Prison (Interception of Communications)

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Written Statements

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

On 11 November 2014, I announced that HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP) would undertake an independent investigation, which will, by early 2015, report in full on the facts and make recommendations. On 30 November, HMCIP provided me with his interim report, which provides an initial assessment of the initial measures put in place and makes a small number of recommendations, which the National Offender Management Service have begun to address.

I am pleased to report that HMCIP has indicated that the interim measures that were taken have, to a large degree, addressed the immediate concern of confidential communication being inadvertently monitored.

The report is available online at:

http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/inspections

I will also place a copy in the Library of the House.

Transforming Rehabilitation

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Friday 5th December 2014 Written Statements

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

Following the announcement of preferred bidders on 29 October, the Ministry of Justice has taken another step towards completing the Government’s probation reforms.

Following further negotiations with preferred bidders, I have today announced that I am awarding contracts to the successful bidders for the 21 community rehabilitation companies (CRCs).

I have placed a copy of the list of successful bidders in the Library of the House and all bidders are receiving formal notification today.

After formal notification of bidders, we will enter the standstill period at the end of which we intend for contracts to be signed with new providers.

Attachments:

1. Transforming Rehabilitation - Successful Bidders (Table of Successful Bidders - FINAL.pdf)

Attachments can be viewed online at http://www.parliament. uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2014-12-05/HCWS64/

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 97.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 98 to 106 and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendment 107, and amendments (a) to (e) in lieu.

[Chris Grayling]

Before I move on to the detail of the amendments, it might be helpful to remind the House why these reforms are so important. Judicial review was developed as a tool for citizens to challenge decisions taken by public bodies that unlawfully and adversely affect their lives. That remains as important today as ever, and nothing in these reforms will prevent those citizens from using judicial review in the future. As Lord Chancellor I take my responsibility to uphold the rule of law very seriously, but I do not believe that the way in which it has evolved in relation to the current use of judicial review is consistent with or necessary to uphold the rule of law, and I believe the time has clearly come to set some limits to prevent misuse.

Judicial review was never intended to be a tool for pressure groups to seek to disrupt perfectly lawful decision making in Government and Parliament, it was never designed to be used as a political campaigning tool, and it was never intended to put the courts above the elected Government in taking decisions over the essential interests of this country. Yet, in far too many examples, that is precisely what it has become and it is why reform is necessary. It is also why the three areas of our proposed reforms covered by this debate tonight are so important.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the judicial process must be robust and fair, it must not be open to constant abuse?

[Chris Grayling]

Indeed. I am genuinely baffled as to why the Opposition are so set against many of these reforms when many of their predecessors as shadow Ministers or in government raised many of the same concerns. I will challenge them over one or two of the issues later, because I find their position inexplicable.

Whoever wins the general election will have to take some very difficult decisions in the next Parliament. Those decisions are not ones that any of us would wish to have to take, any more than we in government wanted to take some of the difficult decisions that we have faced in this Parliament, but tough times mean tough decisions—decisions in the interests of this country. And yet, whichever party is in government after next May will face a wave of pressure groups trying to use judicial review to delay decisions, to avoid spending reductions, and to generate publicity for their own cause.

If a group can find a clever enough lawyer, almost any Government decision can be judicially reviewed, and very many are, not necessarily on the basis of specific breaches of specific laws, but far too often on a loose argument that something was not quite right with the consultation paper, that there should have been a bit more consultation, or that a tough decision seen in isolation was irrational. Without undermining the essential core of judicial review, we need to restore common sense to the way in which the judicial review system works, and that is what we are working to do.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the important point made by Lord Horam that there is a difference between a balance to protect the rights of the citizen in specific cases and a situation where, sadly, judicial review can be moved through pressure groups to what is effectively a review of the merits, rather than of the procedures, often contrary to the wishes of the communities that are most directly affected?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right. Judicial review has become a vehicle that is used as one of the tools to campaign, to delay and to challenge, not necessarily in the interests of the broader society or the broader community, but because it provides a vehicle to make a point or to delay something for financial reasons. It makes no sense to have a system that can be abused in the way it often is.

We listened carefully to the debate in the House of Lords, and as hon. Members will see from the amendment paper, we have suggested some modifications to ensure that we avoid unintended consequences of what we are working to do. I hope that the House will say clearly today that having agreed those safeguards, we want to see this package of reforms pass into law.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On safeguards, can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that local authorities will not be able to dumb down their standards, knowing that there is not likely to be a judicial review, and that they will still always go through the correct process, as they need to do, and not think that they are beyond reproach?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right. It is important to say that the Bill will not stop organisations being judicially reviewed where they are at fault. It does not stop organisations being judicially reviewed for constant or serious underperformance or failure to fulfil their duties. What it stops is judicial review on technicalities. It stops the system being used for purposes for which it should not be used.

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

Does the Lord Chancellor view as a technicality the recent consultation on changes to legal aid ignoring the Welsh language aspect altogether and allowing half the time for the consultation to go into the Welsh language issue, as opposed to the whole time? Is that something that we should just ignore?

[Chris Grayling]

In that particular case, we fulfilled the orders of the court after the first judicial review hearing. I did not agree with the judge in that initial ruling. I considered an appeal, but looking at the detail of the ruling, I decided that it was more in the interests of the system that we were trying to protect and develop to move ahead with a further period of consultation. That is what we did, and we have published our responses arising from that consultation. We took the opportunity to revisit our original decisions and to look at whether any further changes needed to be made. That was embodied in the document that we published last week.

There are three simple principles in the areas of debate covered by these motions. I challenge the Opposition to explain why they so strongly disagree with those principles. First, parties should not be able to use minor technicalities in process as an excuse to bring a judicial review in order to delay an essential decision when there is very little likelihood that the outcome would be affected by that technicality. It is a simple principle. There is an exceptional circumstances clause which still allows judicial discretion in cases where there is a particularly distinctive characteristic, but this is designed to stop organisations judicially reviewing a process on the basis of a minor flaw in process, only to have the effect of delaying a difficult change—delaying for financial reasons and trying to push a change back a few months so that the financial impact is not felt as soon.

That is the reality of what is happening, and this proviso seems a perfectly sensible means of ensuring that the Government can take decisions in a timely and necessary way. In the unhappy event that the shadow Secretary of State finds himself in my chair or his colleagues find themselves in other Ministers’ chairs, they will think that it is sensible and logical way to make sure that the wheels of government move at an appropriate pace.

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

I hope that my right hon. Friend accepts that some Government Members, and I include myself, have some concern about the reforms he is promoting. Will he help me to resolve a very difficult dilemma by telling me and the House what he regards as a minor technicality? Judges do not generally grant leave for judicial review on minor technicalities—it has to be based on matters of serious abuse of fair process—so I am concerned and troubled by what he considers a technicality.

[Chris Grayling]

I hate to disabuse my hon. and learned Friend, but such cases happen all the time and very regularly. Very early in this job, I faced a judicial review—we eventually won it after a hearing, but only following a delay and some considerable cost—from a representative group that argued that changes to a part of the compensation system should not proceed because of a technical detail concerning how the consultation had been carried out. It went to a hearing, which we won, but it cost the taxpayer substantial amounts of money and delayed the process. It was on a technicality, and there was no likelihood of there being a different outcome. If he talks to Ministers from across the Government, he will find that such cases happen regularly—for example, if a nuance of a consultation has not been done thoroughly or properly, or if it was fractionally shorter than the precedent for similar consultations. I am afraid that such cases do happen, and they delay the wheels of government. Let me talk about the other two areas, because they are also acute problems.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman says “all the time”. Will he give us a notion of how often that is—once a day, once a week, once a month? How many times have such cases happened since April, for instance? He is giving the impression that they happen all the time, but what does that mean?

[Chris Grayling]

A Minister is confronted by the practical threat of the arrival of a judicial review case virtually every week of the year. It is happening all the time. There are pre-action protocols all the time, and cases are brought regularly. Looking across the majority of a Department’s activities, I would say that Ministers face judicial review very regularly indeed. It happens weeks apart rather than months apart.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Grayling]

Let me set out the other two areas covered by the reforms, and I will then give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

The second thing we are trying to do is to stop third parties using people with no means as human shields, and effectively bringing broad-ranging cases on public policy by acting as interveners behind and alongside them, while being immune to financial risk if they lose. That is customarily discussed in terms of pressure groups, but it actually applies to big corporations as well.

The third reform applies in a similar way. If an organisation brings a judicial review, we should know who they are and who is backing them. Of all the disagreements of the House of Lords, I understand this one least. How is it possible for a judge to take a decision on costs and other aspects of a judicial review if he or she has absolutely no idea who is responsible for bringing it? Is it not right and proper for the court to know?

Let me give an example to challenge Labour Members. If a large international, such as a tobacco company, wants to challenge the Government on a public policy decision, it can, under the current rules, set up a shell company, with a single—probably impecunious—director and use it as the front for the judicial review. If that happens, is it not right, proper and sensible for us to know which corporation is backing the judicial review? Labour Members may say that it could never happen, but it happened in the Richard III case, when a shell company with a single impecunious shareholder brought a judicial review against the Government, which cost the taxpayer a significant six-figure sum. It can and does happen.

Why on earth would anybody disagree with the principle that if an organisation brings a judicial review, we should know who it is and who is backing or supporting it? Why is that so unreasonable? I simply do not understand why the Labour party lined up with Cross Benchers in the House of Lords to oppose it. What is wrong with the principle? I challenge shadow Ministers to say—I will happily take an intervention—what is wrong with the idea that a court should know who is backing a judicial review or who is behind it?

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I would love the Secretary of State for once to use an example or any example that does not involve Richard III. He knows very well that the intention of his approach on clause 67 is not to be transparent, but to discourage small litigants—individual groups wishing to take on a big corporation—who would fear that all their funds were at risk. The vast majority of such cases are of that kind. He wants to suppress viable litigation, rather than in any way to be transparent.

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid that that is complete nonsense. The amendments that we are discussing do not involve any financial risk at all. They are simply about the court knowing who is backing the judicial review. They are purely for information. I do not believe that it is unreasonable for a court considering a judicial review to know who is backing it, and I am baffled as to why the Labour party opposes that.

We do not have much time for this debate, so I will focus my detailed remarks on clause 67, but I said that I would take another intervention.

[Frank Dobson]

The right hon. Gentleman talks of technicalities, but the law is full of technicalities—that is all it is. He says that Ministers and officials are frightened of judicial review, and so they should be. The pressure on them is to comply with laws and regulations that we have passed. We are encouraging law breaking if we let someone say, “Well, it’s okay. You can skate over that, or you can skate over this. You can get away with it. It was only a minor technicality.”

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid that that is simply not right. Very many judicial reviews are not about whether we have broken a law passed by this place—of course, we must be challenged if that happens—but are based on a much looser interpretation of what should or should not happen. They are based not on statute, but on, for example, why we have run a consultation for six rather than nine weeks, given that the previous one was for nine weeks. The truth is that such arguments are brought to the courts by people who seek to delay the impact of decisions. I must say that if Labour Members find themselves taking difficult decisions in government after the election, they will discover that a judicial review’s ability to delay key decisions is against the interests of this country, and they will wish that they had supported rather than opposed us.

As hon. Members will see from the amendment paper, we will ask the House of Lords to reconsider its opposition on most of the measures. We listened very carefully to the concerns expressed on clause 67. We disagree with the Lords amendments, which undermine the clauses agreed by this House. Each amendment would take the heart out of the reforms by undermining any duty to give effect to the key requirements. However, we have listened very carefully to the concerns expressed on clause 67, and we have moved by proposing an alternative model.

If this House approves the amendments in lieu, clause 67 will continue to give the courts significant leeway in making cost orders. It will be for the court to consider whether any of the four conditions have been met. It will preserve the court’s role in deciding whether costs were caused by the intervener and incurred by the party reasonably. Where the court is of the view that exceptional circumstances would make the award of costs under the clause inappropriate, it need not make an award.

That is a crucial point on all of this. There are still provisions that give the judiciary the freedom, in exceptional circumstances, to say, “This is a particularly distinctive case, and we need to pursue an approach that is different from the norm.” We have left in provisions for such exceptional circumstances, but on clause 67 we have taken on board some of the concerns expressed. The amendments in lieu are not about preventing legitimate intervention in support of a case brought on behalf of a disadvantaged individual, but are about preventing a powerful group from using someone with no money as a human shield for a case in which the group intervenes behind that individual, with the public picking up the cost regardless of whether the case is won or lost. That should not happen.

We believe that the amendments in lieu strike a sensible balance. They meet the concerns expressed by hon. Members from different parts of the House in a way that will reassure both them and those in the other place that our intention is to tackle the challenge of such human shields, not to remove altogether the ability to intervene in cases where there is a legitimate reason for doing so.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is therefore re-establishing judicial discretion?

[Chris Grayling]

As I just said, we have never taken away judicial discretion. We have left in place the clause on exceptional circumstances. Almost every week, this House passes measures that set tramlines for the courts to operate within. We set maximum sentences, but if the maximum sentence for a crime is five years, we do not say that judges should give a five-year sentence; we give them the flexibility to decide what is the right length of time below that.

We are taking a similar approach with these proposals. We are saying to judges, “Look, you’ve got some flexibility, but there are parameters that we need you to operate within.” To my mind, that brings common sense back to the system of judicial review and deals with the frustrations with a system that can be abused. It does not create a situation in which legitimate judicial reviews cannot be brought.

Surely my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) would admit that an organisation should not be able to bring a case to court free of financial risk because it is shadowing behind somebody who has no means and therefore cannot have costs awarded against them; that an organisation should not be able to set up a shell company to bring a judicial review without any information being available to the court about who is behind the shell company; and that an organisation should not be able to delay a difficult spending decision by arguing to a court that the whole process should start all over again because of a minor technicality. Those things happen on a regular basis and they must change.

These reforms are essential in restoring common sense to judicial review. I hope that the House will back the motions to disagree and the amendments in lieu.

[Mr Slaughter]

Although it is some two and a half years since I last spoke on a series of Lords defeats of Ministry of Justice legislation, I have an acute feeling of déjà vu. On 17 April 2012, this House considered the 11 defeats that their lordships had inflicted on the infamous Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Today, we examine the four considerable dents that have been put in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. The three that we are considering in this group of amendments substantially amend part 4 of the Bill, which seeks to hobble the administrative law remedy of judicial review.

LASPO is fresh in my mind today for two reasons. First, those 11 defeats were whittled down, in the course of ping-pong, to some important but narrow wins. Secondly, the Government have spent the past 30 months trying to squirm their way out of even those concessions. The MOJ is still deciding what to do about the High Court decision that its review of costs rules for mesothelioma cases was unlawful. Let us remember that it is trying to enforce, against the will of Parliament, the payment by sufferers of that terrible disease of up to 25% of their damages in legal fees. Further proceedings are pending on the evidential requirement for obtaining legal aid in domestic violence cases—another defeat for the Government.

Both Houses may wish to note how the Government have sought to dodge the undertakings that were given to two of the most vulnerable groups in society—terminally ill cancer sufferers and domestic violence victims—when they look at any purported concessions in the Bill. Of course, the fact that a Government who go back on their commitments to Parliament and let people down are held to account by the courts is at the root of this attack on judicial review. The Lord Chancellor has lost six judicial review actions in the past year and there are several strong cases in the pipeline. Might that have any bearing on his current attack on judicial review?

For once, notwithstanding the truncated nature of the debate, I feel that we have enough time to debate an issue that the Government find very uncomfortable. That is not because there is a lack of arguments to put against part 4, but because they have already been put many times and have not been rebutted. On Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading in both Houses, there have been long debates on the dangers and inequities of this attack on the rule of law and the rights of the citizen against the state.

An unprecedented alliance of charities, the legal professions, the judiciary and victims of Government injustice has come together to support the Lords amendments. On the “Today” programme this morning, the noble Lord Woolf, who was a sponsor of the Government’s defeats, said that the Bill undermined the independence of the judiciary and, thereby, the rule of law. All the arguments are on one side. Against the clear voice of the experts, which says that this attack on judicial review is a constitutional provocation, we have the childish statements from the Lord Chancellor, who says that judicial review is a left-wing conspiracy. He should tell that to those who are reliant on the independent living fund, the Gurkhas and the victims of care home abuse, or indeed the Countryside Alliance and Stop HS2, all of which are successful challengers of his Government’s arbitrary exercise of power.

The only thing going for the Government is the majority that they hold in this House. The real issue today is whether they can use it to batter the other place into submission. Sadly, there are too few supporters of individual freedom on the Tory Benches. Tory Members either support the big corporation over the little man or have swallowed the Lord Chancellor’s infantile line that judicial review is all about subversive left-wing groups stopping the wheels of commerce turning. We are left to hope—I find it difficult even to say this—that the Lib Dems will wake from their comfortable ministerial sleeps to remember the time when they claimed to be the party of civil liberties. To wait is to hope, but as only one Liberal Democrat MP has bothered to attend this important debate on civil liberties and the rights of the individual, I do not think that we can have much hope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

Since the hon. Gentleman has indicated his intention to support all the Lords amendments, will he explain why he thinks it appropriate to allow organisations that back judicial reviews to remain anonymous?

[Mr Slaughter]

I will not speak for long because we have limited time, but I will come on to those matters in a few moments.

It is not only Labour peers who were rallied by Lord Beecham who share our view. Indeed, as he pointed out, the Lord Chancellor’s proposals have been roundly condemned by every independent and bipartisan body that considered them, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other Committees of both Houses. Furthermore, the former Conservative party chairman Lord Deben referred to the changes as “out of line” and “unacceptable”, and Baroness Williams called them an “act of absolute tragedy” that she was “very troubled” by. Lord Howe voted against the Government, as did many pillars of the legal establishment—so much for the Lord Chancellor’s left-wing plot.

Each amendment that the Government have resisted has a particular point to make. On the “highly likely” test, all their lordships are saying is that judicial discretion should be retained, and that the court may refuse judicial review if it concludes that it is “highly likely” that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different had the conduct complained of not occurred. If we stick with the Government’s proposal and disagree with the amendment, public bodies will be allowed to escape responsibility for unlawful decisions. In the long run it would change the role of judges in judicial review cases as they would be invited to second-guess how decisions have been taken. The Government are confusing remedy with unlawfulness, and potentially creating far more problems at earlier stages of judicial review cases—and causing far more court time to be taken up—because the court will have to consider the implications of its decisions and not the process under review, as is the case at the moment.

On financial barriers, the evidence—I emphasise that word—of practitioners and those who have represented parties on all sides suggests that the chilling effect of the clauses will be felt first by people of limited means who look for support in their judicial reviews. That could be family members—for example in a care home case—or individuals in a community, perhaps on a planning case, but it could also be charities and other not-for profit organisations. Such organisations have said clearly that although they are currently prepared to support judicial review proceedings, if there is a risk that the court will look at the funders and potentially penalise them in costs, their trustees will not be prepared to continue doing that, whatever their support for the individual action. Each clause in part 4 purports to be a simple tinkering change and a way of dealing with things at the margin to ensure that unmeritorious cases do not come forward. However, evidence from the judiciary, practitioners, interveners and everyone who has participated in the process suggests that the clauses will have a chilling and discouraging effect. That is as true for provisions on financial barriers as for the “highly likely” test or interveners.

The issue of interveners has taken centre stage, and at an early point in proceedings the Government said that they would table amendments to deal with the concerns expressed. We had one of those little dances that takes place between the Liberal Democrats and the Government, when the Liberal Democrats say, “We’re not happy with this, can we have a concession?”, and grudgingly, at the last minute—last Friday in this case—we have a concession.

Let us consider the concession the Government are proposing. What they originally proposed, and what the House of Lords disagreed with, is the idea that only in exceptional circumstances and very rare cases would interveners be protected from paying costs. That does not mean their own costs, which interveners customarily pay, but those of all parties involved. That was clearly wrong, and the Government appear to accept that. As the deputy president of the Supreme Court said, interventions are of great assistance to the court and there can be merit in interventions. Therefore, amendments have been tabled. It is clear why Labour supports what the House of Lords said, and that the matter should be—as it is now—at the discretion of the court. The court has completely adequate powers, should it wish to exercise them, to punish or find against interveners on costs if it believes there is no merit in the intervention or if it believes—this is unlikely—that time has been wasted during proceedings. That matter is currently, and should properly remain, at the discretion of the judge.

Let us consider the amendments, because this is the most disingenuous part of the debate. We waited months—since June, I think—to see what concession the Liberal Democrats with all their bravery had wrung out of the Government. The opinion of everyone who has considered the amendments since they were published just before the weekend is that not only do they not address the issue, but they make the situation worse. The reason for that is simple. Previously, there could at least be exceptional circumstances. Now, a series of criteria must be met, otherwise a mandatory duty means that all costs associated with the intervention would be recoverable by all other parties, including losing parties. Therefore in certain ill-defined circumstances, the court would have no discretion to act to prevent an unjust outcome, despite interveners having been granted permission to intervene by the court, and encouraged to proceed. That will have a more damaging effect than the Government’s original proposal to create a presumption that costs would be payable except in exceptional circumstances. Only this Government could make the situation worse by making a concession.

In a way, the wording does not matter. The net result of those criteria is to set up retrospective tests that mean that the chilling effect will apply. Interveners are typically charities, not-for-profit organisations and others who may perhaps have funds to pay their own costs, but will not risk the definition of terms such as “in substance”, “taken as a whole”, “significant assistance”, or whether something is “necessary” for the court to consider whether someone has behaved unreasonably. A judicial review often develops from the permission stage through to a full hearing, and during that time it is perfectly possible that certain facts become more or less relevant. What impecunious charity will take those risks? This is another attempt to pull the wool over our eyes by setting up impossible hurdles and mandatory tests where matters should be left to the discretion of the judge.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Why should those who row in to back a judicial review that they lose be automatically insulated from the costs of doing so? He knows that time after time the taxpayer picks up the bill. This measure is simply to ensure that those who row in behind a judicial review but do not make a valid contribution to the process cannot be immune from facing the costs if they lose.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I remind both Front-Bench speakers, one who has already spoken and the other who has been speaking for rather a long time, that the debate ends at 7 pm and other Back Benchers wish to participate? The Secretary of State has got his points on the record, and perhaps Mr Slaughter will conclude his remarks so that we can call the Back-Bench speakers.

--- Later in debate ---

I wonder if the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to make further remarks on this subject, however, because at the moment I cannot give him my support in the Lobbies on matters relating to the earlier clauses, specifically the “highly likely” clause. The inevitability test the courts have previously adopted drew an important constitutional line that he is asking them to cross. The clause will create pragmatic difficulties in the courts and mean that flagrant and absolutely unacceptable behaviour by the Executive could be condoned by saying, “Well, it made no difference.” There are times when courts ought to mark a fundamental lack of due process.

[Chris Grayling]

The “exceptional circumstances” provisions would allow a judge to say, “This is a flagrant case and must be heard.”

[Mr Cox]

I hear the Secretary of State, but the Bill does not refer to “minor technicalities”; as the Bill reads, the default position would be that any abuse of due process or power could be justified and defended on the basis that the decision would in any event probably have been taken. It is difficult to make “exceptional circumstances” clauses work, because the courts say, “Well, ‘exceptional circumstances’ cannot mean a lack of fairness or an abuse of power.” I have spent many years examining these kinds of clauses and arguing them in the courts, and I know that “exceptional circumstances” clauses are rarely invoked, because courts are reluctant to acknowledge them as a standard resort in such circumstances. It would take something extreme indeed for a court to be persuaded it was exceptional. On the other hand, abuses of power happen quite often, I am afraid, and the clause is likely to condone those abuses of power, whereas often where there is an abuse, it is right that the decision be taken again.

Boundary Commission for England (Deputy Chair)

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 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 hon. Mrs Justice Patterson has been appointed as Deputy Chair of the Boundary Commission for England, effective until 9 November 2019.

Legal Aid

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Written Statements

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

I am today publishing the Government response to the “Transforming Legal Aid: Crime Duty Contracts” consultation published on 24 September. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

This consultation was specifically about the reports produced by KPMG LLP and Otterburn Legal Consulting regarding the legal aid litigator market, which helped inform decisions on the number of criminal legal aid duty contracts to be offered across England and Wales in 2015. We have thoroughly reviewed all the responses received.

As a result, the Legal Aid Agency will let 527 crime duty contracts. This has been revised from 525. The LAA is also today issuing an invitation to tender for those organisations eligible to apply for a 2015 duty provider crime contract. Contracts have already been awarded for own client work, the other type of criminal legal aid contract we announced in February.

To provide further help to firms in rural areas, we have decided to introduce payments for travelling times in excess of 90 minutes. We will also relax the office requirements in the split procurement areas and London to give greater flexibility. This builds on the support measures introduced earlier, such as introducing interim payments for lawyers involved in lengthy Crown court cases and establishing a business partnering network to help practitioners with organisational and financial advice, if they need it. We have also worked with the British Business Bank to develop guidance and advice specifically for the legal aid market.

I have previously informed the House that a second fee reduction for litigators is forecast for mid-2015. The Legal Aid Agency are inviting bidders to bid on the basis that the fee reduction will take place in July, subject to the further considerations we have already said we will undertake.

Prison Competition and Efficiency

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Written Statements

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

In November 2012 the Government announced the start of a new programme of work to drive down costs across prisons in order to deliver value for money for the taxpayer, accelerate cost reductions, maximise savings and to improve outcomes without compromising public safety. The programme included applying a new public sector staffing benchmark that had been developed by the Prison Service in competition with private sector bidders during prison competition phase 2 and the competition of ancillary and through-the-gate resettlement services in public sector prisons.

This approach allows HM Prison Service to focus on core custodial functions, with private and third sector partners adding their expertise and experience by delivering efficient and innovative ancillary and resettlement services.

In June 2013 we announced a competition for the management of a range of works, maintenance and facilities management services in public sector prisons. The competition was formally launched in January 2014, and included: maintenance; works and building projects; management of prison stores; waste disposal and collection; energy and environmental management; cleaning; and escorting of contractors and their vehicles.

I can today announce the outcome of the competition. After a rigorous evaluation of bids, Amey and Carillion have been selected to run the services across four geographical areas. These are:

Lot 1. Amey—North East, North West, Yorkshire and Humberside

Lot 2. Amey—East Midlands, West Midlands, Wales

Lot 3. Carillion—East of England, London

Lot 4. Carillion—South West, South Central, Kent and Sussex

We intend to award five year contracts, with expected savings from these contracts in the region of £115 million over that period. This represents an impressive saving for the taxpayer. We expect the new providers to start delivering these services on 1 June 2015, following a period of mobilisation. Robust arrangements will be in place to manage the new contracts.

Prison Communications

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I want to inform the House that telephone calls between prisoners and their constituency Members of Parliament, or MPs’ offices, may have been recorded, and in some cases listened to, by prison staff. The issue stretches back to 2006 and primarily relates to the period prior to autumn 2012, when this Government made changes to tighten up the system. This is a serious matter, and I would like to start by apologising to the House on behalf of my Department for any interception of communications between a prisoner and their constituency MP. I want to set out the steps I am taking to address it, which will include an independent investigation by the chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick. The issue was first brought to my attention on 5 November, and having asked for urgent work to establish the basic facts, I have come to the House to make a statement at the earliest opportunity.

I will first explain how telephone calls in prisons are managed. Prisoners’ ability to phone and talk to family members, friends and others is an important part of the Prison Service’s work to help prisoners in maintaining family and other ties that support their rehabilitation. However, in facilitating such phone calls it is important to ensure that safeguards are in place to make sure that prisoners do not abuse the system—for example, by contacting victims or by continuing their criminality while still in prison. All public sector prisons and youth offender institutions, as well as the majority of private sector prisons in England and Wales, have operated the same PIN—personal identification number—phone system for the past 10 years. Prisoners are issued with a PIN to activate the system and informed that all calls are, by default, recorded and may be listened to by prison staff. This is set out in a communications compact, introduced in 2008, which prisoners are required to read and sign. The compact is clear that the prisoner must advise prison staff of their legal and other confidential numbers to stop these numbers being recorded. That is because the PIN phone system requires an action from staff to override the default setting that all calls will be recorded. Prior to 2012, provided that prisoners did not present a specific risk, they could contact any telephone number that had not been proactively barred from their PIN account. For example, the telephone number of their victim would most likely have been barred. In 2012, this Government implemented greater control over those whom prisoners were allowed to contact, limiting them to specifically identified phone numbers. As part of that process, prisoners supply the legal and otherwise confidential telephone numbers that they wish to contact. Prison staff are then required to carry out checks that the number is indeed a genuine number that should not be recorded or monitored, so that confidentiality is respected but not abused.

Let me turn in more detail to the issues that were brought to my attention late last week, which will rightly concern this House. The prison rules and policy are clear that communication between prisoners and hon. Members must be treated as confidential where the prisoner is a constituent of theirs. As a result of an inquiry—an unrelated inquiry—from a serving prisoner, and following a rapid internal investigation, the National Offender Management Service has identified instances since 2006, when detailed audit records start, where calls between prisoners and MPs’ constituency and parliamentary offices have been set to record. In a small number of cases, those calls have been recorded and listened to by prison staff.

From the initial investigation, NOMS has identified 32 current Members of this House whose calls, or those of their offices, appear to have been both recorded and listened to. For 18 of these MPs, it appears that the prisoner did not list the number as confidential and therefore the action was not taken to prevent recording. As these calls were not marked as confidential, some would also have been subject to the random listening that is completed on all non-confidential calls.

In a further 15 cases, Members appear to have been identified correctly on the system as MPs, but due to a potential failure in the administrative process the required action was not taken by prison staff, so the calls were recorded and appear to have been listened to. One Member falls under both categories.

We are not yet in a position to confirm the details surrounding each occurrence, and that requires further investigation. I have, however, been able to establish that the most recent call recorded was to the constituency office of my colleague, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). The prisoner in question spoke to a member of the constituency office, rather than to the right hon. Gentleman, to inquire about the progress of some constituency correspondence.

In each case, it is important to understand whether the prisoners were speaking to an MP directly rather than to their office, and whether that MP was their constituency MP. Those are relevant questions if we are to get to the bottom of what has gone on.

I must say that I have seen nothing to suggest that there has been an intentional strategy of the Prison Service listening in to calls between prisoners and individual Members of Parliament. Indeed, given that the calls of one of my predecessors—the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)—were, as I told him earlier, being recorded and listened to at a time when he was the Secretary of State, the issue appears to have arisen by accident rather than by design.

That is not, however, to detract from the fact that confidential phone calls between Members of this House and their constituents in prison may have been recorded and monitored. That is unacceptable and I want to ensure that we have taken every reasonable step to protect the confidentiality of communications between prisoners and their constituency MPs.

It has also been brought to my attention that, in a similar way, there have been a small number of cases over the past few years where a call between a prisoner and a lawyer was accidentally recorded. Although those cases have been dealt with individually with the prisoner at the time, I want to be confident that the safeguards for all confidential calls are satisfactory.

I have therefore asked the chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, to conduct an independent investigation, which will, first, assure me by the end of this month that the necessary safeguards are now in place, and secondly, by early 2015, report in full on the facts and make further recommendations. I will make a further statement to the House once Nick Hardwick has reported to me.

I want to close by reassuring the House that significant improvements were made to the system in autumn 2012, and that since then we have identified only one instance where an individual clearly identified on the system as an MP has had their or their office’s calls recorded and listened to. But there is more that can be done. On the PIN phone system, the main switchboard number for the Houses of Parliament is listed as confidential. As an interim measure, pending the outcome of Nick Hardwick’s review, I have asked that all MPs’ office numbers—as listed on the parliamentary website—and constituency office telephone numbers be marked as confidential. All phone calls from prisoners to those numbers cannot for now be recorded or monitored. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who has responsibility for prisons, will write to all Members asking them to provide any further numbers that should be registered in that way.

I will also write individually to all Members where we have particular concerns that their conversations may have been monitored, and I intend to place a list of those MPs in the Library of the House. Before doing so, I want to inform those affected and give them an opportunity to agree. I hope to conclude that by the end of this week.

The relationship that exists between MPs and our constituents is crucial and must be protected. That is why I have acted at pace to bring these issues to the House’s attention and have taken immediate steps to ensure our confidentiality is respected. I commend this statement to the House.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement, the contents of which are truly shocking. What he has outlined is a very serious breach of confidentiality involving MPs and their constituents. I welcome the speed of his response and today’s statement after first hearing about this issue only six days ago. I also thank him for his phone call to me this morning.

The ability of a Member of Parliament to maintain confidential channels of communication with his or her constituents is fundamental to their role as a Member of this House. Interception of MPs’ telephone calls has been governed by the Wilson doctrine since the 1960s, which, as the Justice Secretary has said, is made clear in prison rules and policy, so any breaches of confidentiality must be taken very seriously indeed.

Many of us will deal on a regular basis with constituents in prison—I remind the House that many of them have not been found guilty of any crime—as part of our duties as good constituency MPs. Often, our staff speak to prisoners on our behalf, as they do in other casework. I am sure that I am not alone in being shocked in hearing today’s news that some of those conversations have been listened in to and recorded.

That is why it is important, as the Justice Secretary has said, that we get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible, find out the extent to which it was taking place, and put in place a system that prevents a repeat in the future. I welcome the inquiry to be led by the chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick.

I have a number of questions for the Justice Secretary. If he cannot answer some of them, I hope that either he or the chief inspector of prisons will respond in the near future.

Does this issue in any way contravene the Wilson doctrine on intercepting the telephone calls of MPs? In how many prisons has it taken place? The Justice Secretary referred to the PIN phone system in public sector prisons. What about private prisons? Will Nick Hardwick’s inquiry look into private prisons as well?

Is there any evidence that any of the information gained from the calls was fed up to senior officials in NOMS or passed on to any third parties? Can the Justice Secretary confirm that all remaining recordings and any transcripts have been destroyed, and that those that have not will be destroyed?

The Justice Secretary mentioned 32 current MPs. What about ex-Members of Parliament? Have they been informed that their conversations may well have been recorded and listened in to?

The Justice Secretary also mentioned the one incidence of a phone call between a prisoner and their solicitor being listened in to. As part of the inquiry, will Nick Hardwick look into whether other communications between prisoners and their lawyers may have been listened in to and recorded?

Is there any evidence that there has been any interference with postal correspondence between MPs and constituents or between prisoners and their legal representatives—the so-called rule 39A correspondence? The Justice Secretary rightly referred to the improvement of the audit trail post-2006. Can anything be done with regard to issues before 2006?

In conclusion, the Justice Secretary rightly reminded us why it is important for prisoners to be able to talk to family members, friends and others. He also rightly reminded us that, in facilitating prisoner phone calls, it is important that safeguards are in place, to ensure that prisoners do not abuse the system by, for example, contacting victims or continuing their involvement in criminality while still in prison. Of course, Members on both sides of the House agree with that. Today’s revelations are a worrying development and it is really important that we get to the bottom of what the Justice Secretary has revealed.

[Chris Grayling]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the measured way in which he has responded to the issue. Let me answer his questions in turn. The Wilson doctrine applies to intercept activity, so the routine monitoring of calls of this kind, while not within the prison rules, is not covered by the Wilson doctrine.

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an answer on the number of prisons. We have been able to identify the number of calls and MPs, but that has been done through telephone records, so I do not yet have information on the origins of the calls and the number of prisons. I expect we will see more information about that as the inquiry progresses.

I have as yet seen no evidence that information was passed on to anyone else. I do not believe that this was part of a concerted attempt to monitor; it was simply part of the routine checking of the process to make sure that nothing untoward was going on. Clearly, however, that is something I will ask Nick Hardwick to confirm.

I believe that all recordings have been destroyed—they are kept for only a limited period—but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if any have survived, which I do not believe to be the case, they certainly will be destroyed.

Work relating to ex-Members of Parliament has not been done, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will ask that question and notify them. Until now, it has been a question of cross-referencing current Members of Parliament in order to identify issues.

On solicitors, I have asked Nick Hardwick to look at the full range of confidential calls. The reality is that occasionally mistakes will be made in a large organisation dealing with such issues. The total number of calls handled by the Prison Service over this period is about 16 million, so I will be up front with the House and say that occasionally mistakes will be made. I want Nick Hardwick to make sure that we have every possible safeguard in place to make sure that this cannot happen as a matter of routine.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about rule 39 mail. I do not have any evidence that such mail has been inappropriately intercepted. We keep rule 39 under regular surveillance and review. Although it is of paramount importance that it remains a conduit for prisoners to receive confidential material from their solicitors and to send such material to them, he will know that there have equally been suggestions over the years that rule 39 has been abused. I try to make sure that we continue to monitor it properly and respect its confidentiality, but governors are instructed to look at it if they have reason to believe—they must have such a reason—that rule 39 is being misused.

On the audit trail before 2006, we have looked at this practice from 2006. It may predate 2006, but the work that has been done with BT simply covered the period from 2006 onwards.

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern: in all aspects of what we do, it should be possible to have confidential conversations with constituents. Something has clearly gone wrong, and I need to rectify it. It goes back over many years, but it needs to be rectified now, and I assure the House that it will be.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement and, of course, the Department on putting him in a position to make the statement so speedily after the information was made available to him. However, the key point is that no actions appear to have followed cases of monitoring, and that there was no strategy in the Department of overseeing MPs’ conversations. In reality, this is not perhaps a hugely important issue, provided it can be confirmed that no action was taken as a result of calls being monitored in the normal way. Such calls will not be monitored under the new system, and we should all be grateful to him for the extra casework that we will get.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right. I see no evidence that this practice was part of an attempt to gain and pass on pieces of information. It is a very large and complicated system, with a very large number of people. My first impression is that this practice was the result of a series of errors, but that does not make it acceptable. I will of course ask Nick Hardwick to confirm that it was the result of a series of errors, and to make sure that it does not happen again.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State was generous enough to offer an apology to the House for what happened between 2006 and 2012. That was very generous, not least because he was not in his current office at any time in that period. I was in his office for three of those six years, and I feel that it is appropriate for me to offer an apology for what happened on my watch.

On that matter, I have checked—I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me prior information—and five or six calls were made to my office while I was Justice Secretary. I think that I had an alibi at all material times: I was not on the end of the call because I was in the House or in the Ministry of Justice. It looks as though all the calls were made to my staff, not to me, and that the prisoner did not identify themselves as a serving prisoner. That underlines the fact that the practice is almost certainly due to inadvertence.

My final point is that the right hon. Gentleman and the House will recall that in 2008, following the disclosure in The Sunday Times that a conversation between my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) and a prisoner had been recorded in a prison, I set up an inquiry under Sir Christopher Rose, a former very senior Court of Appeal judge. He found that inadvertence not conspiracy had led to that happening. May I suggest that Sir Christopher Rose’s report is drawn to Nick Hardwick’s attention for any lessons that could be followed through on?

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman is enormously gracious to offer a personal apology, and I thank him for that.

The right hon. Gentleman is right. In relation to his own situation, he highlighted the fact that the practice concerned a discussion between a prisoner and a member of his staff. I venture to suspect that we will find over the course of the investigation that a large proportion of the calls were with members of staff rather than with Members of Parliament. None the less, it is important that such calls can be made without the sense that someone is listening in.

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on the earlier report, I have had a quick read of it since I spoke to him on the phone. I will, indeed, pass it on to Nick Hardwick. It is important that we ensure that any lessons to be learned are learned.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Confidentiality is clearly very important. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for coming to the House so promptly. That is a model for others to follow. May I press the Secretary of State on two specific points? He said in his statement that, since 2012, there has been a case “where an individual clearly identified on the system as an MP has had their...calls recorded and listened to.” I would be grateful if he explained how that happened, and why it did not trigger any sort of alert. He also said that there have been “a small number” of cases in which conversations with lawyers had been recorded. How big is that small number?

[Chris Grayling]

I am only aware of a handful of cases over the years. When such cases arise, they are dealt with individually, with an apology and an explanation given to the prisoner involved. In terms of numbers, I am not aware that that is comparable to the issue we are dealing with today. It is however a concern, because such cases do arise.

The truth is that we all make mistakes. I do not yet have a detailed answer on the case of the Member of Parliament, but I suspect that it was a simple mistake by a member of staff who did not realise that they should not do what they did. However, we need to understand why and how this happened in both those circumstances, and we need to make sure that appropriate guidelines or measures are in place to ensure that they do not happen again.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

The statement is headed, “Prison Communications”. Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a good deal of concern—in my view, justified concern—that the intelligence services are intercepting communications between lawyers and their clients. We know that there is an acute threat of terrorism and we have no illusions about that, but does he accept that such communications between lawyers and their clients should remain confidential and that what has happened should not occur again?

[Chris Grayling]

Rule 39 mail is very clearly covered by privilege, and it should remain so. As I have indicated, we have a remit to look at rule 39 mail only if we have good reason to believe that it is being misused. That matter is at the discretion of prison governors, but a concerted series of measures to intercept communications relating to an individual would almost certainly be subject to a ministerial warrant. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Security Service activity is subject to ministerial warrants, and rightly so.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s characteristically robust response. Will he confirm that breaches also took place under the previous Government, and that they were widespread? Does he agree that that underlines how important it is for both sides of the House to get behind the steps he is taking to address the issue?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I very much welcome the tone taken by the current shadow Secretary of State and, indeed, by the former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). This practice has affected both Governments, and it may well predate 2006 as well. The truth is that millions of calls are made in our prison system all the time, and mistakes will happen, but we have to learn from them when they do.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that Members were correctly identified on the system in 15 cases, but the calls were still recorded and appear to have been listened to. Is it possible that a criminal offence was committed by someone listening to those calls in the full knowledge that they were from MPs, and will that form part of the inquiry?

[Chris Grayling]

I do not believe that this is a criminal matter, because the guidelines are set out in prison rules. I would certainly take a pretty dim view if any member of staff had intentionally broken the rules to listen in to a set of calls involving a Member of Parliament. We will obviously wait to see what the investigation throws up, but I suspect that this is a case of error rather than intent. I am setting up the investigation to confirm that.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. He was right to bring this matter to the House’s attention expeditiously. Does he have information yet about the division between prisoners on remand whose calls were listened to and post-conviction prisoners, or will we have to wait for the inquiry for that?

[Chris Grayling]

I do not have that detail of information yet. The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) was absolutely right to point out that many of those may well not have been convicted of any crime, but have been simply awaiting trial. It is particularly important to ensure that such people are protected, but that is a matter for Nick Hardwick’s investigation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for underlining the need for confidentiality in the relationship between Members of Parliament and their constituents. As he will know, policing and justice are devolved matters today, but that was not the case back in 2006. What discussions has he had with the Minister responsible in Northern Ireland, David Ford, to ensure that the confidentiality of the relationship between Members of Parliament and constituents is maintained in Northern Ireland?

[Chris Grayling]

I have not yet done so because the matter arose very recently, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I will follow it up.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I thank the Justice Secretary for his statement. He raised questions about communications between a relevant MP and his or her constituents in prison and those between prisoners and an MP’s staff. Was he suggesting that the exclusion of calls from MPs’ Westminster and local offices from the surveillance by prison authorities from now onwards will cover MPs’ staff, or was he trying to differentiate between the two? This is not rocket science. Confidentiality is of supreme importance.

[Chris Grayling]

This provision will cover all phone numbers for MPs, their offices and their staff that have been placed in the public arena and to which we have access. If Members have other numbers that are not readily available on the system, but that they wish to be covered by the new provision, I ask them to please let us know. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) will be writing to them to ask them to do so.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on following what has become known as the Straw doctrine: if something goes wrong in the Department, go to the House straight away, give them the facts and apologise. What worries me is that the practice has been going on for a number of years. We know that calls have been identified as being to MPs. Why on earth was that not reported earlier? The Secretary of State spoke about the Wilson doctrine. Will he confirm that no MPs’ phone calls are being intercepted at the moment?

[Chris Grayling]

On the latter point, I am not aware of that. Of course, it would not be a matter for my Department, because none of the security services falls within it. It is therefore a question that my hon. Friend would have to raise with other Ministers. Certainly, no such surveillance has passed my desk.

On the former point, this matter arose because of the chance spotting of a name on a list during another investigation, following an allegation by a prisoner that did not relate to the calls of Members of Parliament being listened to. It took two goes with the BT telephone records to identify the nature of the problem. This practice has gone unnoticed because it genuinely was not obvious that it was happening and there was no easy way to discover it. It was only when a clue arose that there may be a problem that there was a trail to follow. That is why it has taken time.

[Mr Hollobone]

I appreciate that the investigation will unearth all the details, but going by the information that the Lord Chancellor has, does he think that this is a problem in a few prisons or in 32 prisons?

[Chris Grayling]

It is difficult to be certain, but I suspect that it is not a problem right across the prison estate. We will have to ensure that the standards in the best prisons are spread to those that are not meeting those standards. It is difficult to know at this stage whether it is a matter of inappropriate staff training or just of it being difficult to spot the name of an MP if they have not been identified. I expect that Nick Hardwick will give us that information and enable us to make appropriate changes.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his speedy response and on the choice of Nick Hardwick, who is clearly the most appropriate person to conduct the review. Will he confirm one final point, which is that no prisoner-lawyer matters are outstanding and that all such matters have been dealt with?

[Chris Grayling]

I am not aware of any outstanding matters. On my hon. Friend’s point about Nick Hardwick, I should tell the House that the reason I did not ask the surveillance commissioners to carry out this piece of work is that they are the auditors of the process. I felt that it was better to have somebody who was not the auditor investigating this matter because we must also check that our audit processes are robust enough.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

4. What progress has been made on investigations into the alleged misuse of public money by private providers holding contracts with his Department.

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

Investigations into misuse of public money are complete, with £179.4 million reclaimed from the well-publicised settlements with two of the Department’s major suppliers. Taxpayers can be assured that the work has not stopped there. A 12-month programme of diligent and detailed assurance across all major contracts held has uncovered no other further misuse of public money.

[Nic Dakin]

The Secretary of State has inserted unprecedented clauses into privatised probation services guaranteeing a decade of lost profits should a future Government walk away from these contracts. How much will the taxpayer have to pay the likes of Working Links, Sodexo, Interserve and Mitie in those circumstances?

[Chris Grayling]

That is a complete misunderstanding of the way in which government works. I simply refer the hon. Gentleman back to the contracts for the flexible new deal set in place under the previous Government, which contained standard penalty clauses for the termination of contracts. We have followed the same principles set out then by the Treasury in establishing these new contracts.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the probation service.

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

We are closely monitoring the performance of the national probation service and the community rehabilitation companies as we implement our reforms. Over recent years, probation trusts have improved their performance. That is a tribute to the hard work of probation staff at all levels. None the less, rates of reoffending overall remain unacceptably high. Our Transforming Rehabilitation reforms will tackle reoffending, which blights societies and costs the economy too much.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Many of my constituents who work in the probation service have written to me to share their concerns about

“the mounting chaos linked to the IT systems, the potential risks to the public, the reduced contacts with offenders and the increase in sentencing without reports.”

They want to know why

“the Government has abolished an award winning, highly effective Probation Service in Durham…and replaced it with a hugely inferior, largely privatised service”

that

“is putting the public at risk and failing to rehabilitate offenders.”

[Chris Grayling]

I would hope that the hon. Lady would pay tribute to the probation staff and voluntary sector organisations that have come together in her area to bid for the contract to take on the CRC, because they are committed and believe that they can do a better job in bringing down reoffending in the future. I am delighted by the outcome of the bidding process in her area, and I hope that, when we reach the point of contracts and the new arrangements are put in place, the expertise of all of those organisations will transform our work in tackling reoffending in the hon. Lady’s county.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I certainly welcome the prevalence of mutual organisations among the list of preferred bidders in our part of the country. What care is the Secretary of State taking in this process to ensure that their partners in those bids give them a genuine role as mutuals in providing those services and do not allow them to become bid candy in their proposals?

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be absolutely clear and put it on the record that it would be wholly and utterly unacceptable for any voluntary sector bidder involved in the preferred bidder status to be treated as bid candy. I am delighted that we have some really strong partnerships between the private and voluntary sectors. I have stood in this House on more than one occasion and said that I want to see those strong partnerships. They are not prime/sub relationships; they are partnerships at the top table. This is something of which we as a coalition should be proud. It is about the voluntary and private sectors working together in a way that I believe will make a real difference.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Argoed in my constituency was rocked over the weekend by a particularly gruesome and horrific murder, and I am sure the whole House will join me in extending sympathies to the family of Cerys Yemm, the young girl who lost her life. The Ministry of Justice has launched an immediate investigation into why her killer committed such a serious offence within 30 days of being released. However, reports yesterday said that he could not get a prescription for his paranoid schizophrenia, he was not met at the prison gate and he was referred to a local bed and breakfast, where this horrific murder took place. Does the Secretary of State agree with the need for an urgent investigation into how mental health is treated in prisons and the monitoring of prisoners after they are released?

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be clear that we all think that what took place was an horrendous incident. I offer my sincere condolences to the family of the victim. I also offer my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman as the local Member of Parliament dealing with this difficult situation. Of course, a serious further offence review is looking at what took place and it would be wrong of me to prejudge its outcome, but it is already clear to me that lessons will need to be learned and that we may need to make modifications to the way the system works in order to try to make sure that nothing as horrendous as this can ever happen again.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I would also like to take this opportunity to pass on our condolences to the family of Cerys and the community in Argoed.

On the Transforming Rehabilitation contracts, Sodexo won more contracts to deliver more services than any other bidder. Sodexo is run by the wife of the chief inspector of probation. Does the Secretary of State see that as a conflict of interest in any way and what does he intend to do about it?

[Chris Grayling]

We are, of course, at the preferred bidder stage. Clearly, the issue is under discussion and it will need to be addressed. I will give further information to the House in due course. We should also remember that people in public life are sometimes married to other people in public life. Simply put, I hope that the Ministry of Justice, were it to fall under the leadership of a Labour Government, would not be disadvantaged by the fact that the putative Home Secretary is married to the putative Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have to consider these things very carefully and deal with them in a mature and sensible way, and we will seek to do that.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that the compensation claims of mesothelioma sufferers are handled fairly.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is indeed the policy of the coalition Government to remain a party to the European convention.

[Tim Farron]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s answer. Given that the European convention on human rights was drafted by British lawyers, championed by Winston Churchill and has been instrumental in the protection of the rights of our armed forces overseas, does he agree that the interests of the British people will be best served by reforming the convention rather than taking cheap political shots and trying to get rid of it?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend may find that we disagree on this issue. I stand four-square by the rights that we signed up to in 1948: I do not stand by the way in which courts have evolved the jurisprudence since then into areas that are a long way from the original intentions of those 1948 authors. I personally believe—but it would be a matter for a future Government—that we need major change in that area.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State just said that the convention had moved into areas away from its original intention. One such issue is votes for prisoners. When will the Government give the House an opportunity to vote on votes for prisoners?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the recommendations by a Committee of this House on a draft Bill were wide-ranging and posed an interesting question about how one would manage a process of giving votes to those serving the last few months of their sentence, given that not all sentences are determinate. That is a matter that continues to be under the consideration of the Government, and he will be aware that the Council of Europe indicated recently that it would not seek to return to the issue until September next year.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

15. What progress he has made on reforming sentencing for people convicted for making threats on social media.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

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

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

Today we stand together to remember all those who have lost their lives serving our country. The 100th anniversary of the start of the first world war is a hugely poignant reminder of the sacrifice made by so many of our service personnel who have given their lives in defence of our freedoms and security over the past century. I am sure the whole House will join me in echoing those sentiments. Among the many who lost their lives were members of the Prison Service, courts staff and staff of many other parts of my Department and its predecessors. I wish to pay tribute to their courage and remember their sacrifice. The Ministry of Justice is proud of those members of staff who have served and continue to serve with our reserve forces.

[Laura Sandys]

I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s tribute to those in the Prison Service and the Courts Service who served and still serve in our armed forces.

I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware of the many people on probation who are placed in my constituency. What measures is the Department taking to ensure that they have sufficient connection to my area and that the impact on the local community is understood?

[Chris Grayling]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. Under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, there will be a much closer link between a prisoner, their place of detention, the area into which they are released and the plans for supporting them after they leave prison. Should they need or wish to move to a different area, they will need consent from the probation service and their local probation officer to do so. My hope and belief is that this will lead to much better post-prison support, and in particular post-prison support close to their natural home, rather than the kind of issues that my hon. Friend has experienced.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The independent chief inspector of prisons appointed by the previous Government is well respected by prison governors, prisoners, experts, the wider community and on both sides of the House. As the Justice Secretary will be aware, he is not afraid to make critical reports. At a time of huge turmoil in the probation service, with massive problems throughout the country, why does the right hon. Gentleman think that the newly appointed chief inspector of probation, who has links to six of the 21 preferred bidders, has been so silent?

[Chris Grayling]

May I put it on record that I regard the current chief inspector of probation as a man of the highest integrity and of great professional expertise who has started to make a positive contribution to the probation arena. I recognise the issue raised earlier by the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman). I indicated that I would make further comments to the House in due course. We are only at the stage of preferred bidders. As I said earlier, there are many people in public life who are married to other people in public life. We should be extremely careful before we start to damn them because of that situation, or we risk losing some extremely able people from our public life.

[Sadiq Khan]

Maybe the Justice Secretary can reassure us. Has the chief inspector of probation at any time raised concerns with him or his Ministers about the Transforming Rehabilitation programme? If so, what were they?

[Chris Grayling]

The chief inspector of probation has done a detailed piece of work on the Transforming Rehabilitation programme, and that report will be published shortly. He has highlighted a number of areas we are addressing. The report will set out in detail some issues, many of which preceded the current reforms and go back many years, on how to improve performance on probation. As I said to the House recently, I have asked the chief inspector and all inspectors to come to my office immediately and tell me if they identify anything in the reforms that gives cause for concern about public safety. They have not done so.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T3. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the risks and penalties of using a mobile phone while driving?

[Chris Grayling]

The offence of using a mobile phone while driving is very serious and should be dealt with effectively by the courts. It is an area where the Government are giving active consideration to strengthening the penalties, as part of our driving sentences review. It is wholly unacceptable in our society, and the courts should deal with it appropriately.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

T2. With no expert witness support at the Bill Committee stage and now three heavy defeats in the House of Lords, are the Government attacking judicial review because they are losing so many cases?

[Chris Grayling]

I stand foursquare behind our proposed reforms of judicial review. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example of proposals disagreed with in the other place—when they come back here, I will invite this House to restate its support for them. I believe that if somebody brings a judicial review, the court and the judge have a right to know who they are and who is supporting them. I do not personally regard that as terribly controversial. I am surprised that the House of Lords decided to vote against it. It is an example of the kind of change to our judicial review laws that I believe is necessary and we will proceed with it.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

T5. Last month saw the introduction of a fixed fee for whiplash injury reports, reducing the costs to insurers from several hundreds of pounds to just £180. Has the Minister made an assessment of the impact of this on spurious claims?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

T6. Will the Justice Secretary confirm that by our joining the European arrest warrant, from 1 December the European Court of Justice will have overarching powers over the extradition process in the UK?

[Chris Grayling]

I can indeed confirm that the measures debated by the House yesterday do involve, when we opt back into them, giving ultimate jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

T8. Drugs are a growing scourge in our prisons. Altcourse prison in my constituency was recently criticised by Her Majesty’s inspector of prisons for not making the necessary links between drug gangs and violence. Does the Minister agree with the right hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) who said:“If anyone is soft on drugs it’s my Conservative colleagues”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

T9. Official figures show that courts in the black country spend more than half their time dealing with people already convicted on 10 occasions. I think that decent, law-abiding people in Dudley will be appalled at that and will want a zero-tolerance approach adopted so that these people can be locked up and kept off the streets. At the same time as the courts are full of such people, magistrates in Dudley tell me that some offenders, including those accused of assault, robbery, domestic violence and even sexual assault and rape, are being dealt with by these so-called out-of-court disposals.

[Chris Grayling]

I hope, then, that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that under this Government offenders are going to jail for longer, that more people are going to jail and that in the short term we have reduced the use of the simple caution—it is no longer available, other than in exceptional circumstances, for more serious offences and repeat offences. I hope he will also support the trial we announced last week for replacing the simple caution with a suspended prosecution. These are things being done under this Government that were not done under the last one.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

T10. The rate of self-harm in women’s prisons is much higher than in men’s prisons. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that women in prison have access to mental health care so that they can tackle the problems they face?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

My constituents believe that the emphasis on human rights is leading to an excessively light touch when dealing with unauthorised Traveller encampments. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to enjoy the benefits of human rights, individuals should also acknowledge their responsibilities to abide by the law?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree. I cannot offer my hon. Friend change under this Government, but my intention is that a future Conservative Government would include in our proposed Bill of Rights a specific limitation to stop people claiming article 8 rights and overriding the law of the land that applies to the rest of us. That should not happen.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that former Fenton magistrates court—now Fenton town hall building again—is currently occupied by protesters concerned about the memorials inside it and the building itself. In the past, he has kindly stood at the Dispatch Box and confirmed that the memorials would be protected by covenants if the building was sold, but my constituents are concerned that a developer might simply ignore those and demolish the building anyway, resulting in the loss for ever of these memorials, which are priceless and incredibly important to the people of Fenton. Will he meet me and a delegation of local residents to discuss this matter and, I hope, put their minds at rest, and to talk about the future of the building itself?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

On 19 September, Mr Justice Burnett ruled in the High Court that the consultation on criminal legal aid was so unfair as to amount to illegality. The entire criminal justice system is in chaos. What is the Lord Chancellor doing about it?

[Chris Grayling]

If the hon. Gentleman reads the details of that judgment carefully, he will see that it required us to carry out a short further consultation, which we have done. We will introduce our updated proposals very shortly.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the latest figures for the numbers of deaths and serious injuries due to accidents caused by drivers using mobile phones while driving?

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Is the Secretary of State aware of the expert legal opinion published by the Freedom Association, stating that signing up to the European arrest warrant would render worthless and completely redundant the Government’s opposition to a European Public Prosecutor’s Office? While he is at it, will he tell us when we can have a vote on the European arrest warrant, in place of the farce and shambles we saw yesterday?

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid I have not seen that legal advice because both the European Public Prosecutor and the European arrest warrant are Home Office matters rather than Justice matters. That legal advice would not naturally come to me.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Following the replies to my hon. Friends the Members for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), does the Lord Chancellor agree that if the European Court of Justice interpreted the rule governing the European arrest warrant in unwelcome ways, which this House would be unable to remedy, the British people would be more likely to vote to leave the European Union in a future in/out referendum, and that they would get the chance to do so only if a Conservative Government were elected next year?

[Chris Grayling]

That is, of course, the salient point. Many people here are deeply concerned about the current nature of our relationship with the European Union and want to see it change. That change, of course, can come about only with a Conservative Government, because for reasons that remain inexplicable to me, the Labour party seems to believe that things are fine as they are.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Talking of European matters, does the Minister share my concern that 75% of the British people consider European human rights to be a charter for criminals and the undeserving? Is it not time we reformed it to restore trust in the human rights ideal?

[Chris Grayling]

I very much share my hon. Friend’s view and concerns. In my view, this needs to change. Unfortunately, neither of the other two major parties in this place agrees with us. I thus hope that we will have a majority Conservative Government after the next election to deliver the change that the public want so much.

Rehabilitation Services (Reforms)

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Written Statements

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

Today the Government took another major step forward in delivering their important reforms to rehabilitation services, announcing preferred bidders for 21 community rehabilitation company contracts. The competition for contracts was strong, with over 80 bids received and an average of four bidders in each area.

I have placed a copy of the list of preferred bidders in the Libraries of both Houses today. You will see that we have a strong and diverse market, with preferred bidders in all but one of the 21 contract areas including voluntary and social sector organisations as “top-tier” partners in their bids—the other preferred bidder is a medium-sized British business. Four probation staff mutuals are also represented as top-tier partners.

Secure College Rules

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Written Statements

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

Today I am announcing the launch of a consultation on my plans for secure college rules.

In January this year I informed the House of plans to create a new form of secure educational establishment to place education at the heart of detention, and to develop a purpose-built secure college pathfinder in the East Midlands to open in 2017. We have introduced the legislation to provide secure colleges in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.

All young people deserve access to a high quality education which will allow them to fulfil their potential. This is all the more important if a young person has set out on the wrong path in life. Secure colleges will be a pioneering approach to tackling the stubbornly high reoffending rates in youth custody, moving away from the traditional environment of bars on windows and putting education and training at the forefront. They will equip young offenders with the skills, qualifications and self-discipline they need to turn their back on crime and become productive, hardworking members of society.

The design of the educational facilities at the secure college pathfinder will enable operators to provide a broader range of subjects and vocational activities than is possible anywhere within the current youth estate. This is mirrored in the healthcare facilities which have been designed in collaboration with NHS England and are focused on provision of healthcare at least comparable to that offered in the community. In addition, the secure college pathfinder design will enable substantial access to outside space and a wide range of fitness and recreational facilities.

The secure college rules will set out the key parameters within which secure colleges will have to operate to ensure that young people are detained safely and securely, and that their educational and rehabilitative needs are addressed. These are important issues on which we are now seeking wider views.

The public consultation will be laid today and will run for six weeks, closing on 27 November 2014. Copies will be available in the Vote and Printed Paper Offices. It will also be published on the Department’s website:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/plans-for-secure-college-rules