to suppress domestic criticism as part of libel tourism.

Equally, it is vital to ensure that people who have been defamed are not left without effective remedies when their reputation has been seriously harmed. It would not do to move from one extreme to the other, with sensible reform of the law giving too much licence to those who exercise freedom of expression without responsibility. The core aim of the Bill is therefore to ensure that the right balance is achieved, so that free speech is not unjustifiably impeded by actual or threatened libel proceedings, but so, too, that people who have been defamed are able to protect their reputation.

I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the Bill’s scrutiny, not only this afternoon but on Second Reading and in Committee. I welcome the support that has been expressed from all parts of the House, during the debate today and at earlier stages, for the principles underlying the Bill and the need for reform. Inevitably, there are differences of opinion on the detail, many of which have been expressed today.

I would like to use this opportunity to explain again the Government’s approach and our position on a number of key issues. In the light of our core aim, the Bill contains a range of measures aimed at supporting freedom of expression. One of our central objectives has been to ensure that trivial and unfounded actions for defamation do not succeed. Clause 1 therefore provides that, for a statement to be defamatory, it must have caused, or be likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. That test raises the threshold for claims, and represents a higher hurdle than the one that currently applies. This will help to discourage trivial claims, while ensuring that claimants can still take effective action to protect their reputation when it has been seriously harmed.

Other measures through which the Bill bolsters freedom of expression include: a single publication rule, which will mean that a publisher cannot be repeatedly sued for the same material; sensible action to address libel tourism, which has caused considerable harm to this country’s reputation around the world; and greater protection for website operators and for other secondary publishers, such as local booksellers and newsagents.

In addition to those general measures, the Bill takes specific steps to encourage robust scientific and academic debate by creating a new defence against libel for peer-reviewed material in scientific and academic journals, and by extending qualified privilege to reports of scientific and academic conferences. Given the work that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science is doing to promote science in this country, the more we can send messages that we value scientific research in this country, the better.

The Bill provides simpler and clearer defences to those accused of defamation, and ensures that they are available outside mainstream media cases. One way in which that is achieved is through the creation of new statutory defences of honest opinion and truth to replace the existing common-law defences.

Alongside those new defences, the Bill introduces a new statutory defence of responsible publication in the public interest, which is based on the common-law defence that has been developed by the courts, initially in the case of Reynolds v. Times Newspapers, and more recently in cases such as Flood v. Times Newspapers. We recognise the concerns from differing perspectives that have been expressed about the measure, so let me reiterate a point that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, made earlier. This ministerial team has come to these issues relatively freshly in the past few days. We are not closed-minded, and the important thing is to get this measure right. Although we did not accept the amendments that were considered today, I want to send a clear message that we are open to continued discussions. We are happy to table Government amendments in the other place if that would be appropriate and prudent to improve the quality of the Bill. I am not saying that we will accept every proposal on the table, but we are open to continuing discussions on the Bill and to making changes so that we try to ensure that we get it absolutely right.

Another focus of debate has been the provisions in clause 5 to deal with responsibility for publications on the internet, which is an aspect of our current regime that is genuinely in need of modernisation. Clause 5 gives a defence to website operators in relation to material posted by users of sites that they host. To maintain the defence, the operators will have to comply with a new procedure aimed at ensuring that complaints can be directed to the authors of the material—that is really important—but there must be protection for operators who are doing the right thing. We have made amendments to clarify a number of points of detail in the clause, and we will be seeking views on regulations to support the new process in due course.

Our approach will stop website operators from being unfairly exposed to liability in defamation proceedings while still encouraging them to behave responsibly. It will help freedom of expression by ensuring that material is not simply taken down without the author having an opportunity to express his or her views, which frequently happens now, but it will still ensure that people who have had their reputation seriously harmed online can take action against the person who is truly responsible, not the intermediary. In tandem with that, clause 10 will ensure that secondary publishers such as booksellers and newsagents are not unfairly targeted and that action is taken against the primary publisher whenever possible.

Let me be clear that while we are determined to protect and enhance freedom of expression, we are also determined to ensure that there is no free-for-all. This is not open season for making defamatory comments with no fear of redress. To ensure that a fair balance is achieved between the interests of claimants and defendants, it is important that effective remedies are available for those who have been defamed, so clause 12 adds to existing remedies by setting out provisions extending the courts’ existing power to order the publication of a summary of its judgment to ensure that, when appropriate, a meaningful public clarification can be given that a story was wrong.

I emphasise again our firm commitment to reducing the cost of defamation proceedings, which has been a barrier to people who have found themselves in problematic situations. Clause 11, which removes the presumption in favour of jury trial, will help with that by enabling key issues such as the meaning of allegedly defamatory material to be decided by a judge at an early stage. Allied with that, we are taking forward work on procedural changes to facilitate the early resolution of key issues, and we will be considering how best to encourage alternative means of resolving disputes, such as mediation, to encourage settlements and prevent unnecessary litigation.

I thank Opposition Members, especially the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), for the measured way in which the Bill’s proceedings have been conducted. We will not agree about every aspect of the Bill, but such debates are valuable to ensure that we get this important measure right. The Bill’s consideration has been constructive and thorough. We think that the Bill sets out a balanced and fair package of measures that will allow debate on matters of public importance to thrive. We are open to continued debate and dialogue in the other place to ensure that we get the Bill right but, above all, we must make sure that we provide appropriate remedies for those who have been defamed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Garnier]

I will not follow the same acerbic path as the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane).

[Chris Grayling]

I am not sure whether this is the appropriate time, but I am sure that the whole House would like to join me in congratulating my hon. and learned Friend on his knighthood.

[Mr Garnier]

In parenthesis to what I was saying about the right hon. Member for Rotherham, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice for his kind remarks and congratulate him on his new position. I congratulated the new Under-Secretaries of State, my hon. Friends the Members for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) earlier this afternoon. If my right hon. Friend maintains the tone that he adopted during his speech, this Bill will not only be improved, but markedly so. I am grateful for the stance that he took, which was in marked contrast to that taken by the right hon. Member for Rotherham, who thought it amusing, no doubt, to make personal remarks about others who cannot protect themselves here; but let us leave that there.

I also thank the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the shadow Secretary of State for his words and the approach that he and his Front-Bench team will take as the Bill goes to the other place. There is now an opportunity to develop a new defamation Act that will meet some apparent needs, such as how the law is applied and libels dealt with in relation to the internet. It is time to deal with such things.

I have noted on my copy of the Bill something that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said earlier about clause 1. As drafted, the clause confuses what is defamatory and the consequences of a defamatory statement. I hope that by the time the Bill becomes an Act, the clause will read: “A defamatory statement is not actionable unless its publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of the claimant”. Many things are defamatory that might not cause much damage, and many things are not very defamatory but can cause disproportionate damage. The wording that my hon. Friend and I have coincidently come up with deals with that point. I dare say that others will think more carefully about that as the Bill moves forward.

On the issue of truth and honest opinion, the way the Bill is constructed is sensible. In my opinion, the law did not need changing but, if it is to be changed, clauses 2 and 3 deal with it.

I have said what I had to say about clause 4 and the Reynolds defence. I want briefly to talk about clause 6. There has been a huge amount of campaigning from various groups, such as PEN, Sense about Science and so forth, largely based on the case of the chiropractors against Simon Singh. I will not go into the facts of the case. Much of it was misunderstood, but the nub of the case was this: did the words complained about constitute allegations of fact or comment? That does not matter, because the argument and the campaign decided that academic criticism should almost be free from the law of libel.

Once we have got over that concern, we need to think more carefully about whether learned societies, which are not corporate bodies or profit-making companies, should have a right to sue in damages. We no longer allow local authorities to sue for damage to their governing reputation. Thirty five years ago, I used to get injunctions, for goodness’ sake, on behalf of local authorities, as corporate bodies that felt that they had been defamed by the local paper. Looking back, it is ridiculous to think that the Derbyshire county council case was not decided earlier, but it was not. For some decades now, it has not been possible for local authorities to sue in defamation. I rather suspect that the royal college of this, that or the other should not be allowed to sue either, although I must distinguish between that and the right of presidents and other officers of those associations to bring a personal action, if they are defamed.