Judicial Salary Structure
David Gauke Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
Today I am pleased to publish the Government’s response to the Senior Salaries Review Body’s (SSRB) major review of the judicial salary structure.
Our world-class independent judiciary is a pillar of our democracy and plays a unique role in ensuring our freedoms and prosperity. Every day judges take decisions on critically important issues that directly impact on people’s lives—from trying serious crimes, to deciding care arrangements for vulnerable children.
High Court, circuit and upper tribunal judges in particular play a pivotal role in our justice system. They preside over the most difficult and sensitive family cases and criminal trials, often involving horrific and distressing evidence; resolve the most valuable and legally complex civil disputes; and ensure that the Government behave in a lawful and fair manner.
The importance and influence of our judiciary also reaches beyond our shores. Its reputation for integrity and impartiality helps attract international business to the UK, contributing to a legal services industry worth around £25 billion a year to our economy.
These important judicial roles require highly experienced legal professionals with many years of training and experience behind them. It is imperative that we continue to attract the highest calibre candidates to take up these critical posts.
The SSRB’s major review, which was presented to this House on 26 October 2018, identified clear evidence of severe recruitment and retention issues in the High Court, and of growing problems at the circuit bench and similar issues in the upper tribunal.
For the first time ever, in consecutive recruitment campaigns, we have now failed to fill vacancies in the High Court and at the circuit bench. Currently more than 10% of High Court judicial positions remain unfilled and, as things stand, the chancery division of the High Court, which handles major commercial cases, is already 20% below strength and will be up to 40% below strength by the end of the year without urgent action. The impact of vacancies is already being felt in the family courts, where a shortfall of judges is contributing to significant delays in care proceedings, which involve vulnerable children.
If these recruitment and retention issues are not addressed, cases will take longer to progress through our courts and tribunals, victims of crime will have to wait longer for justice, and vulnerable people and children will be left at risk. If we are unable to fill the growing number of vacancies with judges of the right quality, delays in our courts could also mean business is lost to other English-speaking courts in Singapore, Amsterdam, Paris and elsewhere.
This Government are committed to delivering world-class public services and taking action when the evidence requires it to ensure their continued delivery. That is why today I am announcing a series of policies to support recruitment and retention in the judiciary, to ensure our courts and tribunals system can continue to deliver important services.
The Government are committed to addressing the underlying cause of the recruitment and retention problems. However, it would not be sensible to make pension changes when the McCloud litigation, which could have a significant but uncertain impact on public service pensions, is ongoing. Once that litigation has concluded, the Government will bring forward legislation for a long-term, pensions-based solution for the whole judiciary.
However, there is now a need for immediate action, which is why today I am announcing the introduction of a temporary recruitment and retention allowance at 25% for salaried High Court judges, and 15% for circuit and upper tribunal judges covered by the new pension scheme.
This measure will affect only about a quarter of the salaried judiciary and aims to resolve the immediate recruitment issue until a long-term, sustainable, pension-based solution can be implemented for all judges.
It replaces the existing allowance of 11% for High Court judges, and is lower than the SSRB’s recommendation of a 32% permanent salary increase for High Court judges and a 22% increase for circuit and upper tribunal judges covered by the new pension scheme, striking a balance between an appropriate investment of public funds and addressing serious recruitment and retention problems.
We recognise that the SSRB also pointed to emerging recruitment issues at the district bench and, while the evidence of a problem is not currently strong enough to necessitate immediate action at this tier of the judiciary, we are committed to addressing the underlying cause of the recruitment and retention problems highlighted by the SSRB through a long-term solution for the whole judiciary, which will include pension scheme changes.
The Government will also be making an annual pay award for 2019-20 of 2% for all judges, which will be backdated to 1 April 2019. In addition, we will ensure that judges are placed in the correct salary groupings based on the evidence provided by the SSRB and their independent job comparison panel. Salary group changes will come into effect at the start of the legal year, 1 October 2019.
Similarly the Government will consult on measures designed to address pension tax disincentives that may encourage senior clinicians to limit or reduce their workloads while participating in the NHS pension scheme.
In addition, the Government fully endorse the work that the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals are leading to strengthen leadership and support career development in a modern and professional judiciary.
This includes taking practical steps by encouraging and supporting eligible candidates from under-represented groups successfully to apply for judicial office; supporting career progression for existing judges; growing leadership capability within the judiciary by implementing appraisals and career discussions; developing new training for leadership judges; and giving leadership judges the data and tools they need to drive performance in the system.
This Government are committed to delivering world-class public services and taking action when the evidence requires it to ensure their continued delivery. That is why today I am announcing a package of measures which strikes the right balance between the importance of ensuring we can recruit and retain world-class judges for the future and the necessary investment of public funds.
A copy of the Government response to the SSRB’s major review has been laid in both Houses and will be available online at www.gov.uk.
[HCWS1597]
Justice Devolution to Greater Manchester: Refreshed Memorandum of Understanding
David Gauke Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
On 31 May the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), signed a refreshed memorandum of understanding (MoU) for justice devolution with Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA).
This agreement replaces the current MoU, published in July 2016. It details the priority areas for the delivery of justice outcomes within GMCA. The commitments agreed between the Department (Ministry of Justice) and GMCA build on the previous agreement, recognise new challenges, and identify new opportunities for developing a broader, more integrated approach which improves outcomes and experiences for victims, witnesses, and offenders, as well as the communities and neighbourhoods in which they live.
The aim of the MoU is to increase local influence and improve partnership working to increase efficiencies and reduce reoffending. Delivery will take place within the context of the whole system approach to public services which is advocated by GMCA. The MoU fits with the Government’s priority to reduce reoffending and our 2017 manifesto commitment to further enhance the role of police and crime commissioners.
The areas covered in this refreshed MoU are youth justice, smarter justice, adult offender management and the victim’s journey. In summary:
Youth justice
With the aim of targeting resources where they can be most effective, the MoU focuses on adopting a preventive, problem-solving approach which puts the people in the right service at the right time. This includes establishing a local consortium to focus on resettlement from custody and prioritising specified cohorts in youth justice policy initiatives, including data sharing. The focus of this section aligns with the youth justice board (YJB) national standards which were published earlier this year.
Smarter justice
We will work towards greater family involvement to support compliance with regular judicial supervision. Along with GMCA we will develop inter-agency planning to increase confidence in community sentences and ensure pre-sentence reports identify vulnerable cohorts. There will also be work carried out to help identify where family-centred principles are best integrated at different points in the system.
Reforming adult offender management
We want to optimise the opportunities created through the new probation model to improve delivery within the context of Greater Manchester’s unified approach to public services. This will include a programme of work to support increased viability of community disposals and to co-design approaches to delivery of probation services that support place-based integration. We will also explore co-commissioning options through the Greater Manchester reform investment fund.
The victim’s journey
We will work with GMCA as they seek to improve services for victims to provide a seamless service by using innovative approaches, including digital path- ways, jointly evaluating the effectiveness of nationally commissioned services for victims, agreeing a programme to develop stronger links and ways of working at local level for the benefit of witnesses in GM and working to understand the impact of the criminal injuries compensation scheme on victims of terrorism.
This summary covers the main commitments of the MoU. It is available in full at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/moj-gmca-memorandum-of-understanding-for-justice-devolution. Work will begin now to ensure we jointly deliver these commitments.
[HCWS1591]
Oral Answers to Questions
David Gauke Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
The Government remain committed to a role for the private sector in operating custodial services. The sector has an important role to play and currently runs some high-performing prisons as part of a decent and secure prison estate.
Mohammad Yasin
Publicly run HMP Bedford has been deprived of adequate funding, while public investment has been given to the notorious blacklisting construction firm Kier to build a new supersized prison nearby in Wellingborough, which will be handed straight to the private sector to run. Will the Minister explain why the public sector was banned from bidding for the new prison?
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new Ministers on their appointment.
I am sure everyone across the House was deeply concerned by new research showing that, when comparing like with like, private male local prisons have 42% more assaults than their public equivalents. That is especially worrying given that the Government are planning to build a new generation of prisons run for profit. I am sure the Secretary of State would not wish to be deemed an ideologue who would back private prisons even if they were more dangerous. Before proceeding with those new private prisons, will he back an independent review of safety and overcrowding in private prisons to ensure that corners are not being cut to maximise profits?
Mr Gauke
The reality is that there are many very successful private prisons where the level of violence is lower than average. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. HMP Altcourse in Liverpool has low levels of violence compared with a typical category B local prison, including the public sector category B local prison in the same city where we have faced significant difficulties with violence. It is hard to compare one set of prisons against another on a like-for-like basis. I do not accept the analysis the hon. Gentleman sets out, and I do believe we need to have a mixed sector.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
It is absolutely vital that prisoners get the support they need after release to turn their lives around. It would be premature to reverse reforms that, for the first time, saw those released on short sentences supervised after release, with a period dedicated solely to rehabilitation. We have already looked at ways of making that process more proportionate, but as my hon. Friend will know, I want to look at the broader question of short sentences and measures that actually serve to reduce reoffending.
Victoria Prentis
If I may trespass for one moment on your good will, Mr Speaker, given the previous question, perhaps you would like to join me in congratulating the Nacro winners, who are in the Public Gallery at the moment and who are about to join me for tea in the Pugin Room—where are they? They are putting their hands up so they can be congratulated by all of us in the House today, who appreciate what probation staff and those who work with prisoners do for us.
Does the Secretary of State agree that we should put real resource into alternatives to custody, so that we can end the cycle of reoffending and stop all our constituents from suffering from further crime?
Mr Gauke
I join in the congratulations to the prize winners in the Gallery and welcome them to the House of Commons.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of alternatives to custody, and I am keen to ensure that we make greater use of curfews, exclusion zones and new ways in which we can restrict offenders in the community in a way that can be more effective in reducing future reoffending.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
We want to strengthen partnership working between probation and local partners, including local authorities and police and crime commissioners, and the future probation model announced on 16 May will better enable this with a new regional structure led by regional directors responsible for the delivery and commissioning of probation services. They will work with local partners to identify shared priorities and co-commission services that will better support the management of offenders in the community.
Alex Burghart
Will the Secretary of State commit to exploring co-commissioning so that probation can leverage in wider funding and serve common needs?
Mr Gauke
The short answer is yes. Our plan is to create a dynamic framework for the commissioning of resettlement and rehabilitative intervention opportunities. To complement this, we will ring-fence £20 million a year in an innovation fund to attract match funding from other Departments and commissioning bodies for innovative cross-cutting approaches.
Craig Tracey
Does the Secretary of State agree that the transforming rehabilitation reforms had the very sensible goal of reducing reoffending by extending supervision to a group of offenders who previously did not have it?
Mr Gauke
Yes, I do think that is a very sensible goal, and sometimes that point has been missed in the debate about the transforming rehabilitation programme. My view is that we need to build on those reforms, and that is why on 16 May I outlined the changes we were making. My hon. Friend is right that we need to be ambitious and provide coverage for as many ex-offenders as possible.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am not sure whether the Secretary of State has had a chance yet to see the report published this morning by Crest Advisory on the management of women offenders. It suggests that police and crime commissioners should develop gender-informed alternatives to cautions and thereby keep women out of the criminal justice system. Will he consider that recommendation and the others in the report, and would he or one of his ministerial colleagues be willing to meet me and representatives of Crest to discuss it?
Mr Gauke
I confess I have not had an opportunity yet to read the report published this morning, but from what the hon. Lady says it appears to go in a similar direction to the female offenders strategy I set out last year. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), would be delighted to meet her to discuss the matter further.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I also congratulate the new Ministers on their appointment.
Short sentences target the most vulnerable offenders, especially women, with 75% of all women offenders sentenced to less than a year going on to reoffend. Has the Secretary of State made an assessment of the impact of short prison sentences on offenders and communities?
Mr Gauke
Indeed I am concerned about the impact of short sentences, not just on those who receive them but on society as a whole, because if they are ineffective in reducing reoffending, we are not doing society a favour and we are not reducing crime in the way we want to. As I said a moment ago, we set out our approach in the female offenders strategy—there is a case for looking at alternatives to custody for less serious offences. As a whole, I am ambitious to reduce the use of short sentences, which I do not see as being effective in reducing crime.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
There is a strong case for abolishing sentences of six months or less—with some exceptions—and we are working towards having firm proposals by the summer. There is persuasive evidence that short custodial sentences do not work in terms of rehabilitation and helping some offenders to turn their backs on crime, and that community sentences can be more effective in reducing reoffending and therefore keeping the public safe. That said, we must ensure that the public and the judiciary can have confidence in effective community orders that address offenders’ behaviour, meet their mental health and alcohol or drug misuse needs and provide reparation for the benefit of the wider community.
Gavin Newlands
Before his promotion—potentially to Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) said:
“We have a lot to learn from Scotland, specifically on community sentences, and indeed we will be looking at what more we can do to emphasise that a custodial sentence in the short term should be a final resort.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 714-15.]
Given the Secretary of State’s answer just now, will he ensure that there is a continuity of approach within the new ministerial team in the MOJ?
Mr Gauke
I am sure that there will be; I would certainly expect that to be the case. One thing that we should learn from Scotland is that we need to ensure that community sentences are not ignored, and that drug treatment orders are completed. I know that that has been an issue in relation to some of the reforms in Scotland, and we need to learn from it, because if we are going to make these reforms we must ensure that community sentences are working properly.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The latest generation of GPS tags can monitor the specific movements of offenders rather than simply enforcing home curfews. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that gives courts a powerful tool to punish offenders in the community while keeping victims safe, as an alternative to short sentences?
Mr Gauke
I very much agree with that. I can tell the House that I wore a GPS tag for a couple of days, and was subsequently able to be informed of all my movements for the period concerned: precisely where I had been, and when. Thankfully I had not been up to no good, but it was a demonstration of how accurate and effective those tags can be. I believe that they have considerable potential for reassuring the public about community sentences, and about our ability to track those who might pose a risk to the community.
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State’s moral probity was never in doubt for a moment.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know about the terrible legacy of the imprisonment for public protection sentence, and its negative impact on both reoffending and re-incarceration. Will he meet me, and my constituent whose son received an IPP sentence, to discuss ideas for reform of the licence that applies?
Mr Gauke
The challenge of IPP cases is that the Parole Board must satisfy itself that those who have been sentenced to IPPs no longer pose a risk to society. That can be very difficult, and in many cases there are risks to society, so we must be cautious and ensure that we protect the public. I know that the Minister responsible for prisons and probation, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), would be happy to meet the hon. Lady.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is now well recognised that a system that pushes offenders through a revolving door of short prison sentences simply does not work. Notwithstanding the riders expressed by the Secretary of State a moment ago, the fact is that the Justice Committee, as well as his Government, have recognised that the system in Scotland is working. The Committee’s recent report recommended that the UK Government follow Scotland’s approach of a presumption against short sentences. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to introducing such a presumption in England and Wales?
Mr Gauke
I hope to be able to say more about the details of what we want to do in the not too distant future, but in respect of the approach that is being taken in Scotland, it is worth bearing in mind that it is already the case in England that a custodial sentence should be pursued only as a last resort, so there is already something approaching a presumption in the English system. I am interested in seeing whether we could go further than that, but I welcome the hon. and learned Lady’s approach —our shared approach, I think—of scepticism about the effectiveness of short sentences.
Joanna Cherry
As someone who worked in the criminal justice system in Scotland for 20 years before coming to the House, I can assure the Secretary of State that the idea that a custodial sentence should be a last resort existed in Scotland before the presumption against short sentences, so that is an additional presumption.
One of the bodies that gave evidence to the Justice Committee pointed out that diverting those who have been identified as low-risk offenders
“from short custodial sentences to suspended custodial sentences could reduce the prison population”
in England and Wales by about 3,000 places. Does the Secretary of State agree that the presumption against short sentences in Scotland can help to reduce the prison population, and could do so if introduced south of the border?
Mr Gauke
As I have said, I hope to say more about the approach we want to take, but there is a case that an approach on short sentences along the lines that I have discussed may reduce the prison population, but the principal purpose is not reducing the prison population. It will not be massively dramatic, but I believe it will help to reduce reoffending. That is the big prize, rather than what are likely to be relatively marginal changes to the prison population.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
On 28 May, we announced changes to the release on temporary licence—ROTL—rules, which will allow prisoners to be considered for temporary release earlier. This will provide more opportunities for them to work and train with employers while serving their sentence and increase their chances of securing an immediate job on release. Research shows that time spent on ROTL working in the community or rebuilding family and community ties before release significantly reduces a prisoner’s likelihood of reoffending. ROTL is permitted only after a rigorous risk assessment, and the compliance rate is over 99%. Any non-compliance is dealt with robustly.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the Justice Ministers, but will the Secretary of State explain why there are no women in his ministerial team?
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I recently met Donna Mooney, the sister of Tommy Nicol, who sadly took his own life in prison while serving an imprisonment for public protection sentence. I am sure that the Secretary of State will also want to meet her soon. It is a cause of regret that IPPs were ever introduced; their Labour author now acknowledges that. They were not reserved for the most serious of offences, too often effectively becoming a life sentence for those who had committed minor crimes. Does the Secretary of State agree that much more needs to be done to provide opportunities for people who are now way over their short IPP tariffs to prove that they no longer pose a risk to the public?
Mr Gauke
It was right that the coalition Government abolished IPPs, which were brought in by the previous Labour Government, and there is consensus that that was the right thing to do. The difficulty is that the Parole Board now assesses in each case whether someone with an IPP sentence would be a risk to society, and the board must obviously ensure that public protection is put first. It is also right that we seek to do everything we can to rehabilitate IPP prisoners so that they can be released into the community.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Patrick Mackay, formerly of my constituency, is one of Britain’s least known but most dangerous serial killers. In 1975, he admitted to three counts of manslaughter, but he is strongly suspected of carrying out a further 10 killings, including that of a four-year-old boy. Mackay is now eligible for parole and may well have already been moved to an open prison. Does the Secretary of State share my deep concern about the potential release of this man, still only in his 60s, and will he enable me to make the fullest possible representations to the Parole Board?
Mr Gauke
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has taken up this issue tirelessly. As he knows, the Parole Board will release a life sentence prisoner only when, in its view, it is no longer necessary on the grounds of public protection for a prisoner to remain in custody. In making its determination, the board will consider reports from those who manage the prisoner and have assessed the risk of harm he presents. The board will also consider all relevant evidence of the prisoner’s risk of harm, and if my hon. Friend has such evidence I am sure it will be listened to closely. We will ensure that it is fully considered for inclusion in the dossier of reports given to the Parole Board.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
My constituency is colossal—the second biggest in the UK—and the cost of travel to courts is a big issue. I plead with the Government to look at legal aid with a view to changing it to reflect the hardship that some of my constituents suffer from in paying the cost of getting to court.
Probation Reform
David Gauke Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government’s response to the “Strengthening Probation, Building Confidence” consultation. Earlier today, I laid this Government response for consideration by both Houses. The response sets out our proposals for the future of the probation service. Across England and Wales, the probation service has more than a quarter of a million people under its supervision at any one time. An effective service is key to protecting the public, punishing those who have broken the law and reducing reoffending. I pay tribute to the hard work and professionalism of staff in both our national probation service and in the community rehabilitation companies who deliver this vital work.
The Transforming Rehabilitation reforms from 2014 aimed to encourage innovation and more modern ways of working. We introduced a payment-by-results system, creating incentives for providers to achieve reductions in reoffending; and we extended statutory supervision and resettlement to all offenders released from prison, supporting an extra 40,000 offenders for the first time. Since those reforms, we have seen a reduction in reoffending and other positive developments. However, there are challenges in the system. The changes I am setting out today are designed to make the system work as effectively as possible and meet our aims of a probation system that commands the confidence of the courts and the public.
Last summer, we took action to stabilise current delivery, and as a result, there are now about 500 additional staff in place to focus on resettlement services for offenders. At the same time, we announced a consultation on our plans for the future; I am grateful to the individuals and organisations who engaged and provided valuable feedback. We have reflected carefully and considered how to most effectively use the innovation and expertise of both the private and public sector to continue to drive down reoffending. I am today setting out plans that will see responsibility for the management of all offenders transferred to the national probation service. These arrangements are different from those set out for England in the consultation last summer. However, I believe that bringing responsibility for the delivery of all offender management within the NPS will remove some of the complexities that have caused challenges in the current model of delivery and make it more likely that an offender will have continuity of supervision throughout their sentence, while strengthening processes for managing risk. Alongside those changes, we will develop a more clearly defined role for the private and voluntary sector in delivering core interventions to offenders and securing innovation in the provision of those services.
Each NPS region will continue to have a private or voluntary sector partner—an innovation partner—directly responsible for providing unpaid work and accredited programmes. The NPS will be expressly required to buy all interventions from the market, spending up to an estimated £280 million a year. Contracts will be designed flexibly, so that innovative approaches that show results can be quickly identified and spread across the wider system. Those interventions, such as unpaid work, accredited programmes, and resettlement and rehabilitative services are central to delivering the sentences of the courts. Subject to market engagement, I look ahead to launching procurement for those services later in the year with competitions for unpaid work and accredited programmes.
We want to make sure that services are responsive to local needs, and for resettlement and rehabilitative services we will create a national dynamic framework. It will be accessible to all providers, including specialist smaller scale and voluntary sector providers with the expertise to support the most complex offenders back into society. That direct relationship will create a greater role for providers in delivering probation services and ensure that innovation can be identified and replicated across the system effectively. I am confident that this model, based on the arrangements we consulted on in Wales, offers the most sustainable approach for probation and is the best option to build on the positive changes made under transforming rehabilitation, strengthen the system and sentencers’ confidence in it, and continue to break the cycle of reoffending. We have no intention of reverting to the former probation trust model.
Since the consultation we have established a director general post in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, responsible for overseeing probation delivery, and we will appoint probation directors across each new probation region. Probation works best when local partners work together, and those directors will be accountable for the quality, delivery and commissioning of services in each area, alongside building stronger relationships with local partners to ensure real joint working, including through co-commissioning opportunities, where possible.
Alongside those organisational changes in the NPS, we will overhaul NPS capability in commissioning and innovation, and deploy cutting-edge technology. CRCs have taken some steps to demonstrate how digital tools can improve practice. We will transform the use of technology in probation, investing in a digital and data strategy that will replace all our core systems and better utilise data to inform professional judgment. We will complement that with a new targeted innovation fund. We will ring-fence an initial £20 million a year in a regional outcome fund to attract match funding from other Departments or commissioning bodies, including social finance providers and social impact bonds. The fund will be reserved for innovative, cross-cutting approaches and will enable us to test proof of concept services before scaling them up.
I want to go further than what was set out in the consultation: when parliamentary time allows, we will look to introduce legislation to implement a statutory professional regulatory framework that puts probation on a par with teaching or social work. It will set ethical and training standards for different roles, to recognise the skills and expertise of probation staff and to support their ongoing professional development and expertise in providing a critical public service.
The changes I have set out will mean that in future it will be easier to respond to the changing profiles of offenders and to drive improvements across the probation system. We will continue to leverage the innovation of the private and voluntary sector and to ensure that probation is working with partners across the criminal justice system to reduce reoffending. It is essential that we take the time to get the changes right. We have put in place arrangements to allow us to extend CRC contracts to ensure that we have the necessary time to get the transition to the new system right. We intend to use the arrangements to end contracts in spring 2021. My officials will now engage with prospective providers and wider stakeholders and finalise our proposals ahead of seeking to launch procurement exercises later this year.
The changes I have outlined will help to deliver a stronger, more stable probation system that will reduce reoffending, support victims of crime and keep the public safe and that will merit the confidence of the courts and the public. I commend this statement to the House.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
The Government have been forced to face reality and accept that their probation model is irredeemably broken; unfortunately, though, this U-turn comes only after they have put public safety at risk and squandered hundreds of millions of pounds trying to shore up failing private probation firms. The Opposition are clear that today’s announcement is a necessary first step in cleaning up the probation mess, but the question is whether it goes far enough.
Have the Conservatives really learned the lesson about the limitations of the role of the private sector in delivering probation? The Tories did not want to make this U-turn and had been trying desperately to re-tender private probation contracts; in fact, the House may remember that that was the Secretary of State’s big probation announcement last summer. Was it the flood of recent scathing reports from experts such as the chief inspector and the excellent work of the Public Accounts Committee and the Justice Committee that forced the Government’s hand? Or was it the collapse of Working Links, one of the largest private probation providers in the country, and the severe financial difficulties faced by another, Interserve? This is an important matter, because I am concerned that if lessons have not been learned, the changes announced today could be a smokescreen to give failing outsourcing giants—the likes of G4S and Sodexo—a route back into probation.
Labour is clear that there is an important role for the voluntary sector and small social enterprises in a future justice system. Voluntary sector organisations have held much of the justice system together in the face of Government cuts. We have heard promises before from the Secretary of State’s Government that the voluntary sector will play a major role, only for that to have been an excuse for big corporations to profit from probation, so what is the overall proportion of all probation budgets that the Secretary of State expects to be delivered by the private sector in future? A figure of £280 million has been suggested; what proportion of that will go to the voluntary sector? Each probation area will be allocated a private company or voluntary body; will private companies be able to act in more than one probation area—which would favour outsourcing giants—or will they be specific local social enterprises? Will any of the major companies that have failed in probation be able to access the contracts?
On oversight and accountability, does the Secretary of State have concerns that the 11 probation areas will remain too distant from local communities? How will they interact with local criminal justice boards and health and policing services?
Privatisation failed to reduce reoffending, with a 22% overall increase in the average number of offences per reoffender. Separate figures suggest that serious further offences such as murder and rape soared by 50%. What is the Secretary of State’s target for reducing reoffending under the new model?
Labour has long called for the Conservatives to drop their dangerous obsession with running probation for profit, but we have also been outlining the alternative, with the well-respected Lord Ramsbotham overseeing Labour’s review of what a publicly-owned probation service would look like under a Labour Government. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the vision outlined in Lord Ramsbotham’s important report?
The new probation model will start from spring 2021. Given the likelihood of a change of Government before then, will the Secretary of State commit today to setting up a special committee to reach a broad consensus on probation reforms? That would rule out the need for a future Labour Government to make further changes.
As a result of chaotic privatisation, many experienced staff left. What action will the Secretary of State take to rehire experienced former probation staff?
In conclusion, the changes announced today should just be a start. The Government must demonstrate a commitment to the true function of probation, properly invest in it and ensure that it can once again be the award-winning public service that it was before the disastrous Conservative privatisation.
Mr Gauke
To be fair, by the hon. Gentleman’s standards that was quite a warm welcome for this policy announcement. I thank him for that.
Let me pick up some of the points he made. He talked about the costs and about the squandering of vast sums of money; the House should be aware that we have spent considerably less with the community rehabilitation companies than was anticipated when the business plan for the transforming rehabilitation programme was put together. The issue is not the squandering of billions of pounds; it is about how we improve the service, and that is the intention behind my announcement.
On returning to the past, which was a sort of theme in the hon. Gentleman’s comments, we do not want to do that. I do not think that simply to return to the days of 35 probation trusts is the right course of action. There are things that we can learn from what was done well with them, as well as what was not done so well, just as we can learn from what has happened over the past four years or so, post the transforming rehabilitation programme.
On the £280 million and how it will be spent, as I said there will be regional directors for each of the 11 regions, and they will make decisions based on commercial considerations in terms of the nature of the bids. I am keen to do more to ensure that the voluntary sector can get in and play an important role.
I want to encourage work at a devolved level. For example, I want to do everything that we can to ensure that police and crime commissioners can play an active role.
We are already recruiting staff. Probation has an absolutely key role to play in how we tackle crime and reduce reoffending, and I want to make sure that it is properly resourced.
Finally, there was a lot of criticism about the role of the private sector in probation. The hon. Gentleman highlighted Lord Ramsbotham’s report, which was produced yesterday. I have looked at his report, and it says that when it comes to probation, the private sector has “a part to play”. I am not sure that I quite picked up that tone from the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he had not read that bit, or if he had, whether he had forgotten it—that is also perfectly possible—but the fact is that even his own party’s report recognises that the private sector has a part to play. I will of course happily meet the hon. Gentleman, and if he wants to bring along Lord Ramsbotham, that will make the occasion all the more convivial. I thank him for his comments.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I will do my best, Mr Speaker.
I welcome this statement and I hope that anyone who cares about the criminal justice system will also welcome it. It is a good thing for Governments to reflect on experience and adjust policy and that is what the Secretary of State should be commended for doing. Does he agree that a critical part of the new arrangements must be to ensure sentencer confidence and that, therefore, not only must there be continuity of supervision, but an assurance to sentencers of the quality of supervision? Will he perhaps look at means by which the judiciary can be better involved in the follow-up to sentencing to ensure that that is the case?
Mr Gauke
That is a very interesting point and certainly something that I am keen to explore. The Chairman of the Justice Committee has hit the nail on the head: sentencer confidence is key. It is well known that there is support across the House for trying to move away from short custodial sentences that appear to be ineffective when it comes to rehabilitation. If we are to move away from that, we need to ensure that we have robust alternatives—robust community sentences—available, and we need to build the confidence for that and this plays a part in achieving exactly that.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I welcome the statement today. Dame Glenys Stacey’s annual report was absolutely damning in relation to the state of our probation services as a result of failed privatisation. I am glad that the Secretary of State has conceded that this does not work and that payment by results does not work in probation. I have long called for a holistic probation service that centres on the needs of individuals. What support will the Secretary of State give to the national probation service to ensure that we move away from this tick-box exercise that exists at present and instead have a tailored support model that delivers meaningful and long-lasting results?
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The attempt to bring in transforming rehabilitation failed partly because it failed to take into account and wait for the end of the pilots at Doncaster and Peterborough prisons. Does the Secretary of State agree that that has been part of the failure? Will he tell me what effect his reforms will have on those who want to introduce new services, such as a much better rehabilitation process through paid work?
Mr Gauke
With regard to previous experience, there is always a balance to be struck between trying to deliver something in good time and waiting to see all the evidence emerge. On where we are now, we should move to a different model. We will lead with Wales, and by the end of this year, we should have moved to a unified model. England will follow in 2021. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of work. He knows that that is a key issue for me in terms of rehabilitation. Both paid and unpaid work have important roles to play. I do want to encourage innovation; I want to make sure that, in such areas, we have innovation and a diversity of suppliers who can play a role in ensuring that we try new things, learn from experiences and get things improving.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
This failed experiment was set to cost the taxpayer £467 million because of the early termination of contracts at the end of next year. It would be helpful to know what the total bill will be. My biggest concern as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee is that the Secretary of State has just laid out that there will be major local procurement processes over the next two years. It seems like a long time now, but that time will go very fast. How will he make sure that that procurement is done thoughtfully and sensitively and really reaches those small voluntary groups that were so cut out of the previous system?
Mr Gauke
First, let me make the point about costs. I come back to the point that I made earlier, which is that our expenditure with community rehabilitation companies has been considerably lower than had been forecast—£1.4 billion lower. That takes into account the £467 million to which the hon. Lady referred, which was there to ensure that we had operational stability. As we move on to the new system, she is right to say that 2021 will soon be upon us. We do need to focus very heavily on ensuring that procurement works well, that we make use of the voluntary sector and that there is proper competition so that those who can contribute to this process can do so properly, and we are very much focused on that.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to have done what he has done. There is no doubt that, in many cases, the CRC contract did not achieve the intended aims. I was glad to hear that he still envisages a significant role for the voluntary sector and even, in some cases, for the private sector. I hope that he can assure us that the basic principle of the organisation that is employed to engage in rehabilitation, which is what we so sorely lacked under the previous regime, is fulfilled and that evidence is garnered of whether a particular voluntary or private operator is producing results and that, where they are, that model is replicated.
Mr Gauke
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am keen to ensure that we have the innovation that we need, and I have talked about the innovation fund. It is very important that we are led by the data and that where good practice is identified it is disseminated so that it can be taken up elsewhere in the system. That is why it is helpful to have a diversity of supply. Under the old probation trust system, there was a reluctance on the part of many probation trusts to make use of the voluntary and private sectors. We do not want to go back to such a system. None the less, a unified model for offender management is a sensible way forward.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Despite the Secretary of State’s characteristically emollient and reasonable tone, the announcement he has made today covers up one of the most catastrophic pieces of public policy and waste of public money that we have seen in many a long year. It has let down communities that suffer from crime; it has let down victims of crime; and it has let down those people who commit crimes who have a right to try at least to change their ways. Will the Minister say something about the Secretary of State—one of his predecessors—who actually thought that this would work and talk to us about ministerial accountability, because there seems to be absolutely none of it left in this flailing Government?
Mr Gauke
I shall try to be emollient again. The fact is that the reoffending rate has fallen since Transforming Rehabilitation was brought in. There are areas of very good practice within the private sector. A number of parliamentary colleagues have highlighted good practice in their own areas. That tends to be more in the accredited programmes and in the unpaid work areas than in offender management. The fact that we have a larger private sector in this area enables us to move now to a system that is sustainable, that strikes the right balance and that ensures that we have diversity of supply and consistency in the offender management function.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. With a significant category D prison in my constituency, I have seen at first hand some of the positive work that social enterprises play as part of prisoner rehabilitation alongside the probation service. May I urge him to make sure that those with complex needs, particularly drug and alcohol addictions, are given the necessary support in any reform?
Mr Gauke
Yes. That is a very important point and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. When it comes to bringing down reoffending, making sure that we address issues of mental health and substance abuse will be key. This is not just about probation, but probation has a vital role to play.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Across the country, voluntary sector organisations do a high volume of extremely impressive and successful work with ex-offenders, much of which was undermined by the part privatisation of the probation service. Now that services are going to be tendered under the core interventions programme, can the Minister give me some assurances that he will prioritise voluntary sector organisations, as they provide the best results when it comes to issues such as housing and substance abuse, and that he will not award these contracts to private organisations that exist just to make a profit and deliver services that are not as good?
Mr Gauke
We will certainly want to prioritise organisations that deliver the best results; that is the key task. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is often the smaller voluntary services that are able to do that. At this point, it is not a question of providing specific targets as such. We want to ensure that the organisations that are best placed to deliver high-quality services—often from the voluntary sector—are in a strong position to be able to do that work.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Change UK)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a member of the Criminal Bar Association.
This is a good example of policy based on ideology, as opposed to policy based on evidence and, frankly, good sound common sense. Probation officers need to be qualified, properly paid, trained and respected because of the important work they do. They advise judges in the sentencing process, in which they play a critical part. They also play a critical part in rehabilitation, and of course they keep people safe, including offenders. Will the Secretary of State please assure us that he will ensure that his Department is run not on ideological grounds, but on evidence-based grounds? To that end, will he also assure us that this new system, which I welcome, will not overly rely on digitisation alone, but will remember that we need people to deal with what is basically a people service?
Mr Gauke
I thank the right hon. Lady for welcoming the reforms. She asks whether I can guarantee that the Ministry of Justice will not be run along ideological lines but when I look across the Chamber, I am really not sure that I can provide that guarantee; it may be up to the electorate. The right hon. Lady made a crucial point about the value of probation officers. We should do everything we can to value their work. As I mentioned in my statement, we intend to bring forward a statutory professional regulatory framework, part of which is about ensuring that the status of probation officers is properly valued because they have a crucial role in reducing crime.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I welcome the news that the Government have finally recognised what I and many others have been telling them for too long—that their decision to part privatise the probation service has failed. We know from reports that this outsourcing error has wasted nearly half a billion pounds, but can the Secretary of State tell me what assessment he has made of the human cost of privatisation, including those badly injured or even killed by people under probation supervision, such as my constituent Jacqueline Wileman?
Mr Gauke
Every individual case such as the one mentioned by the hon. Lady is a tragedy. We want to do everything we can to ensure that such cases are kept to a minimum, but there will always be individual decisions made by probation officers in the NPS or CRCs, and such tragedies can indeed occur. My focus is on ensuring that we have a sustainable system for the future, and what I have outlined to the House today provides exactly that.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the failed privatisation of the probation service and the waste of money, but I wondered if he could help me with something that I am intrigued about. Would he tell us what arrangements are being put in place to supervise the serial offender in the Cabinet who causes criminal damage in every Department that he is sent to? Is he being considered for early release?
Mr Gauke
I can see that the hon. Lady has been working hard on her question. In 2014, the probation system was by no means perfect. There was a need for more innovation, and to ensure that we dealt with some of the inefficiencies in the system. Five years on, there are elements of those reforms where we can see real benefits, but I accept that there are also elements that have not worked as intended. It is right that we look at reforming those elements and that we make changes where we need to, and that is precisely what I have done.
Clive Efford
Good choice, Mr Speaker.
This situation is a disgrace: reoffending rates are up 22%; there has been a 47% increase in offenders who have been recalled to prison for breaching their licence; the service is rated inadequate in 80% of areas; and tens of thousands of offenders are being monitored by phone. Dame Glenys Stacey calls the whole thing “irredeemably flawed”. When are we going to know the impact that the Secretary of State for Transport has had on crime levels, which all our constituents are concerned about? This increase in crime, which he must have caused through this flawed probation service, is something that only a mafia don could be proud of. When are we going to assess his impact on crime?
Mr Gauke
To be candid, one of the problems that we have faced with the current system is that the case load of low and medium-risk offenders has been significantly lower than was anticipated when the system was set up. As a consequence, the CRCs have not had the work that they expected. We have therefore been in something of a vicious circle; as there has been less work, the CRCs have been under financial strain and have invested less, and that is why in some cases the service has not been what we need it to be. That is the context of this situation.
Nick Smith
I have had terrible problems getting hold of local probation service data in Blaenau Gwent, so I hope the Secretary of State’s promise about improving digital management comes to something. I will certainly be watching out for that in the future. May I ask him whether a recreated or new probation model will be based on county boundaries, which would be much better than it being based on larger regions, as is the case at present? Probation services need to be closer to employers, local prisons and local police services.
Mr Gauke
We are working on the basis of 11 regions, and one of those regions—Wales—is a nation. I recognise that much could be done to ensure that the system is as localised as possible. I have been talking to police and crime commissioners to see if there is more that could be done that is relevant at their level. To the extent that we can devolve below those regions in an effective and efficient way, I would certainly be keen to do so.
Prisons and Probation
David Gauke Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
There is an important debate to be had about the involvement of the private sector and the voluntary sector in our justice system. It is right that we ask ourselves: how do we provide high-quality public services? How do we encourage innovation in order to raise standards? And how do we deliver the best possible value for money for the taxpayer? In answering these questions, there will always be debates about whether the private sector or the voluntary sector does too much or too little: do we make use of these sectors in the right way? Do we have the right incentives? And do we have the right supervision? In reaching a fair-minded conclusion, we should approach the evidence in a fair-minded way, looking at good and bad examples, and acknowledging where things work well and where they do not.
I have to say that such a balanced approach was entirely lacking in the speech we have just heard from the shadow Secretary of State. In a fairly lengthy speech, he had time to address this in a proper, balanced way. Instead, what we heard was simplistic, dogmatic and bombastic. The only thing anyone on this side of the House will remember about his speech is his abiding hostility to the private sector. Mind you, at least we will remember something from his speech, which, given his reputation, is more than he will ever do.
On prisons, the hon. Gentleman repeatedly made reference to the difficulties with HMP Birmingham. There is no doubt—I acknowledge this—that Birmingham was a failing prison and the standards at the time of the inspection were unacceptable. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service had been working closely with G4S to try to resolve the issues, but it became increasingly clear that G4S alone was not able to make the improvements that were so badly needed. That is why we took the decision to step in, doing so at no additional cost to the taxpayer. It was right that we did that. The point I want to make is that where we believe it is right to step in and where we believe the private sector is not the right answer, we will step in.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State just tell the House why it took an inspection by the prisons inspector to discover that G4S was failing in Birmingham and why this did not come from his own Department?
Mr Gauke
HMPPS did have concerns about how Birmingham was operating and the way it was working, and HMPPS was working closely with G4S to try to address this. It became clear, when the inspection was undertaken, that we were required to go further and that the level of intervention we had previously put in was insufficient. That is why we took the steps we did. We stepped in, putting one of our best prison service governors in charge, alongside a strong senior management team and 30 additional experienced staff. I would like to thank all of them for their hard work since we took that decision to turn around a complex and challenging establishment.
Catherine West
Will the Secretary of State admit that this is not just about one prison and that yesterday’s figures in The Guardian showing 47% more incidents of violence in the private estate than in the public point to something greater than one, one-off prison?
Mr Gauke
When looking at prisons, it is important to compare like with like. Our prison estate contains a range of prisons doing different tasks, with different cohorts of prisoners, which creates different challenges. It is right that we look beyond just one prison, as the hon. Lady rightly says, and that we look beyond HMP Birmingham, where we see that the position is much more complex. The House should not just take my word for it: the chief inspector of prisons has highlighted many examples of excellent performance by private prisons in his inspection reports. For example, let us take HMP Altcourse, which is run by G4S. Its latest inspection highlighted how
“violence and self-harm were decreasing year on year”,
and said: “Purposeful activity was excellent”. It is worth pointing out that HMP Altcourse is not far from HMP Liverpool. They are in the same city and have the same type of prisoner, but we have had significant difficulties with HMP Liverpool. We hope and believe that it is on the mend, but it was none the less one of our most troubling prisons.
The House could also consider young offenders institutions. At Parc, which is also run by G4S, the inspectorate found that
“the establishment was characterised by good relationships, excellent multidisciplinary work and strong leadership.”
We can also look at HMP Bronzefield, which is run by Sodexo. It was described by HMIP as
“an excellent institution where outcomes for the prisoners held were reasonably good or better against all our tests of a healthy prison.”
If we put ideology to one side, we see it is a fact that privately managed prison providers achieve the majority of their targets, and their performance is closely monitored by the robust contract management processes that HMPPS has in place. Privately managed prisons have also pioneered the use of modern technology to improve the running of establishments and help to promote rehabilitation, including through the development of in-cell telephony to help prisoners to maintain ties with their families; opportunities for interactive story-time activities between prisoners and their children; and the introduction of electronic kiosks, which allow prisoners to have greater control over managing their day-to-day lives.
The public sector is only now catching up, and we are now investing in 50 prisons so that they can have in-cell phones, but private prisons got there first. Instead of ideological arguments about who provides the service, we should focus on what works to reduce reoffending and keep the public safe.
Wera Hobhouse
If we are talking about ideology, or lack of it, does the Secretary of State not accept that it would have been wise for the Government to pilot the privatisation that was considered before it was introduced in the probation service?
Alex Chalk
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Of course, the picture is complex, because there are good and failing prisons in the private sector and in the public sector. One thing that has struck me is the variation in the calibre of leadership. There are some excellent prison governors and some who are less successful. What can be done to ensure that the requisite high level is seen across the prison estate?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Sometimes, Opposition day debates can be a bit of knockabout, but there is a lot that we ought to debate and discuss in respect of the prison system and how it operates, and leadership is a really important aspect. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and congratulate him on his promotion. He pursued with great vigour the theme of the importance of leadership—of having the right governors and leadership teams in prisons—and it is absolutely key. To be honest, that matters more than whether an institution is run by a private company or by the public sector. The quality of the leadership is a much more important factor. I hope we have an opportunity to debate that issue and others like it in future.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
That is what has struck me during this debate: what matters in prisons are the standards under which people are kept and the results that are shown in stopping people reoffending, not who keeps the prisoners. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Mr Gauke
That is exactly right. If the private sector is not working, I am prepared to step in—I have no problem with doing that—but the most important thing is that we should look at the outputs and outcomes and base what we do on that, rather than take a simplistic view that the public sector is good and the private sector is bad or, indeed, vice versa. That is the approach that I wish to take.
Sandy Martin
The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that we need to compare like with like; will he give us an example of a brand-new prison in the public sector that can be compared with a brand-new prison in the private sector?
Mr Gauke
The most recent brand-new prison that we did was Berwyn, and it is in the public sector. The next two prisons will be in the private sector because we want to keep a mixed market and to have a range. HMP Berwyn is a public sector prison. That decision was made by the coalition Government. We are pragmatic on that point.
I shall now give way again. I hope the hon. Member for York Central will forgive me for giving way to the hon. Member for Ipswich first; Ipswich is my home town.
Rachael Maskell
Quality is to follow.
On outcomes, which are the most important thing that we look at, will the Secretary of State explain why Askham Grange prison, which has the best outcomes in the country and the lowest reoffending rates and which is, I must say, in the public sector, is constantly under threat of closure? If we are looking at the evidence, surely the Government should keep the prison open.
Mr Gauke
When it comes to any decisions about prison closures, we will of course look at the evidence. We are not proposing any prison closures at this point, but we will always look at the evidence. Several factors will determine whether or not a prison closes, but its record on rehabilitation is clearly something that we would very much take into account.
Let me turn to probation. In particular, we have heard much about the transforming rehabilitation reforms that were introduced in 2014. When we consider the reforms, it is important that we recognise the benefits that the private and voluntary sectors have brought to the probation service, even if we accept that there have been challenges—and I accept that there are challenges. We need to acknowledge that with the transforming rehabilitation reforms came the supervision of 40,000 additional offenders being released from short prison sentences. Those were offenders who previously received little or no supervision or support on release, so it is a positive change for public safety. The shadow Secretary of State forgot to mention that reoffending rates for offenders managed by CRCs remain two percentage points lower than the rates for the same group of offenders in 2011. Of course, we want reoffending to be lower still, but it is lower.
Liz Saville Roberts
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement earlier this year that he was bringing all probation services in Wales back into public management following the failure of the Working Links CRC. Will he commit to ensuring that that welcome and common-sense decision is resourced to succeed? Will he consider it as a possible template for bringing probation services in England back into public control, too?
Mr Gauke
First, I am of course determined to ensure that that decision succeeds. In July last year, I set out that Wales was going to go down the unified-model route, and we are accelerating that as a consequence of the failure of Working Links.
Before I turn to the wider points, let me put this debate in context. When we debate CRCs, we sometimes forget some of the good examples of innovative and dedicated work with offenders that CRCs are doing. Hampshire and Isle of Wight CRC was praised last week by the chief inspector of probation for offering a comprehensive range of high-quality rehabilitation programmes and unpaid work placements; London CRC is working closely with the Mayor of London on the safer streets partnership to tackle gangs and knife crime; and Kent, Surrey and Sussex CRC is pioneering the first behavioural intervention targeted at stalking offences.
It is often when the private sector can bring wider experience and expertise to bear that it is best able to deliver value for money—for instance, in sourcing unpaid work placements, for which several of our CRC parent organisations can draw on experience in the employability sector. Dame Glenys Stacey has acknowledged that high-quality delivery is widespread. In fact, three quarters of the providers assessed have been rated as good. I was particularly encouraged to hear about the involvement of London CRC in the Grenfell disaster recovery operation: it arranged unpaid work placements with offenders who were helping local residents affected by the disaster. That is exactly the sort of delivery that we want to see: providers able to move quickly, respond to local needs and provide meaningful rehabilitation activity for offenders and for local communities.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
In Wrexham, my constituent Nicholas Churton was murdered by someone who was subject to the supervision of a community rehabilitation trust that, on the basis of what the Secretary of State’s own Department says, was not performing adequately. That is a practical result of an experiment with no additional investment; it led to human tragedy. I know the Secretary of State is a reasonable man, and he needs to look again at this situation.
Mr Gauke
Obviously, that is a tragic case, and, as I have before, I express my sympathies for the family of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. As regards identifying and attributing blame, I am not in a position to comment on that. CRCs manage those who are assessed as low and medium-risk offenders.
If I can return to my comments, I want to make a wider point about the crucial role that can be played by the private sector and, indeed, the voluntary sector in supporting probation work. It is the dedication and commitment of these organisations, many of them small and community-led, that enables offenders to turn their lives around. The work of the voluntary sector, particularly with vulnerable offenders such as those with learning difficulties and other complex needs, is irreplaceable and the Government are committed to supporting it. We have been clear that the public, private and voluntary sectors all have a clear role to play in building a strong probation service. That does not mean that we cannot learn from the experience of transforming rehabilitation.
I have been clear that under CRCs the quality of offender management has too often been disappointing. I am determined to learn from what has gone well and what has not under the current system. That is why the Government have acted decisively to end CRC contracts early, invest an additional £22 million a year in through-the-gate provision, and hold a consultation on the shape of future arrangements. I am grateful to all those who have responded to the public consultation, as well as for the work of Dame Glenys Stacey, the Justice Committee and the Public Accounts Committee in providing helpful scrutiny and challenge as we consider how best to deliver a stronger, more resilient system. It is important to recognise, as those partners have, the role of external factors in creating a challenging operating environment for CRCs, but we have also looked very carefully at their findings about the complexities of contractualising offender management and the challenges of ensuring continuity of supervision and integration among providers.
I look forward to bringing detailed plans for the future of probation to the House in due course. I will be driven by the evidence and what works. This must not be a matter of ideology or dogmatism but one of single-minded focus on delivering the probation system we need.
Mr Gauke
It certainly is “in due course”.
Finally, as we debate these issues we should recognise that the challenges in the current system are not down to the work of probation staff. Their hard work and professionalism, in both the NPS and CRCs, is tremendous and I pay tribute to them. Probation is a vocational career, and as part of the future arrangements we are looking to establish an independent statutory body so that probation staff have the same professional recognition as their peers in health and education.
In conclusion, as I said at the beginning, the role of the private sector and the voluntary sector in the criminal justice system is an issue for debate. We should constantly examine and re-examine what the right role should be, but the approach from the Labour party is that this is the only issue that matters. We hear nothing from Labour about how to deal with repeat petty offenders and the role of non-custodial sentences. There is nothing about the measures to properly tackle drugs and violence; nothing about offender management in prisons; nothing about how we are recruiting additional prison officers or getting people jobs through our education and employment strategy. The only thing we ever hear is nationalise, nationalise, nationalise. As Sadiq Khan, one of the predecessors of the hon. Member for Leeds East, said in 2011, defending the Labour Government’s use of private sector prisons,
“our policy was and is based on what works, rather than dogma.”—[Official Report, 31 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 527.]
That is as it should be. On this side of the House, we will always work to put the public first in reducing reoffending, protecting the public and building a stronger justice system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Court and Tribunal Estate Consultation
David Gauke Excerpts(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
On 10 May I published the response to the “Fit for the future: transforming the court and tribunal estate” consultation. It sets out how decisions regarding the future of the estate should be made and makes clear that people will continue to be able to access courts and tribunals while providing value for money for the taxpayer and ensuring long-term efficiency.
The consultation published in January 2018, has been developed to complement HMCTS’ £1 billon reform programme, which is bringing new technology and modern ways of working to the justice system, making it more accessible for everyone. It received 249 responses and as a result, the response published today, strengthens and updates the principles underpinning future decisions relating to changes to our estate. It ensures that:
When visits to courts are necessary, travel times and ease of transport will continue to be prioritised—with added support for vulnerable users
Court and tribunal buildings will be fit for purpose and can be maintained at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer
Specialist front-of-house staff will be at courts to support the public and legal professionals, and will be trained in new technologies
The estate is aligned with the reform programme
The provision for hearings in physical court rooms will remain essential for the fair, just and proportionate delivery of justice. Yet we anticipate that fewer interactions with the court and tribunals system will happen in this way. Any future changes to the court estate which result in the relocation of a service from a local area will be consulted on publicly before a decision is made, using the criteria set out in the Fit for the Future principles.
We expect the modernisation being delivered by the reform programme to provide additional routes to justice and as a result lead to a reduction in the use of our court and tribunal buildings. These modem channels will be additional to, rather than substitutions for, existing routes. We make a commitment that we will not act on assumptions by proposing to close courts unless we have sound evidence that the reforms are actually reducing the use of those buildings.
Naturally, with an estate of this size there may be changes in demand for reasons other than uptake of digital services, and in those circumstances, it may be sensible to close or merge courts. Furthermore, this consultation has no effect on previously announced closures which will go ahead as planned.
Our response to the consultation addresses several concerns which we have committed to improving. One is that journeys to and from court should be reasonable and, for the overwhelming majority of users, this would be one that allowed them to leave home no earlier than 7.30am, attend their hearing and return home by 7.30pm the same day by public transport. We also set out how we will measure this commitment and what other factors we will consider, for example, the circumstances of users including those that are vulnerable.
The consultation was broadly positive about proposals regarding the design of our court and tribunal buildings and reinforced the need for the security of those who use and work in our courts and tribunals to be paramount and for ensuring suitable facilities for vulnerable users. This is reflected in the new “Court and tribunal design guide” published today.
Our revised principles will strengthen and guide our analysis and assessment when we consider future changes. It will better align the management of our estate to the wider modernisation of our services and will make sure the court and tribunal estate remains fit for the 21st century.
Court and tribunal design guide
Alongside fit for the future, HMCTS has also published a new Court and tribunal design guide. This has been developed after engaging with user groups, to make sure the guide improves the experience for court and tribunal users, while providing value for the taxpayer.
It provides the standards for refurbishment and redevelopment of existing and future court and tribunal buildings. It aims to enable optimum use of facilities and improve user experience and, along with the key elements of safety and security, sets out five principles that must be incorporated into any building design. These principles define that court and tribunal buildings must be appropriate, effective, accessible, flexible and sustainable.
The guide was developed through extensive engagement with court and tribunal users to ensure standards and designs meet their needs. The “fit for the future” consultation sought views on the proposed principles and approach to improving the design of court and tribunal buildings and a total of 181 responses were received.
The guide will be used by HMCTS to help inform current and future building and refurbishment work undertaken across the court and tribunal estate. As lessons are learned and HMCTS reform initiatives develop, the design guide will be updated.
A copy of the consultation response has been placed in the libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1554]
Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act
David Gauke Excerpts(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
The Ministry of Justice is today publishing the response to the consultation paper Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017: Implementing the Act. The response collates views from a variety of key stakeholders on the Department’s proposals for bringing the Act into force. The response will be available on www.gov.uk.
I have placed a copy of the response in the Libraries of both Houses.
It remains the Government’s intention to bring the Act into force in July 2019.
[HCWS1526]
Oral Answers to Questions
David Gauke Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are committed to providing IPP prisoners with opportunities to progress to the point at which they are safe to release. Our primary responsibility is public protection. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and the Parole Board are delivering a joint action plan to improve IPP prisoners’ sentence progression. In 2017-18, three quarters of those considered by the Parole Board were either recommended for release or a move to open conditions. This shows that our approach is working.
Jeff Smith
My constituent Wayne Bell is currently in the 12th year of a sentence for which the original tariff was four years. Owing to his significant mental health issues, he is unable to engage with the parole process and the review process, and his mental health problems are exacerbated by the hopelessness of his situation. Does the Secretary of State realise that prisoners with mental health issues can get trapped in a vicious cycle where it becomes almost impossible to achieve parole, and will he look at interventions that could be considered to enable Wayne’s cases and others like it to be resolved?
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point. I am happy to write to him on the individual case, which has a number of complexities, as I am sure he is aware. I have mentioned the joint action plan to improve IPP prisoners’ sentence progression. These measures include case reviews led by psychologists for those prisoners not making the expected progress, an increased number of places on specialist progression regimes, and greatly improved access to rehabilitative programmes. I continue to be ambitious to ensure that we do everything we can in this area, remembering that public protection must remain our priority.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for what he has said about his ambitions for IPP prisoners. Does the joint action plan have an end date—that is, is there a date beyond which we should not detain people under these sorts of sentences?
Mr Gauke
In the end, it comes down to the decisions made by the Parole Board, which has to make its decisions based on public protection. In some cases— regrettable though it may be—if someone is not safe to be released, the Parole Board must make that decision. We need to ensure that we do everything we can to progress these cases as best we can. As I have said, we have made progress in recent years.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The latest figures show that there are still nearly 2,500 prisoners serving IPP sentences. These sentences often have punitive recall conditions, which means that people might be returned to prison for fairly minor breaches of their licence conditions, resulting in many prisoners serving well beyond their original tariffs. It was previously a target of the Parole Board to reduce IPP prisoner numbers to 1,500 by 2020, so what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that this happens?
Mr Gauke
Obviously I want to reduce the numbers, and one of the reasons that we have provided additional support to the Parole Board is to enable it to do so. In the end, it comes down to individual decisions in respect of particular individuals, and some cases present a number of challenging factors. Decisions have to strike the right balance between progressing people as we should and ensuring that we protect the public.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
The UK and the EU have agreed the terms of an implementation period. If Parliament is able to support a deal, common rules will remain in place during that period. That will provide certainty to businesses and citizens. The UK and EU have also committed to explore a new agreement on family judicial co-operation and other related matters; ambitious arrangements for services and investment, including legal services; and a future security partnership. My Department continues to work to ensure we are in the best position to negotiate our priorities.
Gavin Newlands
The former Brexit Minister, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) said at the Dispatch Box that a no-deal Brexit
“would not result in a reduction in mutual capability”—[Official Report, 20 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 1077]—
on security and law enforcement co-operation.
However, the Solicitor General, when giving evidence to the Justice Committee, said:
“A no deal is deeply suboptimal when it comes to criminal justice”
and that
“we would lose the European arrest warrant”,
which
“raises all sorts of questions of delay and, frankly, potential denial of justice”.
Will the Justice Secretary tell me which Minister’s version of the post-Brexit future is accurate?
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Solicitor General’s evidence to the Justice Committee was indeed crystal clear. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that it is critical for civil justice co-operation that there should be a deal? None of the ambitious objectives for future collaboration would work if there is no deal. For example, mutual recognition and enforceability of judgments in civil and family law cases would fall away immediately in the event of no deal.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is right to highlight these issues. We have made progress in our negotiations, particularly in the context of family law. It is to the advantage of citizens in the UK and the EU that a deal is reached, which will enable us to enforce judgments in this area. Our ambitions are to go further and, in terms of the future framework, to make further progress on civil judicial co-operation.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
In thousands of instances, we are not able to deliver justice in this country unless we have a proper extradition agreement with other countries in the European Union. As I understand it, even if the withdrawal agreement were to go forward at some point, we will still have to operate as a third party outside the European arrest warrant. Relying on the 1957 treaties will not be enough, so what plans does the Secretary of State have to ensure we are able to maintain a proper extradition arrangement with other countries in the European Union?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that on leaving the European Union we will not have access to the European arrest warrant. We would wish to be able to do so, but there are difficulties. For example, Germany has a constitutional bar in this area. The Home Office continues to work with EU member states to try to find a way in which we can have as effective extradition and arrest warrant arrangements as possible.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Justice issues are, of course, largely devolved. EU initiatives such as Eurojust and the European arrest warrant are well utilised by Scottish prosecutors and are hugely valued by them. In the current Brexit talks between the UK Government and the Labour party, will the Secretary of State confirm what proposals regarding justice have been discussed and if the Scottish Government have been or will be consulted on these or any forthcoming proposals that may result from the talks between the Tories and the Labour party?
Mr Gauke
I am not going to comment specifically on those discussions. What I would say in the context of no-deal preparations is that, as I understand it, the Scottish Government have not allocated any of the money given to them for no-deal preparation on justice matters. Certainly, when it comes to the United Kingdom, we are doing everything we can to prepare for every eventuality.
Joanna Cherry
I can assure the Secretary of State that the Scottish Government’s no-deal planning is well advanced. The Justice Secretary’s Government recently opted into the Eurojust regulation. Eurojust plays a vital role in the fight against serious organised crime, particularly terrorism but also cyber-crime and child pornography. His Department said that opting in was necessary to ensure that the UK continues to work in line with our European partners in the lead-up to exit day and during the transition period. Will he tell us how many more justice opt-ins has he planned before Brexit takes place and will they feature in the Tory manifesto for the EU Parliament elections?
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
On 12 April, the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 came into effect. It criminalises the reprehensible behaviour known as upskirting. The offences specified in the Act are framed in clear and focused terms to ensure that that disturbing practice is tackled robustly wherever it occurs, so that victims can be confident that their complaints will be taken seriously. I thank Gina Martin for leading the campaign, and I thank all Members on both sides of the House who supported this law. Together, we have sent a clear message to those who think that they can get away with such invasive and unacceptable behaviour: it will not be tolerated.
Marsha De Cordova
A staggering 72% of decisions on personal independence payments and 65% of decisions on employment and support allowance are overturned in the first-tier tribunal. That means that not only are ill and disabled people having to fight for the social security support to which they are entitled, but a great deal of money is being wasted on the administration of appeal tribunals. May I ask the Secretary of State how much is being spent on the administration of PIP and ESA tribunals? If those figures are not recorded, will he agree to start producing them?
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Climate change is now receiving the public attention that it merits. Greta Thunberg is in the House today, and my party pays tribute to her work. All too often, however, our justice system restricts the ability of citizens to take legal action against environmentally damaging decisions. Last month, the United Nations criticised the Government’s failure to meet their international obligations relating to access to justice in environmental matters.
Labour’s 2017 manifesto proposed the establishment of a new type of environmental tribunal with simplified procedures so that citizens would have alternatives to prohibitively expensive judicial reviews. Will the Government follow Labour’s lead, and commit themselves to the establishment of a tribunal that would empower people to use our legal system to protect our shared environment?
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Given that the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2018 became law last year to block mobile phone signals in prisons, could the Minister update us on the progress that has been made on introducing the technology across the prisons estate?
Mr Gauke
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she did in bringing the Bill through and turning it into an Act. It is an important piece of legislation, which extends our powers to work alongside network providers. We are taking significant steps in dealing with the security threat posed by mobile phones. We have to prevent them from getting into prisons. We have to use detection methods to find them and stop them working, and we are making advances on that. We also need to exploit the data that is held on them.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the fact that a family impact test on the Government’s proposed divorce law changes has been published, but what is the justification for the Government cherry-picking not just public opinion, which, according to the responses to their own consultation, is 80% against the proposed changes, but the evidence they rely on, with Ministers seeming to ignore evidence that there will be an immediate spike in divorce rates, which will impact negatively on the families involved?
Mr Gauke
I have to disagree with my hon. Friend on this point. It is true that there was a surge of submissions to our consultation in the last couple of weeks, but the fact is that a YouGov poll on the day the proposals were set out suggested 73% support for them. Indeed, we have had support from the Law Society, Resolution, the Family Law Bar Association, Sir Paul Coleridge—the chair of the Marriage Foundation—Relate and National Family Mediation. This reform will help families and ensure that the divorce process is less acrimonious.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I warmly welcome the commitment by the UK Government to recruit 2,500 more prison officers, because prison officers in Scotland have spoken out about the fact that the system there is at breaking point. Rising numbers have led to overcrowding in my local prison, HMP Perth, which was recently reported to rely heavily on inexperienced agency and bank nurses due to staffing shortages. Does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government need to make a similar commitment to restore order in our prison service?
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Sir Edward Leigh
Having pissed off half our supporters by botching Brexit, why are we now irritating the other half with an extreme liberal social agenda? Every single study, including the Harvard Law reform and the Margaret Brinig studies, shows that it is poor, vulnerable and dispossessed children who suffer most from divorce. Will my right hon. Friend at least accept that if he makes something easier, it will happen more often?
Mr Gauke
The evidence on no-fault divorce is that in a steady state there is not a higher rate of divorce than otherwise. It is also the case that the current fault-based approach to divorce results in divorces that are going to happen anyway being more acrimonious than they would otherwise have been. That is why I believe that it is right that we make this reform.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Education is at the very heart of rehabilitation. What are Ministers doing to ensure that people have access to education and the jobs they need when they leave prison?
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The law regarding the sentencing of offenders has grown piecemeal and become ever more complex, even for experienced judges and practitioners. Bearing that in mind and noting that comparatively uncontroversial legislation is being sought for a future Queen’s Speech, would not paving legislation for the Law Commission’s sentencing code consolidation Bill absolutely fit the bill?
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
In 2010, the then Secretary of State for Justice said that he wanted to examine what could be done to use technology more effectively so that fewer people have physically to attend court for routine purposes. Nine years on, however, this Government have admitted to not collecting information on how many times video links break down; nor have they published the business case for their modernisation programme. Will Ministers commit to undertaking that research before proceeding with any more closures or cuts to our courts?
Divorce Law Refrom
David Gauke Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
I am pleased to lay before Parliament “Reducing Family Conflict: Reform of the Legal Requirements for Divorce”, the Government response to the consultation on reform of this important area of family law. The full public consultation ran from 15 September to 10 December last year and sought views on the Government’s proposals to revise the process for obtaining a divorce to minimise acrimony during the legal process and reduce the potential for ongoing conflict afterwards. I am grateful for the insight and experience shared by people in providing evidence of the real-life difficulties that can arise from the current law, particularly how it incentivises focusing on the past to make allegations that can unnecessarily pit one spouse against the other. That is why we are proposing to remove the legal requirement to make allegations about spousal conduct or to have lived separately for up to five years.
Families are the bedrock of society, and marriage has long proved its vital importance to family stability. The Government will always support marriage, and we want to ensure that the system as far as possible supports couples to remain married. In revising the legal process for divorce, we have also sought to maximise the opportunity for couples to reconcile if they can, by introducing a minimum period before the court grants the decree of divorce. Divorce should continue to be a considered decision. We heard from respondents to the consultation that couples often feel divorced when the court grants the provisional decree of divorce. Beginning the minimum period before this point is therefore key to allowing for both meaningful reflection and an opportunity to turn back.
When, sadly, a marriage or civil partnership has irretrievably broken down, continuing in it can be damaging for the couple and for any children they have, as well as undermining the institution of marriage itself which can work only if both parties are committed to it. It is vital that the law recognises this and, where divorce is inevitable, allows people to move on in as constructive a way as possible. The ability to have a positive rapport and co-operate after separation is particularly crucial for parents, as children’s outcomes are improved by co-operative parenting. Removing from the legal process for divorce those elements which can fuel long-lasting conflict between parents will therefore support better outcomes for children. Where, despite reflection, divorce cannot be avoided the law should do all it can to reduce conflict and encourage good relations as couples move on to reach agreement about practical arrangements for the future.
The Government will therefore bring forward proposals to deal with the legal aspects of divorce or civil partnership dissolution as sensitively as possible. Divorce is of great social significance but for those involved it is also an intensely personal matter. Unfortunately, it affects the lives of too many families. The current law does little to reduce conflict when divorce occurs. It urgently needs reform to encourage a more conciliatory and constructive approach to undoing a marriage, and to ensure better outcomes for all those involved, and especially for children.
The Government have today set out their proposals for reform. We intend to bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
[HCWS1501]
Fixed Recoverable Costs in Civil Cases
David Gauke Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
The Ministry of Justice is today publishing a consultation paper Extending Fixed Recoverable Costs in Civil Cases: Implementing Sir Rupert Jackson’s proposals. We are seeking views on implementing the proposals in Sir Rupert Jackson’s report on fixed recoverable costs (FRC) in civil cases in England and Wales, published on 31 July 2017.
In civil litigation in England and Wales, the winning party is generally entitled to recover their costs from the losing party. The legal costs of civil cases have, however, been too high and too uncertain for a long time, making litigation riskier and less accessible than it should be and thereby undermining access to justice.
FRC are a way of controlling the legal costs of civil litigation in advance by prescribing the amount of money that can be recovered by the winning party at set stages of litigation. They reduce overall costs, keep them proportionate and enhance access to justice. They are already an important part of our justice system in lower value personal injury cases and the time is right to consider their extension.
The consultation will run until 6 June 2019.1 have placed a copy of the consultation in the libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1462]