Courts Update

David Gauke Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

Today we have introduced the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill in the House of Lords.

New legislation underpins our agenda to modernise the courts and tribunals, make them fit for the 21st century and deliver better value for taxpayers. We are working alongside the judiciary to deliver these far-reaching reforms, which will make access to justice quicker and easier for all. The Bill will support and enable these vital reforms to the justice system.

We are delivering significant reform in advance of legislation. For example, we have delivered high-quality, new digital services through a number of pilots: the public can now apply for uncontested divorce online, apply for probate online, make pleas online for low level offences (such as traffic offences or evading bus fare), respond to jury summonses, track social security appeals online, and issue and respond to civil money claims. Over 6,000 people have used these pilots and got straightforward, digital access to the courts for the first time.

Today’s Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill contains measures that are essential to enabling the judiciary to respond to the changing demands of a reformed courts and tribunals system and delivering better services to users. Our world-class judiciary are a highly valuable resource and we want to enable them to continue to deploy their time and expertise where and when it is most needed. The Bill will introduce much greater flexibility to the deployment of judges. It will also free up judges’ time to focus on more complex matters by allowing suitably qualified and experienced court and tribunal staff to be authorised to handle uncontroversial, straightforward matters under judicial supervision. The measures in the Bill will also increase the efficiency of the courts and tribunals.

Further court reform legislation will follow, as soon as parliamentary time allows.

I am placing the delegated powers memorandum and the accompanying impact assessments in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS715]

Justice

David Gauke Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Ministerial Corrections

[Alan Mak]

What progress his Department is making on recruiting 2,500 new prison officers.

[Mr Gauke]

Retaining and recruiting engaged and motivated staff is critical to delivering the solutions to drive improvement across the service. Between the end of October 2016 and the end of March 2018, we have increased prison officer numbers by 3,111 full-time equivalent staff. This is already significantly over our target of 2,500 additional staff by the end of December 2018. Investing in the frontline is vital for safety, rehabilitation and security, which is why we are spending £100 million a year in additional prison officers.

[Official Report, 24 April 2018, Vol. 639, c. 715.]

Letter of correction from Mr Gauke:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) and for Havant (Alan Mak).

The correct response should have been:

[Mr Gauke]

Retaining and recruiting engaged and motivated staff is critical to delivering the solutions to drive improvement across the service. Between the end of October 2016 and the end of March 2018, we have increased prison officer numbers by 3,111. This is already significantly over our target of 2,500 additional staff by the end of December 2018. Investing in the frontline is vital for safety, rehabilitation and security, which is why we are spending £100 million a year in additional prison officers.

The following is an extract from Questions to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice on 24 April.

[Rebecca Pow]

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[Mr Gauke]

I am delighted to announce that we have met and exceeded our October 2016 target of recruiting an additional 2,500 prison officers, with 3,111 full-time equivalent staff joining the prison workforce seven months ahead of schedule, 90% of whom will be on the landings by the summer. Prison officers are some of our finest public servants, and I am happy to see individuals seeking out a career in our Prison Service. Along with the rest of the workforce, those bright new recruits will ensure that prisons are safe and decent, tackle the unacceptable levels of drugs in prisons and cut the rate of reoffending.

[Official Report, 24 April 2018, Vol. 639, c. 729.]

Letter of correction from Mr Gauke:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow).

The correct response should have been:

[Mr Gauke]

I am delighted to announce that we have met and exceeded our October 2016 target of recruiting an additional 2,500 prison officers, with 3,111 staff joining the prison workforce seven months ahead of schedule, 90% of whom will be on the landings by the summer. Prison officers are some of our finest public servants, and I am happy to see individuals seeking out a career in our Prison Service. Along with the rest of the workforce, those bright new recruits will ensure that prisons are safe and decent, tackle the unacceptable levels of drugs in prisons and cut the rate of reoffending.

Justice Update

David Gauke Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

On 9 January, I announced an immediate review into: the transparency of Parole Board decision making; whether there should be a mechanism to allow parole decisions to be reconsidered; and victim involvement in the parole process. On Saturday I published the full findings of that review and the action I will take in response.

The review has looked at issues with the parole process as a whole following the Parole Board’s decision to direct the release of John Worboys. Under the current law, the policies and procedures of the Parole Board mean decisions are taken behind closed doors. Open justice is an important principle of our justice system. It must not only be done; justice must be seen to be done.

Victims, and the public, must have confidence in the criminal justice system. Parole Board decisions are inevitably difficult, but this makes it even more important that information is available about how the process works. We must support victims as they continue to suffer from the impacts of the crimes committed against them, and make sure they receive timely and accurate information about what is happening in their case, delivered in a considerate way.

This review sets out the action the Government will take. We are:

removing the blanket prohibition on the disclosure of information about Parole Board proceedings, so that victims can be given summaries of the reasons for the board’s decisions. Where the Parole Board chair considers it to be in the public interest, summaries will also be available to the public and the media on request. There will be a presumption that this will happen. This change will come into force on 22 May 2018;

launching a consultation on a new process to allow reconsideration of Parole Board decisions on whether to release a prisoner. We envisage a judge-led reconsideration process which in some circumstances could be open to the public, and with the individual or panel that makes the reconsideration decision named. This consultation will consider how the new process should operate and will be open until the end of July. Once that has completed I will set out my plans for bringing the changes into effect; and,

making immediate changes to how we communicate with victims. We are widening access to the Victim Contact scheme and considering further changes to be included in the Victims’ strategy which we will publish this summer.

In addition to the immediate actions I am taking forward as a result of the review, I have also announced a comprehensive examination of all 27 of the Parole Board rules to ensure that the processes and procedures as a whole are right and fair.

This initial package of measures sets out the immediate action we are taking. It is a vital first step in moving toward a parole system that ensures greater openness, challenge and involvement of victims in the parole process, and towards restoring the confidence of victims and the wider public in the justice system.

[HCWS655]

Oral Answers to Questions

David Gauke Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

6. What progress his Department is making on recruiting 2,500 new prison officers.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

Retaining and recruiting engaged and motivated staff is critical to delivering the solutions to drive improvement across the service. Between the end of October 2016 and the end of March 2018, we have increased prison officer numbers by 3,111 full-time equivalent staff. This is already significantly over our target of 2,500 additional staff by the end of December 2018. Investing in the frontline is vital for safety, rehabilitation and security, which is why we are spending £100 million a year in additional prison officers.[Official Report, 1 May 2018, Vol. 640, c. 1MC.]

[Craig Tracey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and commend him for the work that he has done on recruitment. Can he confirm when we can expect to see the new officers on the landings?

[Mr Gauke]

I can tell my hon. Friend that 90% of the 3,111 will be on the landings by the summer, and all will be in place and operational by the end of the year.

[Alan Mak]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Will he update the House on the progress being made towards the new key worker model and the impact it is having on prison officer recruitment?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. The key worker model is crucial. It will allow prison officers to spend more time, both on a one-to-one basis and with small groups of prisoners, improving staff-prisoner relationships. That can help us reduce both violence and reoffending. Some prisons, such as HMP Liverpool, are already running that scheme, and I look forward to more prisons fully implementing that over the months ahead.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many of Dartmoor prison’s prison officers live in Plymouth and have told me of their concern that prison officer cuts, inexperienced new staff and increasing retirement ages are causing stress and concern. Can the Minister reassure me that there is a proper plan to address staffing and morale in our Prison Service?

[Mr Gauke]

There is already a proper plan to address that point about staffing. That is why the numbers are going up, and that is the point I am setting out. The numbers are at a five-year high. We are ahead of what we promised in October 2016. I am pleased that we are doing that and we will continue to recruit new prison officers—net new prison officers—into the Prison Service.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What additional training will these new officers be given to deal with the scourge of the availability of drugs in our prisons throughout the United Kingdom?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are refreshing the way that training works for prison officers. It is very important that we deal with the issue of drugs, which has been a real game-changer in its effect on prisons. As we change and refresh our training process, we need to ensure that new prison officers have the skills they need to deal with drugs.

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

The net increase in the number of prison officers is very welcome, and I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s reference to a key workers scheme, but does he agree that the mix of the workforce is important? Successful key worker and personal officer schemes will depend on having experienced staff, because they are best able to develop relationships with prisoners and deal with violence, the risk of suicide and other issues. Will a strategy now be put in place for the retention of existing staff, perhaps with incentives to encourage good people to remain in the service?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right; it is important that we not only recruit new staff, but retain existing staff. We are working closely with those prisons that are failing to retain staff. It is worth pointing out that in 2017 the percentage of prison officers in bands 3 to 5 who left the service was 9.7%—higher than we would like it, but not particularly out of line with other employers. Prison officers do a very valuable job, and we need to recognise that, support them and encourage those who have a lot to offer to continue to serve.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I am astonished that the Secretary of State can come here and appear somewhat triumphant. Let us be absolutely clear: this Government cut 7,000 prisoner officers, so there are still 4,000 fewer than there were in 2010. When does he expect prison staff numbers to return to 2010 levels?

[Mr Gauke]

I suspect that you, Mr Speaker, would stop me if we started a debate on the state of the public finances in 2010 and the difficult decisions that had to be taken as a result of the situation we inherited. The reality is that since October 2016 we have been recruiting more prison officers, we are ahead of what we said we would do and we are continuing to recruit prison officers. That is really important to ensure that prisons operate as they should.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment his Department has made of trends in the level of suicide in prisons; and what steps he is taking to reduce that level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

22. What his policy is on creating a specific sexual offence of upskirting.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

I share the outrage at the distress that this intrusive behaviour can cause to victims, and I am determined to ensure that they can be confident that their complaints will be taken seriously. I am sympathetic to calls for a change in the law, and my officials are reviewing the current law to make sure that it is fit for purpose. As part of that work, we are considering the private Member’s Bill that is being promoted by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse).

[Gill Furniss]

It is appropriate on this day to refer yet again to the statue of Millicent Fawcett, and I shall channel my inner Millicent Fawcett by asking the Secretary of State this question. Nearly 100,000 members of the public have signed a petition calling for upskirting to be made a specific sexual offence, and MPs from all the major parties have signed an early-day motion that makes the same call, so why is the Secretary of State still refusing to act? We really need to ensure that our law reflects that of Scotland, where provisions on upskirting have been incorporated in the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009.

[Mr Gauke]

Let me also acknowledge the unveiling of the Millicent Fawcett statue.

As I have said, I am sympathetic to the idea of our taking action in this regard. There are instances in which people have been successfully prosecuted for upskirting in the context of outraging public decency, and voyeurism can also apply under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. However, those offences do not necessarily cover every instance of upskirting, which is why there is a strong case for looking at the law and considering whether we need to change it.

[Diana Johnson]

I, too, am using my inner Millicent Fawcett courage to raise this issue. In Scotland, the offences of upskirting and downblousing are covered by the 2009 Act. Surely the Secretary of State accepts that the same could be done in this country.

[Mr Gauke]

We are looking very closely at the Scottish legislation and experience. It is true that a very small number of prosecutions have been brought under that legislation. I want to reassure people that successful prosecutions have been brought in England under the existing law, but I think that there is a case for making sure that we have legislation that deals with this offence specifically.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I think that we all receive correspondence about this regularly. As other Members have done, may I encourage the Secretary of State to look at what has been done in Scotland, where we have shown leadership? The House is clear about the need for action—the will is there, so we must act.

[Mr Gauke]

We are looking very closely at how the Scottish legislation has operated to establish whether, if there is a gap, that represents a way in which we can address the matter.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

13. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of prison capacity in the south-west.

--- Later in debate ---

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

20. What steps the Government are taking to prevent the smuggling of drugs into prisons.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

We have invested in improving security through the use of body searches and metal-detecting technology in every prison. We are also trialling new X-ray body scanners to reveal more hidden items. We have invested £3 million to establish national and regional intelligence units in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service which, with prisons, probation and law enforcement partners, are building intelligence about the highest-risk offenders.

[Giles Watling]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. My local newspaper, Clacton Gazette, recently ran a story about the use of drones to deliver drugs into prisons. Short of shooting the damn things down, what is the Department going to do about that?

[Mr Gauke]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his suggestion. We are taking decisive steps to tackle drones bringing contraband into prisons. Under Operation Trenton, Prison Service and police investigators intercept drones and track down the criminals behind them. There have been at least 32 convictions to date, with those sentenced serving in total more than 100 years in prison.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

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

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

I am delighted to announce that we have met and exceeded our October 2016 target of recruiting an additional 2,500 prison officers, with 3,111[Official Report, 1 May 2018, Vol. 640, c. 2MC.] full-time equivalent staff joining the prison workforce seven months ahead of schedule, 90% of whom will be on the landings by the summer. Prison officers are some of our finest public servants, and I am happy to see individuals seeking out a career in our Prison Service. Along with the rest of the workforce, those bright new recruits will ensure that prisons are safe and decent, tackle the unacceptable levels of drugs in prisons and cut the rate of reoffending.

[Rebecca Pow]

Will the Secretary of State outline what steps are being taken to secure employment opportunities for prisoners?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that. One of the best ways in which we can reduce reoffending is by increasing employment, which is why we have the New Futures Network coming in. I am keen to focus on ensuring that we provide employment opportunities to prisoners as much as possible.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Windrush scandal is one of the cruellest examples of unaccountable state power targeting the vulnerable, defenceless and innocent that I can remember. Senior figures describe our immigration law as complex and unintelligible to everyone but working specialists, so I was disappointed to hear the Home Secretary say yesterday that people affected by the Windrush scandal will have “no need for lawyers”. I am sure that the Justice Secretary will understand why those words will not do, so will he guarantee today that all those who have been put into this kind of situation will have access to the necessary legal advice to help them when they need it most?

[Mr Gauke]

The Home Secretary set out a comprehensive plan yesterday for how we will make the process much easier for those who have been affected. For example, those who have retired to another country will be able to obtain British citizenship much more easily to allow them to come here without great difficulties involving visas and so on. The Home Secretary also set out how we are going to put in place arrangements to ensure that there is compensation for those who deserve it.

[Richard Burgon]

The Government’s reckless approach to our justice system means that criminal barristers have now been forced into co-ordinated action and are refusing to take up legal aid work due to changes to the advocates’ graduated fee scheme. Against all convention, the Government have denied parliamentary time to debate that properly. The Criminal Bar Association made a formal request that the Ministry of Justice delay, withdraw, amend or reconsider the implementation of the statutory instrument. If the Government will not listen to the views of parliamentarians, will they at least listen to barristers, put the new scheme on hold and set about fixing it?

[Mr Gauke]

On parliamentary time, my understanding is that we are waiting for information from the Labour party. On the substance of the issue, let us remember that reforms to the AGFS were worked out with the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association. The reforms are necessary to ensure that legal aid funds are distributed in an appropriate way, and that is why the reforms are being made.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

T3. In the spirit of your advice, Mr Speaker, can the Secretary of State confirm whether or not the Ministry of Justice will object to the Second Reading of the Service Animals (Offences) Bill on Friday?

[Mr Gauke]

As the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) pointed out, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs leads on this matter. The Government continue to look at this issue.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. Another week, another inquest into the death of a prisoner at HMP Nottingham. Three months on from the prison being declared fundamentally unsafe, what update can Ministers give us on the progress of the recovery plan and on the prison’s ongoing safety?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Northern Ireland has just undergone the longest rape trial in its history, resulting in the acquittal of four men. The Department is carrying out a major review of that trial because of subsequent problems flowing from it. Will the Government—the Department—make a submission to that review, particularly looking at whether the accused should not be named until after a verdict is published?

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. This is a long-standing and very sensitive issue, one my predecessors have looked at closely. We continue to look at it; there are arguments on both sides, and we need to examine the cases carefully before we rush to any judgment on this.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

T10. My right hon. Friend will be aware that last year a pilot project allowed television cameras into courts to film and broadcast sentencing procedure. Will he say what assessment he has made of that pilot and what plans he now has to extend it further?

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Nick Hardwick, the former head of the Parole Board, made the case yesterday that it should be required to publish comprehensive explanations for the decisions it takes and that it should make public the names of the people who are making those decisions. May I urge my right hon. Friend to follow that advice as he undertakes his own review?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that I am undertaking my own review of that. The first step is to address the decision of the High Court on the existence of rule 25, which prohibits, in essence, any information being provided on Parole Board decisions. We will do that, but we also need to look more widely at how the Parole Board rules work—that includes the issues of transparency and of how the Parole Board can reconsider cases in particular circumstances.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The troubled Holme House prison in my constituency has had another damning report, this time from the Independent Monitoring Board, which talks of a shortage of staff, a lack of appropriate care for prisoners, a sustained drugs problem, and more violence against staff and between prisoners. Things do not seem to be getting any better. Will the Minister please take an interest in Holme House and ensure it gets the support it needs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

In October last year, the Government announced that they planned to increase the maximum penalty for death by dangerous driving. They also said that they would create a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. Six months on, we have still not seen any action. Will the Minister tell the House just when these vital changes will be implemented?

[Mr Gauke]

We will be updating the House in due course.

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

A year ago, virtually to the day, the legislative provisions of the Prisons and Courts Bill, which are necessary to implement Lord Briggs’s review of civil court structure, were lost in the Dissolution of Parliament. These important reforms are pressing and needed. Can the Secretary of State update us on when the Government intend to reintroduce legislation to enable the reforms to be progressed?

[Mr Gauke]

What I can say at this point is that I think we need to bring forward a number of aspects of that to help to modernise our court system. I hope to be able to make progress on that in the coming months.

Worboys Case and the Parole Board

David Gauke Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the High Court judgment handed down this morning in the case relating to the Parole Board’s decision to release John Radford, formerly known as John Worboys.

This is an important and unprecedented case. The President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Sir Brian Leveson, the most senior judge who heard this case, said that it is wholly exceptional. It is the first time that a Parole Board decision to release a prisoner has been challenged, and the first time that the rules on the non-disclosure of Parole Board decisions have been called into question.

The judgment quashes the Parole Board’s decision to release Worboys and finds that rule 25 of the Parole Board rules is unlawful. This means that Worboys’ case will now be resubmitted to the Parole Board. A new panel will be constituted, and updated evidence on his risk from prison and probation professionals will be provided. The panel will then assess anew whether Worboys is suitable for release.

Those victims covered by the victim contact scheme will be fully informed and involved in this process. My Department also has to reformulate the Parole Board’s rules to allow more transparency around decision making and reasoning.

It is clear that there was widespread concern about the decision by the Parole Board to release Worboys. As I have previously told the House, I share those concerns and, consequently, I welcome this judgment. I congratulate the victims who brought the judicial review and reiterate my heartfelt sympathy for all victims who have suffered as a result of Worboys’ hideous crimes.

I want to set out, in greater detail than I have previously been able to set out, the reasons why I did not bring a judicial review. As I told the House on 19 January, I looked carefully at whether I could challenge the decision. It would have been unprecedented for the Secretary of State to bring a judicial review against the Parole Board—a body which is independent but for which my Department is responsible. I took expert legal advice from the leading counsel on whether I should bring a challenge. The bar for judicial review is set high. I considered whether the decision was legally irrational—in other words, a decision that no reasonable Parole Board could have made. The advice that I received was that such an argument was highly unlikely to succeed, and, indeed, that argument did not succeed. However, the victims succeeded in a different argument. They challenged that, while Ministry of Justice officials opposed release, they should have done more to put forward all the relevant material on other offending. They also highlighted very significant failures on the part of the Parole Board to make all the necessary inquiries and so fully take into account wider evidence about Worboys’ offending.

I also received advice on the failure of process argument and was advised that this was not one that I, as Secretary of State, would have been able successfully to advance. The victims were better placed to make that argument, and that was the argument on which they won their case. It is right that the actions of Ministry officials, as well as the Parole Board, in this important and unusual case have been laid open to judicial scrutiny. I have always said that I fully support the right of victims to bring this action. I have been very concerned at every point not to do anything to hinder the victims’ right to challenge and to bring their arguments and their personal evidence before the court. Indeed, the judgment suggests that, had I brought a case, the standing of the victims may have been compromised.

The court’s findings on how the decision was reached give rise to serious concerns. The court has found that “the credibility and reliability” of Worboys’ account in relation to his previous offending behaviour

“was not probed to any extent, if at all”

by the Parole Board, and that although the Parole Board was entitled to make inquiries of the police in relation to his offending, it did not do so. Those are serious failings and they need serious action to address them. Given the circumstances, I have accepted Professor Nick Hardwick’s resignation as chair of the organisation.

I am also taking the following actions: instructing my officials to issue new guidance that all relevant evidence of past offending should be included in the dossiers submitted to the Parole Board, including possibly police evidence, so that it can be robustly tested in each Parole Board hearing; putting in place robust procedures to check that every dossier sent by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to the Parole Board contains every necessary piece of evidence, including sentencing remarks or other relevant material from previous trials or other civil legal action; boosting the role of the Secretary of State’s representative at Parole Board hearings, with a greater presumption that they should be present for those more complex cases where HM Prison and Probation Service is arguing strongly against release, as was the case in this instance; working with the Parole Board to review the composition of panels so that the Parole Board includes greater judicial expertise for complex high-profile cases, particularly where multiple victims are involved or where there is a significant dispute between expert witnesses as to the suitability for release; and developing more specialist training for Parole Board panel members.

The judgment also found that the blanket ban on the transparency of Parole Board proceedings is unlawful. I accept the finding of the court and will not be challenging this. It was my view from the beginning that very good reasons would be needed to persuade me that we should continue with a law that does not allow any transparency. I am now considering how the rule should be reformulated.

When I addressed the House on this matter in January, I said that I had commissioned a review into how victims were involved in Parole Board decisions, into the transparency of the Parole Board, and on whether there should be a way of challenging Parole Board decisions. That work has been continuing for these past two and a half months. Given the very serious issues identified in this case, I can announce today that I intend to conduct further work to examine the Parole Board rules in their entirety. As a result of the work that has been completed to date, I have already decided to abolish rule 25 in its current form and will do so as soon as possible after the Easter recess. This will enable us to provide for the Parole Board to make available to victims summaries of the decisions it makes.

In addition, I will bring forward proposals for Parole Board decisions to be challenged through an internal review mechanism where a separate judge-led panel will look again at cases that meet a designated criterion. I intend to consult on the detail of these proposals by the end of April, alongside other proposals to improve the way that victims are kept informed about the parole process. I am grateful to Baroness Newlove for her help with this part of the review and to Dame Glenys Stacey for her helpful suggestions and review of the way that victim liaison operated in this case. I will come back to the House with further proposals as they are developed.

In conclusion, let no one doubt the seriousness with which I take the issues raised by this morning’s judgment or the bravery of the victims who brought this case to court. I commend this statement to the House.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement on today’s High Court decision.

Today’s unprecedented ruling, made possible by the Human Rights Act, clearly highlights the deep flaws in the initial Parole Board decision. That initial decision clearly caused anguish for the victims—those whose cases have been dealt with—and also for those who have not yet had justice. In addition, there has been deep concern among women and the public more widely. The head of the Parole Board has decided to stand down, but what is needed is real change in the way that the Parole Board functions.

The current legal restrictions on the Parole Board mean that we do not know why the initial decision was taken. That led to a rumour about where Worboys would be released, and even a rumour about his being released without a tag. That is not good for victims, and it is not good for public confidence. It cannot be right that women victims had to go to judicial review before the reasons for the release of John Worboys became available. We also remember the Government making the victims go to the Supreme Court to secure compensation following police failings.

Judges in the judicial review said that too much secrecy about Parole Board decisions under rule 25 of Parole Board proceedings prevents any reasons from being given for decisions made by the board. Therefore, as has been mentioned, the Worboys’ case underlines once and for all that there is a need for the Government to take urgent action and urgent measures to guarantee greater transparency in Parole Board decisions. Given that the public are entitled to be informed about court judgments, they must also be entitled to be informed about the clear reasons behind Parole Board decisions.

Of course, this is not about undermining the independence of the Parole Board, and we on the Labour Benches will defend the independence of our judiciary. It is right that action is being taken to improve transparency. Is the Secretary of State’s review also looking at guaranteeing not only that the public are informed about the reasons behind decisions, but that they are clear about the mechanism to challenge those decisions? Will the Secretary of State commit today to concluding his review of the Parole Board by the summer? We have seen other reviews by the Secretary of State’s Department—on the victims’ law and other issues—slip after initial announcements. Will he reassure the House that that will certainly not happen in this case?

A lawyer for the victims of John Worboys has said that the Ministry of Justice was responsible for preparing the dossier of evidence on which the Parole Board made its decision to release. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House why information about the so-called rape kit used by John Worboys and the sentencing remarks of the judge in the criminal trial of John Worboys were not included in this dossier? Why did the dossier contain nothing about the new information that came to light during the proceedings brought by victims against the Metropolitan police?

The failures in the Worboys case go much wider than the rules governing the Parole Board. It is clear from today’s ruling that judicial review is a key tool enabling every citizen to challenge unjust or unlawful decisions by the state or other public bodies, and we have to be clear about the importance of the role of the Human Rights Act. Deep cuts to legal aid have undermined the ability of many to pursue judicial review. Personally, I do not think that it is right that victims of people such as John Worboys have to crowdfund to pursue justice. Justice cannot depend on the depths of people’s pockets. Will the Government today commit to using their review of legal aid to look again at how it can support judicial reviews?

Will the Secretary of State give us more information about why he chose not to proceed with his own judicial review? To be blunt, does he regret his decision to pursue a cheap headline and brief the weekend newspapers in advance before properly checking whether he should pursue the judicial review? It is not just me asking this question; it has been reported that the Secretary of State’s Conservative colleagues are asking it too, to the extent that the Prime Minister has been moved today to confirm that she still has full confidence in him. The Secretary of State has tried to defend his decision not to pursue a judicial review, although he has not yet made the case properly. Given that, will he accept responsibility for the failings in the dossier presented by the Ministry of Justice?

There have been widespread failings in this case from the very outset. In 2009, John Worboys was convicted of 19 offences against 12 women, but the police have also linked him to about 100 other cases. Many of the victims have raised concerns—and my office has been contacted by other victims—about police failings in the handling of the case. Others have raised concerns about the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute. Of course, we have also seen many complaints about the Parole Board and about the failures of the victim contact scheme properly to notify victims of the parole hearing.

It is clear that we need a thorough examination of the handling of this case, from the very first attack reported to the police by a victim right through to the Parole Board hearings. Given that this is the third occasion that I ask, will the Secretary of State agree to an end-to-end review into this matter—from start to finish? The victims and the public deserve no less.

[Mr Gauke]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman regarding transparency. I am pleased that there is cross-party consensus on the need for increased transparency of Parole Board decisions. That should not undermine Parole Board independence, which is important. I hope to move swiftly to change systems in order to ensure that the reasons that the Parole Board has reached a decision become available to the victims. I hope that that will be in place shortly.

The hon. Gentleman touched on the licence conditions. In a way, this is not necessarily as much of an issue as it was. It had been determined that Worboys would be electronically tagged and excluded from London. That may or may not be an issue in the future, depending on future Parole Board decisions.

On the dossier that was provided by the National Probation Service—and, therefore, my Department—for the hearing that occurred on 8 November last year, it is the case that there may well have been information that should have been included in the dossier and that was not provided, but it is worth pointing out that it is the responsibility of the Parole Board to satisfy itself that an offender is no longer a risk to the public. The judgment of Sir Brian Leveson was that the Parole Board failed to probe that evidence sufficiently, as it should have done. I reiterate that the National Probation Service opposed the release of John Worboys.

I made no secret of the fact that I was considering whether to take a judicial review, and I set out in my earlier remarks the reasons why I did not bring that forward. The reality was that the victims were in a better position than me to bring a successful case. It is important that we ensure that when the Parole Board reaches a conclusion that meets certain criteria, there is an ability for it to look again and examine whether the relevant panel has performed its duties as it should have done. Sadly, that is not what happened in this particular case, and that is the issue that we need to fix for the future.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I welcome Sir Brian Leveson’s judgment. The victims have obviously got the justice that they were seeking. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would have been absolutely scandalous if he, as Justice Secretary, had ignored the legal advice that he got, which sounds to have been perfectly sensible on the basis of facts available to him? It would be a very bad day if Ministers started intervening in criminal sentencing cases in response to campaigning, and did not judge them objectively according to the rule of law and the public interest.

While implementing these extremely welcome proposals, which are obviously needed in the light of all this, would my right hon. Friend make sure that the Parole Board and its panels are not undermined when they carry out properly their extremely difficult task? The Parole Board is often asked almost impossible questions, and we cannot have people making any judgments except on the basis of the best judgment that they can make in the public interest. Criminal sentencing must never be simply a question of campaigning and responding to popular pressure.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who is also a distinguished predecessor in my post. He is absolutely right on both counts. In terms of whether I took action or not, I thought that it was very important to test the legal arguments. As I made clear on 19 January, I was not going to stand in the way of others and, indeed, others may have been better placed to bring that case. I looked carefully at the advice I had received and based my actions on that advice.

My right hon. and learned Friend’s second point is also important. There were failures in what the Parole Board did, including not probing sufficiently and not being sufficiently inquisitive. We must, however, accept that the Parole Board makes thousands of decisions every year that often involve difficult judgments, and it is not always necessarily going to get it right, but it is not the role of politicians to interfere and second-guess those decisions. We do, though, have a role in ensuring that we have a system in place with clear guidance, clear training and the right people. We clearly need to do some work on that, and I have set out some proposals today.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his very full statement. I welcome this decision, both in respect of the remit back to the Parole Board and on the transparency of the reasons. It seems that there has been a shocking dereliction of duty on the part of the Parole Board. I welcome the actions that the Secretary of State is taking to tackle this. It is important that Professor Hardwick, who has resigned, is not made a scapegoat. I congratulate the Secretary of State on focusing on the rules and procedures, which need to be tightened up.

Something has gone very wrong in this case from the start. In order to get justice, the victims themselves have had to go to court to vindicate their rights—not once, but twice. First, they had to go to court in order to get a proper investigation by the police and a prosecution of the cases. Secondly, they had to protect themselves from the early release of their attacker.

As others have said, judicial review has proved to be a key tool in this respect. It is therefore very unfortunate that legal aid is no longer widely available in England and Wales for judicial review. I urge the Secretary of State to look at the independent review of legal aid in Scotland—I stress the words “independent review”—that was published earlier this month, because it showed that with less spend per capita than in England, legal aid has much wider eligibility and scope in Scotland. Seventy per cent. of Scots are eligible for legal aid. If that can be done on less money per capita in Scotland, then it can be done in England. Will he commit to an independent review of legal aid in England and Wales so that if victims in these cases have to use judicial review, they can have the wherewithal to do it regardless of their means?

[Mr Gauke]

On legal aid, the hon. and learned Lady will be aware that we are undertaking a post-implementation review of the changes to legal aid that were made earlier in this decade, and we will conclude that before the end of the year. Certainly, given what she has said, we would want to take into account the evidence in Scotland as part of that review.

As for failures within the Parole Board, I think, as I said, that it is right that Professor Nick Hardwick stand down as chair of the Parole Board. I acknowledge that he has been a dedicated public servant who has done a number of very good things at the Parole Board as well. However, I believe that there have been significant failures and that at this point new leadership is required within the Parole Board.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I very much support the calls by the Opposition for a thorough, end-to-end review. The reality is that these victims have managed to blow open the system using, as we have heard, a very big, popular campaign. They have given us a rare glimpse into something that many people across this House would find utterly terrifying, given the profound errors that have been uncovered by Leveson in the inquiry that he has just concluded. Will the component of my right hon. Friend’s review relating to transparency be completed in advance of the new Parole Board determining the second stage of the Worboys case?

[Mr Gauke]

First, let me put on record my tribute to my hon. Friend for his tireless work on this case, as he has been a very strong advocate for the victims. On transparency, as I said, I hope that we can make progress in the course of the next few weeks. It is not for me to determine when the Parole Board will next look at John Worboys’ case, but I would be astonished if it were before we had new rules on transparency in place.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Let me place on record, if I may, that Nick Hardwick is a decent man whom I have known for a long time professionally and personally. He has taken his resignation seriously today. With regard to the Secretary of State’s abolition of rule 25, he used the words “in its current form”. What areas of transparency does he expect still to be exempt?

[Mr Gauke]

The challenge in this—having seen in this case the decision notice by the Parole Board—is that there might be, for example, information provided by the prisoner to a psychologist, as part of the risk assessment, that is deeply personal. In order to have openness between, say, a prisoner and a psychologist, it must be possible for some of that information to remain confidential, so we cannot put everything out there. Indeed, there may be information relevant to victims that they would not want to be put into the public domain. As I say, a summary of the conclusions that the Parole Board has reached should be made available. The points made by Members on both sides of the House in saying that greater transparency is needed are absolutely right.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his very detailed and considered response to what is itself a very detailed and considered judgment by the President of the Queen’s Bench Division. It is perhaps worth observing that it is quite clear from paragraph 130 that the ground on which the Secretary of State was urged to enter the judicial review would not have succeeded.

The Justice Committee wrote to the Secretary of State yesterday raising some of the issues that he has now pre-emptively dealt with in his statement. As well as reform of rule 25 and a proper review or repeal process so that judicial review is no longer necessary in future, will he consider the observations given to us in evidence, and by the Court as well, about the importance of having forensically skilled legal representation for the Secretary of State at hearings in serious cases to test the evidence, and about the desirability of having a serving or retired judge to chair the panel in serious cases?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. Where there is reconsideration, the second panel should be led by someone with legal, and indeed judicial, experience. One of the things that we are clearly going to have to look at is the degree to which proper legal experience is involved in this process. I agree that it is important that where the Secretary of State has a representative at one of these matters, they are well placed to make a strong case.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Court’s decision. Many of us were shocked and appalled by the original Parole Board decision, given the number of vile sexual assaults and rapes in this case. The Secretary of State is right to put forward reforms and to say that there are serious questions for the Parole Board. I hope that he will make it clear that he recognises that there are also serious questions for the Ministry of Justice, which had to put forward the evidence in this case. It is not a good look simply to say that this is about the responsibility of the Parole Board, if we are to get to the reforms that we actually need. Does he recognise that one of the big failings in this case was about support for, and proper information for, victims throughout the process? Will he make that an urgent priority in the reforms that are put forward?

[Mr Gauke]

The point about victims is very important. The right hon. Lady will be aware that Dame Glenys Stacey undertook an immediate review of the facts in this case. There is clearly a lot to learn about how victims are treated. In this particular case, the fact that victims were receiving information from the media rather than being contacted directly is not something that we want to see repeated. She is absolutely right to raise that point.

On the MOJ’s position, as I set out in my statement, there is much more that we can do to ensure that information on things like sentencing remarks should be provided as part of the dossier consistently and as a matter of course. Clearly, there were failures in this regard. That is partly why my position in bringing a judicial review was weaker than that of the victims, because they were able to make these arguments in a way that was not open to me. We need to find ways in which we can make improvements across the system. I stress that the national probation service was clear that it did not think that Worboys should be released.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

First, may I say to my right hon. Friend that the criticisms of him for not bringing the judicial review are entirely misplaced? He was in no position to do it. Indeed, it is likely that had he chosen to do it, it would have failed, and having failed, it would have prevented anybody else, within the time limit, from going ahead and bringing such a judicial review.

On the wider issue, my right hon. Friend may agree that the problem we have—those of us who have attended meetings of the Parole Board as observers can see this—is that the workload has grown exponentially with the rise in indeterminate sentences. I really do wonder whether we now have a proper process in place for dealing with this kind of case where there is public concern as to when the moment of release is finally determined. May I urge him, in carrying out his review, to consider that he may want to come back to Parliament to have this issue debated to determine what Parliament thinks should be the appropriate way of proceeding, because this is now a quasi-judicial process with immense consequences for victims, but also of course for those who are incarcerated and are seeking to be released?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just gently say, before the Secretary of State responds, that this is an extremely important matter about which we have just heard in the most learned terms from one of our most learned authorities? However, there are a further 16 hon. and right hon. Members seeking to catch the eye of the Chair. The Chair likes to accommodate interest. I gently point out that there is some danger of us reaching a position where everything will have been said but not yet by everybody.

[Mr Gauke]

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his remarks. He makes an important point: had I taken a judicial review, it may have brought into question the standing of the victims, as Sir Brian Leveson points out. In terms of the workload, to be fair, the Parole Board had been making progress with the backlog of imprisonment for public protection cases, but it remains significant—there are still something like 3,000 prisoners on an IPP sentence in prison, and they need to be properly assessed.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

May I associate my party with the widespread welcome for the High Court decision and the congratulations to the two brave victims who brought this action? I also want to state for the record that I think the Secretary of State has acted properly throughout.

With respect to reform of the Parole Board, the Father of the House talked about the balance between accountability and independence. Because that is so tricky to get right, as we have seen, will the Secretary of State commit today to engage all parties in the House at an early stage, so that together we can strike an agreement on how to manage that balance?

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. His point is about accountability and independence. There is a challenge here. I want to make it clear that I do not believe it is the role of Ministers to intervene as a matter of course in individual cases because they do not particularly like the judgment. I have made no secret of the fact that I did not like the Worboys decision, but I made an assessment and sought advice as to whether there was a legal route for me to take action and concluded that there was not. I believe that the Parole Board has to be independent, and I wish to maintain that, but I also think that a balance has to be struck, as the right hon. Gentleman says, and some weaknesses have been revealed in the Parole Board that we need to address.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the judgment today can be appealed, potentially by Worboys? If so, how long will that process take, and does it have to happen before any new panel can be constituted? Finally, can he confirm that any victims who were not able to feed into the original Parole Board hearing because they were not contacted will be part of any new process?

[Mr Gauke]

It is possible for this decision to be appealed. It will certainly not be appealed by my Department. In terms of the timing, my understanding is that the Parole Board is likely to proceed on the basis that this is the judgment in place. I do not think there is more that I can say at this stage.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I welcome the Court’s decision and hope that rule 25 will be abolished without delay. One way to make Parole Board decisions more transparent is greater involvement of victims—for example, by consulting them about licence conditions, using video links for them to give evidence, advising them about the impact of their victim statement on board decisions, and a simple right of appeal without victims having to go through lengthy and complex judicial reviews. Will the Secretary of State commit to those measures?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady makes a number of important points, and I would particularly highlight the issue of victims and licence conditions. We need to look closely at that, and it follows on from the previous question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening). Ensuring that licence conditions reflect the concerns of victims is important.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I commend the Secretary of State for his statement and his swift response to today’s judgment. It is absolutely the case that he should not have brought a judicial review, but equally, we cannot have a system whereby we rely on victims—victims of a serial predatory sex offender—to keep us safe. The primary role of Government is to keep the people safe. Will he look at ensuring we have a system that does that? What assurances can he give us that there are not other cases where the Parole Board has released people who have been deemed dangerous in circumstances where it should not have?

[Mr Gauke]

The reconsideration process is a way of ensuring that decisions by a Parole Board panel can be tested very thoroughly. On other cases, I have requested that the Department look closely at circumstances where there is a decision to release a category A prisoner directly. That happens very rarely—I think there have only been six in recent months—but I have sought the Department’s reassurance that there is nothing to be concerned about in those cases.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am particularly pleased that the Secretary of State says that other civil legal action will be taken into account in future. I have written to the Department about a case where this is relevant. I had a reply from the Department which is full of errors. I wrote back on 19 January. I have not had a reply. Please could I have a meeting?

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Lewis]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does not the Worboys case illustrate the fact that there is a culture of consideration for rapists and murderers that puts the public gravely at risk? Will the Secretary of State be investigating the case of the two murderers who killed two people in two separate incidents in their own homes and who have just been convicted of the horrific rape, torture, throttling and murder by burning in a car while she was still alive of a young Vietnamese woman—not to mention the imminent release of another criminally insane individual who is being groomed for release in his guise as a woman, having previously been convicted of stabbing to death a young woman in her own home more than 66 times?

[Mr Gauke]

I suspect that a number of Members will have read about the case to which my right hon. Friend refers, which was covered this morning. Clearly it raises a number of issues. My focus has been on the particular circumstances of the Worboys case and the fact that there was a lack of probing of the information that should have been taken into account in making a risk assessment. These risk assessments are difficult, and sometimes they will be got wrong, but it is our responsibility to ensure that the processes are robust.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

I sincerely thank the Secretary of State for meeting my constituents Mr and Mrs Mullins and their daughter Louise last month, following the release of the man who killed their son 30-odd years ago. They were failed by the Parole Board as well. Will the Secretary of State reassure me today that, as we discussed in the meeting, victims must be front and centre of any forthcoming review?

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, I will. In terms of the victims aspect, that review will, I hope, be completed by the end of April. I hope to make good progress on that. Meeting Mr and Mrs Mullins and their daughter, thanks to the good offices of the hon. Lady, highlighted how important this issue is for victims and their families.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

How will the Secretary of State establish a balance between open justice for the system under which the Parole Board operates and at the same time preventing it from effectively operating as trial by media, because of the activities of the media around famous cases such as this one?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend draws out exactly the tension that we have to resolve. We need to be more transparent; the House rightly demands that. In doing so, we must recognise that it is the Parole Board that would review the documentation and should do so very thoroughly, probe carefully, then reach its conclusion. If those processes are thorough, we have to support the Parole Board in delivering that.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Like everyone else, I welcome today’s ruling. This has, however, been an unnecessary mess, with a somewhat unfortunate scapegoat in Nick Hardwick. The real problems that have been uncovered are processes and rules not fit for purpose, a lack of support for victims and underfunding. The measures the Secretary of State has outlined, including the judge-led internal reviews, are of course welcome, but given that he does not have enough judges to serve the current case load timeously, how will he ensure that their additional role will not delay trials any longer than they are currently delayed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

What I would say is that it is really important to get this system working well. In many cases, it does work well—in many cases, the Parole Board is making difficult decisions, and in the vast majority of cases, it gets them right—and there are times when we need to recognise and support that. Unfortunately, however, this case has revealed that some things went wrong, and they need to be addressed.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Rule 25 did not exist for most of the years that I conducted litigation on behalf of the Parole Board, and I must say that I welcome its demise. I thank the Secretary of State for taking such timely action, and for making such a thorough statement today. However, I ask him to remember that Parole Board hearings often happen many years after an offence and that victims will have moved on. While it is right that we have open justice—the press are rightly interested in probing how the system works—it is also very important to protect victims, who may well be starting to move on from what has happened to them. In that respect, I urge him to look at the excellent recommendations made by the Justice Committee, which should have reached his in-tray today.

[Mr Gauke]

I will, as always, look very closely at the excellent recommendations of the Justice Committee.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The Court said that the wider context of Worboys’ offending was not taken into account by the Parole Board. When the Secretary of State draws up his new rules, will he ensure that they take into account the perpetrator’s actions after he has been in prison? In Worboys’ case, he continued to appeal against his sentence, refused to admit liability in a civil case and finally admitted his guilt only nine months before his first Parole Board hearing, thus ensuring that he piled further agony on to his victims. Although Parole Board decisions should not be decided on the basis of campaigns, does he accept that it is the duty of the House to ensure that justice is seen to be done? It certainly was not done in this case.

[Mr Gauke]

I accept that hon. Members are perfectly entitled—indeed, it is our responsibility—to make many of these points. When it comes to the assessment of risk—is someone safe to be released?—that is the job of the Parole Board in these circumstances. Somebody’s behaviour after they are imprisoned is clearly relevant, and such a consideration should be taken into account.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

For more than two years, I have raised with Ministers, and raised in this House and indeed in the Justice Committee, the issue of the lack of transparency in the case of Colin Pitchfork, who brutally raped and murdered two schoolchildren in my constituency in the 1980s. It was an unprecedented case because it was the first time in English criminal history that an individual—he pled not guilty—was convicted on the basis of DNA evidence.

I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I fully understand the reasons he has given for not raising a judicial review procedure. It would have been ludicrous to ask for a judicial review against the Department for which he is responsible. May I, however, ask him for a simple assurance that he will ascertain the timing of the Parole Board for Colin Pitchfork, so that I and my constituents can understand whether the procedure will be the current one or the new one that he is proposing?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner on behalf of the families of the victims of Colin Pitchfork, and I will see what information I can glean on the particular case. As I have said, when it comes to transparency, I hope that we will be in a new position in a handful of weeks’ time.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I am sure everyone accepts that the Secretary of State acted in good faith, but can he explain to the wider public who do not have a legal background why, when he acted on the advice that the victims had the best chance of success, the Government then spent a small fortune employing a top-notch QC to defend and justify the secrecy provisions that the victims’ case was based on challenging?

[Mr Gauke]

Just to explain, there were two cases brought by the victims: one was on the substance of the decision, and one was on rule 25. On the substance of the decision, my Department did not oppose the victims. We stood back, and indeed we did nothing to hinder the victims, as I assured the House on 19 January. On rule 25, I had made it clear that I felt it needed to be changed. I considered that to be a matter for this House and for my Department, rather than that the previous rule was unlawful. I thought it was wrong; I did not think it was unlawful.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I welcome the tenor of the statement that the Secretary of State has made. Given that many of us welcome the result achieved by the victims, will he reassure me that he will not oppose any requests from them for costs?

[Mr Gauke]

I assure my hon. Friend that the victims’ costs will be paid from the public purse.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

My admiration for the courage of the victims knows no bounds, but they really should not have been put in the position of having to pursue this in this way. They have been let down by different sections of the Government, and what was missing from the statement was any sense of apology to those victims for the actions that they have been forced to take because various parts of the Department failed. The Secretary of State referred to the number of cases that the Parole Board have to consider, but this was not any old case; it was a very high-profile one, and there have been serious failings in decision making. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the victims for the many failures that left them having to pursue justice because no one else would do it for them?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that this was no ordinary case. This case should have been dealt with much more effectively. At the Parole Board hearing, there should have been much greater probing and much greater testing of the case that Worboys made, and I deeply regret that that did not happen. I share the anger that he feels at the fact that victims therefore had to go through this process, and I am sorry that that happened.

Justice Update

David Gauke Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

I have today signed a Justice Devolution Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with London Councils and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC).

This agreement will fundamentally change the way the criminal justice and offender management systems interact with local partners in London. We are moving towards a model where greater local influence is seen in a number of key delivery areas, including victims and witness services, future probation services, innovative use of electronic monitoring technologies, and specialist services for young offenders and women in the criminal justice system. We have also committed to explore jointly more ambitious options, such as budget devolution for certain groups of offenders in custody.

This is a crucial area of focus for the Government. Spending on criminal justice in London is significant, estimated at £3.3 billion per annum across at least 14 different organisations at a national, regional and local level. Reoffending costs £2.2 billion in criminal justice costs alone. London accounts for almost 20% of offenders and reoffenders, at 76,000 and 19,000 respectively, and has a prison population accounting for a similar proportion but which is spread across 40 institutions nationally. Crime and the impact of crime is not felt equally across London, with the most vulnerable wards having three times as many victims of burglary, robbery and sexual offences as the least vulnerable wards.

In summary, the MoU covers the following areas:

Victims and witnesses

Work will aim to improve the experience for victims and witnesses from the point a crime is reported to the criminal conviction and beyond. Our ambition is to establish a more integrated service for victims and witnesses in London where victim support would be provided by a single person rather than several agencies. To help ensure a more seamless service for victims and witnesses before trial, we will devolve commissioning of support for witnesses at the pre-trial stage to MOPAC by April 2019.

We will also use the findings from the MOPAC-commissioned review of compliance with the victims’ code of practice and the provision of victim services in London to improve accountability and to inform local, regional and national policy and commissioning.

Reducing reoffending

This section of the MoU commits my Department to working with local partners to ensure that the right interventions are in place to reduce reoffending in the capital. This will include delivery of a joint review of probation services in London, and testing the co-commissioning of through the gate’ services.

Further to this, the MoJ, MOPAC and London Councils will undertake a joint programme of work around robust community sentence options, including considering opportunities to co-commission and better integrate services for the most complex, violent and persistent offenders, and developing a London strategy to make the most effective use of electronic monitoring.

A new approach to managing vulnerable cohorts

More women are sentenced to short custodial sentences in London than in the rest of the country, and the overall London youth reoffending rate of 47.5% remains stubbornly higher than the rate for England and Wales, which is currently 42.6%. This section sets out how we will work in partnership to address the complex needs of these vulnerable cohorts.

The MoU sets out a specific commitment to work collaboratively to align priorities and budgets on female offenders within London, exploring the scope for co-designing credible alternatives to custody. On young offenders, the MoJ will facilitate joint analysis with an aim of improving outcomes, with particular focus on addressing BAME disproportionality across the system. MoJ, MOPAC and London boroughs will pursue joint work programmes in relation to resettlement provision, transition to the adult estate, and the opportunities to co-commission a secure school for London.

Financial devolution

Finally, we are seeking, in the longer term, to foster a whole-system approach to offender management where powers, resources and decisions are better aligned and early intervention and prevention is incentivised. The MoU sets out our intention to work with MOPAC and London Councils to explore ways in which financial models can incentivise greater investment in preventative services which reduce demand on the CJS, particularly considering opportunities with specific cohorts, including female offenders and 18-25 year old offenders.

This summary covers the main commitments of the MoU, which is available in full at: https://www.london.gov.uk/mopac-publications-0/memorandum-understanding-london-cjs. Work will begin now to ensure we jointly deliver these commitments as quickly as possible.

[HCWS584]

Justice Update

David Gauke Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government are today introducing into the House of Lords legislation through the Civil Liability Bill to make important changes to our system of compensation for personal injury.

As announced in the Queen’s Speech on 21 June 2017, the Civil Liability Bill will reform the law relating to whiplash claims. We will introduce a new fixed tariff of compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for whiplash claims with an injury duration of up to two years. The tariff will be set in supporting regulations. We will also introduce a ban on seeking or offering to settle whiplash claims without medical evidence.

The Civil Liability Bill will also make changes to the way in which the personal injury discount rate for England and Wales is set under the Damages Act 1996. The principal changes we are making are that: the discount rate will be set by reference to expected rates of return on a low risk diversified portfolio of investments rather than a return on very low risk investments as under the present law; in setting the rate, the Lord Chancellor will consult an independent expert panel chaired by the Government Actuary, with HM Treasury remaining a statutory consultee; and the discount rate will be reviewed promptly after the legislation comes into force and, thereafter, at least every three years.

I am also publishing today the Government’s response to the Justice committee’s report, “Pre-legislative scrutiny: draft personal injury discount rate clause”, published on 30 November 2017.

I am also placing the delegated powers memorandum and accompanying impact assessments in the House libraries.

I notified the market of the Civil Liability Bill earlier today through the London Stock Exchange group.

[HCWS566]

Oral Answers to Questions

David Gauke Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

2. What recent assessment his Department has made of the effect of court closures on access to justice.

[The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr David Gauke)]

Maintaining access to justice is a key principle when changes to the estate are proposed. Before issuing our consultation on court closures in January, we assessed the impact on access to justice—principally, the changes in travel time for court users. The decision to close a court is never taken lightly, and is made only after full public consultation and where we are satisfied that access to justice is maintained. Our reform programme will improve access to justice for many users, while allowing many needs to be met without the need to attend court. Online solutions and video hearings will make access to justice easier.

[Ruth George]

The Minister’s experience is not happening in my constituency, where Buxton court closed in 2016. Some of my constituents now have to travel 40 miles on a one-and-a-half-hour trip to Chesterfield court. The police say that it now takes them a whole day to take someone to court, whereas it used to take less than half a day, and that is having an impact on the number of offenders they can bring to court and on justice in my area. Please will the Minister take this into account in the current consultation?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments, but we also have to take into account the fact that 41% of courts and tribunals used less than half their available hearing capacity during the financial year 2016-17, and across the country courts are utilised at 58% of their capacity. In those circumstances, where resources are scarce we have to make decisions about the reforms we undertake.

[Helen Hayes]

I have been raising concerns about the closure of Lambeth county court for the past two years, and the court finally closed in December. My constituents facing the repossession of their homes must now attend Clerkenwell county court, which lawyers report to be a chaotic environment, which is impossible to contact by telephone, where cases and files frequently go missing and where the number of respondents failing to attend is rocketing. When will the Justice Secretary take action to address this unacceptable situation?

[Mr Gauke]

The reality is that we are undertaking a series of reforms, making much greater use of digital technology and increasing access to online ways of dealing with this. This is an important modernisation that the courts system needs.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Very sadly, we have lost our magistrates court in Kettering, which, I have to say to the Government, was a mistake. It means that magistrates, the police and witnesses are all having to travel further. The closure of court sends a poor signal to the magistracy that they are not valued. Can we get rid of this ridiculous age limit, whereby magistrates have to retire at the age of 70?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this point, on which I have received representations. This is consistent with what happens elsewhere within the judiciary, but I am conscious that it will continue to be a matter of some debate.

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

The Government are continuing to cut court staff, close courts and sign contracts worth millions of pounds for their digitisation programme. These are huge changes, which will have an impact on our courts for decades. Will the Minister promise not to close any more courts or sign contracts until the courts Bill is published and the matter has been debated fully in this Chamber?

[Mr Gauke]

I hope to be able to bring forward further news on the courts Bill in the near future, but I am not going to give the undertaking the hon. Lady seeks. It is important that we continue to look to get the best out of the resources we have. If that means reforms here in making greater use of digital technology and ensuring that our court estate is as rational and efficient as possible, we will need to continue to do that.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

3. What assessment his Department has made of the time taken to bring to court criminal cases involving vulnerable witnesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

7. How many prisoners have undertaken work experience before release in the last 12 months.

[The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr David Gauke)]

In 2016-17, offenders completed 16 million hours of work and there were, on average, 11,200 offenders working in prison workshops. In the same period, 2,048 individuals were released on temporary licence for work-related purposes. The New Futures Network will aim to get even more prisoners working during their sentence and to see that that work leads to employment on release.

[John Mann]

I know that the Secretary of State is new in office, but people at Ranby Prison have been waiting for two years now to be able to get on with creating the sports facilities that they are capable of building inside— the seating, the dugouts for community sports, and even the changing rooms—but the one thing they have not been given is the Secretary of State’s permission to proceed with doing this commercial work. Could I incentivise him with perhaps a cup of tea afterwards, to concentrate his mind on why he needs to make this decision urgently?

[Mr Gauke]

Certainly, the prospect of a cup of tea with the hon. Gentleman does concentrate the mind, and I would be delighted to accept his invitation. We are trying to ensure that we have a prison system that encourages people to progress by having opportunities to gain experience of work, and I am keen to do that in this post.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s offer is an interesting one. It might also be thought by some to be a divisible proposition.

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

The Secretary of State’s speech this morning and his emphasis on more use of release on temporary licence is extremely welcome and constructive. Will he bear in mind, though, that the Through the Gate programme currently involves careers and employment advice being given only towards the very end of a prisoner’s sentence, whereas all the evidence suggests that that should happen much earlier?

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for his comments. I do want to look at whether we can expand release on temporary licence and provide these opportunities more widely. On his second point, I am keen to ensure that we provide as much support as possible and make it clear that there is a second chance for people who have gone to prison. If they abide by the rules and comply with the system, we want to give them the support to turn their lives around.

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

Will the Secretary of State consider what can be done to facilitate prisoners in applying for universal credit before they are released, so that they can receive the support of jobcentre and other staff immediately on release to move into paid work as quickly as possible?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady raises a good point, and rightly so. I am keen to do precisely as she suggests. A lot of work already goes on in prisons with, for example, work coaches providing this support. Part of the challenge is about access to emails. We need to look very carefully at that because it raises a large number of questions.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Work experience in prison that leads to work on release is proven to reduce reoffending. Does the Secretary of State therefore believe that, while we rightly praise employers who offer ex-offenders work experience, we need to call out those employers who have a blanket ban on employing ex-offenders unrelated to any reasonable or fair risk assessment of doing so?

[Mr Gauke]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen surveys suggesting that some 50% of employers simply will not engage. It is frustrating that when one speaks to employers who do take on ex-offenders, their experience is frequently very positive indeed. If we can increasingly build a culture whereby these offenders are given that opportunity, that is good for the offenders and good for society, as it will reduce reoffending.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of building a new prison in Port Talbot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

9. What assessment his Department has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the operation of the legal system in each jurisdiction of the UK.

[The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr David Gauke)]

We are seeking a new deep and special partnership with the EU that works for the whole United Kingdom. Of course, Scotland and Northern Ireland have distinct legal systems. That is why, in the negotiations on civil judicial co-operation, market access for our legal services and criminal justice, I want a deal that works for Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales. That is also why my Department is meeting regularly with the devolved Administrations to look at the ways in which our legal and justice systems are affected by EU exit.

[Gavin Newlands]

Unlike the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the Scottish Government’s legal continuity Bill gives the Scottish Parliament an enhanced role in scrutinising legal changes to devolved laws due to Brexit. What is the Secretary of State doing to urge his Cabinet colleagues to make similar provision for this Parliament for reserved matters in the EU withdrawal Bill?

[Mr Gauke]

In terms of what is described as the continuity Bill, I am not sure, in all honesty, how helpful or useful that will prove to be. The reality is that there is very close scrutiny in this House of the measures the Government are taking and the negotiations we are having.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Is the Secretary of State looking forward to April next year, when each of the jurisdictions across the United Kingdom will be able to fashion and formulate legislation in keeping with the demands and the requirements of the people of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman states his position very clearly and forthrightly. As we leave the European Union, new flexibilities will arise for all parts of the United Kingdom.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Unlike the EU withdrawal Bill, the Scottish Government’s legal continuity Bill contains a power to enable devolved law in Scotland to keep pace with EU law after Brexit, where appropriate. Does the Secretary of State agree that similar provisions should be made in the EU withdrawal Bill for reserved matters and for the benefit of the English legal system?

[Mr Gauke]

The extent to which this Parliament decides that it wishes to replicate provisions of EU law is a matter for this Parliament, and whether or not we put that in the EU withdrawal Bill, that freedom will continue to exist for this Parliament.

[Joanna Cherry]

Another point of contrast between the Scottish Government’s legal continuity Bill and the EU withdrawal Bill is that the Scottish Government’s Bill incorporates the charter of fundamental rights into Scots law in so far as it applies to devolved matters. What is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that everyone in the United Kingdom keeps their rights guaranteed by the charter, regardless of which jurisdiction they live in?

[Mr Gauke]

When the charter of fundamental rights was brought in, the argument was made at the time that it was essentially replicating rights set out elsewhere in other parts of EU treaties. To the extent that that fundamentally changes matters, there is certainly a debate to be had about it.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

10. What plans the Government have to ensure that the UK legal system operates effectively after the UK leaves the EU.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

21. What plans the Government have to ensure that the UK legal system operates effectively after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr David Gauke)]

It is absolutely right that we provide legal certainty for businesses, families and individuals as we leave the European Union. That is why, as the Prime Minister said in her speech on Friday, part of our future partnership with the EU will be to have effective reciprocal arrangements with the EU to deal with cross-border legal disputes in civil and family matters. The best way to deliver that co-operation is with a close and comprehensive agreement between the UK and the EU that sets out coherent common rules.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Leaving the EU is likely to lead to additional workload for the UK legal system. What additional resources have been made available to his Department and to the legal and courts system more generally to ensure that they are fully prepared?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right that we should be prepared. He will be aware that the Treasury has made another £3 billion of extra funding available to Departments for 2018 to 2020. We are in discussion with the Treasury about the allocation for the justice system, and we hope to agree it soon.

[John Lamont]

As we leave the European Union, many powers over many aspects of our legal and judicial enforcement will return from Brussels. What discussions have the Government had with the Scottish Government on how such policies will be implemented after Brexit, and does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP Government’s disruptive continuity Bill will do nothing but add to the uncertainty in our country?

[Mr Gauke]

We are committed to securing a deal that works for the entire United Kingdom—for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all parts of England. The Government expect that the outcome of leaving the EU will significantly increase the decision making of each devolved Administration. I can tell the House that I wrote to Michael Matheson last month to reaffirm the Department’s commitment to continue meaningful engagement with the Scottish Government.

[Stephen Hammond]

Professional services, including legal services, are clearly one of the key exports of this country. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that there will be new arrangements for the recognition of legal standards and qualifications?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises a good question. We recognise that this is an important right to protect UK nationals, so that they can continue with their chosen line of work. It has already been agreed that those who have received a recognition decision or applied for one before the withdrawal date will be able to have their qualifications recognised after exit, including lawyers. Talks on many key issues, including the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, will continue into the next phase of negotiations. We will seek to reach an agreement with the EU on parts of MRPQ that are not seen as in scope of the withdrawal negotiations, such as home title practice. The Prime Minister has been clear that she wants EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU to be able to continue their lives broadly as now.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) has a not wholly dissimilar inquiry at Question 19, and he is welcome to come in on this question if he is so inclined, because we are not likely to reach Question 19.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

19. I would be delighted to do so. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.As the Prime Minister has made a number of concessions with regard to the European Court of Justice after Brexit and given that the Scottish Government’s legal continuity Bill provides that, when exercising devolved jurisdiction, Scottish courts may have regard to the decisions of the ECJ, is it not time to amend clause 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to the same effect?

[Mr Gauke]

On clause 6 and this question more widely, let us be clear: we are leaving the EU, so the jurisdiction of the ECJ will end, but EU law and the decisions of the ECJ will continue to affect us. For a start, the ECJ determines whether agreements the EU has struck are legal under the EU’s own law. If, as part of our future partnership, Parliament passes an identical law to an EU law, it makes sense for our courts to look at the appropriate ECJ judgments, so that we interpret those laws consistently. We have to remember, however, that our Parliament will remain ultimately sovereign. It could decide not to accept such rules, but there would be consequences for our membership of the relevant agencies and linked market access rights.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of private sector probation companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

12. Whether he has discussed with the Home Secretary the implications for Government policies of the Supreme Court judgment on the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v. DSD and another.

[The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr David Gauke)]

This case is a matter for the Home Office and the police. However, I understand that the Home Office is working closely with the National Police Chiefs Council to understand the impact of the ruling and monitor current claims.

[Louise Haigh]

Failures to disclose digital evidence have led to the collapse of four rape trials in recent months. Does the Secretary of State agree that, in the light of the landmark ruling on the Worboys case, the lack of digital capacity now exposes the police to huge financial liability and risks breaching the human rights of victims on an unprecedented scale? Will he make representations to the Home Office to carry out a full resource impact assessment of the decision?

[Mr Gauke]

As the Attorney General has said, disclosure in cases is a question of public authorities performing the roles that they should and doing their jobs properly. Clearly, it is of great concern that there have been cases in which that appears not to have happened.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

13. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of creating a specific offence of attacking service animals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr David Gauke)]

For prisons to be effective, we must get the basics right. This means creating prisons that are safe, secure and decent. It also means tackling the ringleaders of serious organised crime, so that they cannot continue to profit from their crimes and ruin people’s lives through drugs, deaths and violence from behind bars. I can announce that we are investing an extra £14 million to tackle serious organised crime. This includes creating new intelligence and serious organised crime teams to support work with the National Crime Agency, and enhancing our intelligence and information-gathering capacity across the country. I will also look at how we categorise prisoners to make sure that we are using our most secure prisons to tackle ongoing criminality behind bars. At the same time, we will reset the system of incentives in our prisons, so that they work much more in the favour of prisoners who play by the rules and want to turn their lives around, while coming down harder on those who show no intention of doing so.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Too long.

[Priti Patel]

The number of foreign national offenders from EU countries in our prisons remains at around 4,000. As part of the negotiations on leaving the EU, is my right hon. Friend liaising with other Government Departments, including the Home Office and the Department for Exiting the European Union, to ensure that we can deport more of the thousands of EU nationals who are in our prisons and remove these dangerous people from Britain?

[Mr Gauke]

Since 2010 we have removed more than 40,000 foreign national offenders from our prisons, immigration removal centres and the community. A range of removal mechanisms exist that enable foreign offenders to be returned to their home countries, and we are working closely with the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Home Office as we consider our future criminal justice arrangements with the EU, with the aim of carrying on our close working relationship.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

In a formal statement, the previous Secretary of State for Justice said that the Grenfell inquiry would

“get to the truth and see justice done”.

For that to be the case, Grenfell survivors and the bereaved families must have full confidence in it, so to tackle the obvious current lack of trust, does the Minister agree with survivors and bereaved families who are calling for a broad inquiry panel, as there was in the watershed inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence?

[Mr Gauke]

I believe that the processes have been set up, that the inquiry led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick is the right approach and that the focus should be on ensuring that the inquiry can make progress rather than trying in any way to undermine it.

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

T2. Family law has been in need of reform for far too long. We now have a situation where the judiciary is supporting early intervention and wishing to carry out a pilot scheme. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how to make this excellent solution a reality?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

T6. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as he reforms the justice system, a system of incentives could help prisoners with good behaviour records and reduce reoffending in the future?

[Mr Gauke]

I very much agree. Indeed, I advanced that argument this morning in a speech to the Royal Society of Arts. If prisoners are abiding by the rules and complying with what is required of them, governors should have more flexibility to reward them with additional privileges. I think that that could help to move people in the right direction and change behaviour in a positive way.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

T10. The most recent figures from the Department show that only 6% of employment tribunal fees have been repaid, although the Supreme Court declared them unlawful last year. If the Department cannot uphold the law, how can it expect anyone else to?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

What are the Government doing to reverse the dramatic fall in community sentencing, which has nearly halved in the past decade, with a particularly sharp drop in recent years?

[Mr Gauke]

We have seen an increased use of suspended sentences, but the hon. Lady is right that we must do more. We want to work closely with community rehabilitation companies and the National Probation Service, because the judiciary must have confidence in non-custodial sentences as well as custodial sentences.

[Mr Speaker]

The Foreign Secretary is scribbling away with great determination and no little emotion, and we are grateful for that, but I have an appetite to hear a couple more questions—[Interruption.] Yes, I want to hear a couple more questions to the Justice Secretary while the Foreign Secretary is recovering his breath.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

We need compulsory prisoner transfer agreements to send foreign national offenders back to prison in their own country. Are the Government seeking to sign any new such agreements? If so, with which countries?

[Mr Gauke]

As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), in the last few years, something like 40,000 foreign national offenders have been returned to their own countries. We continue to seek to sign additional agreements so we can continue to make progress with this.

[Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

Will the impact of cuts to legal aid on unaccompanied and separated children under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 be considered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Last week the Justice Committee produced an excellent report highlighting some of the issues around virtual courts. We might have a virtual Foreign Secretary today, but the Committee raised some important issues, so why is the Secretary of State rushing to close courts such as that in Cambridge when we are yet to have a wider discussion about virtual courts?

[Mr Gauke]

As I said in reply to the very first question of this session, it is important that we make progress in using the court estate as sensibly as possible. It is underused, and when resources are scarce, it is important that we use them more efficiently. It is also right that we make advances in using digital technology so that access to justice becomes easier.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

Last weekend a prison officer at HMP Bedford was rushed to hospital with a serious brain injury inflicted by a prisoner. Other serious incidents occurred over the weekend, such as prison officers running for their lives to hide from an out-of-control prisoner. The weekend before, five prison officers were taken to A&E due to injuries inflicted by prisoners. Will a prison officer have to die before this Government act to keep prison staff safe in the line of duty?

[Mr Gauke]

The events in Bedford at the weekend were deeply disturbing and the sympathy of the whole House goes out to that prison officer and his family. Violence against prison officers is at an unacceptable level. There were 8,000 incidents last year and, as I set out in a speech this morning, we must take this incredibly seriously. We must recognise that the driver of a lot of this violence is drugs, and that the driver of a lot of drugs in prison is serious organised crime. I want to ensure we do everything we can to address that, because prison officers do a great job and it is far too dangerous for them.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

With the support of Co-op Funeralcare, Dignity plc, the National Association of Funeral Directors, the bereavement charity Cruse and the all-party group on baby loss, 50 bereaved parents in Hull are still seeking an independent inquiry into what happened to their babies’ ashes. Does the Minister still stand by Hull City Council, which has refused to have that independent inquiry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will know that even in the best justice systems there are miscarriages of justice. Will he therefore pay attention to the fact that so many people who are later found to be innocent and have their sentences quashed, having spent years in prison, never get any compensation?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. If he wants to raise a specific case, I am happy to meet him to discuss it.

Justice and Home Affairs: Annual Report

David Gauke Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr David Gauke)]

The Home Office and Ministry of Justice have prepared the eighth annual report to Parliament on the application of protocols 19 and 21 to the treaty on European Union (TEU) and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (“the treaties”) in relation to EU justice and home affairs (JHA) matters. The report, which is today being laid before the House, is submitted on behalf of both my own Department and that of the Home Secretary.

On 9 June 2008, the then Leader of the House of Lords committed to table a report in Parliament each year setting out the decisions taken by the Government in accordance with protocol 21 (“the justice and home affairs opt-in protocol”) and to make that report available for debate. These commitments were designed to ensure that the views of the scrutiny Committees should inform the Government’s decision-making process.

This report covers decisions taken over the period 1 December 2016 to 30 November 2017. In that period, decisions on UK participation in a total of 19 EU JHA legislative proposals have been taken. The UK has decided to opt in under the JHA opt-in protocol in 12 cases and has decided not to opt in in five cases. The Government have asserted the Schengen opt-out to two proposals during that period—in both cases the Government decided not to opt out (i.e. the UK should participate in the measures).

These opt-in decisions are without prejudice to discussions on the UK’s future relationship with the EU. The UK’s relationship with the EU will change as a result of leaving the EU. However, the UK retains the rights and obligations of membership of the EU while we remain a member.

[HCWS497]

UN Convention Against Torture

David Gauke Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr David Gauke)]

The OPCAT, which the UK ratified in December 2003, requires states parties to establish a “National Preventive Mechanism” (NPM) to carry out visits to places of detention to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The Government established the independent UK NPM in March 2009, and extended its membership in December 2013, and in January 2017. The UK NPM is currently composed of 21 scrutiny bodies covering the whole of the UK, and prepares annual reports on its activities. It also has an independent website at: www.nationalpreventivemechanism.org.uk.

Following previous practice, I have presented to Parliament the eight NPM annual report (Command Paper 9563). This report covers the period from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017. I commend the important work that the NPM has carried out over this period and the NPM’s independent role in safeguarding the human rights of detainees across the UK. I also note the NPM’s observations around prisons, children in detention, police and court custody, immigration detention, and health and social care detentions.

[HCWS469]