Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Jeremy Wright

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Bearing in mind the short time, I will do my best to speak briefly. We have four amendments from the Lords. I can deal with them in short order. Amendment 1D has no merit. I have not voted on that particular issue before, but today I will vote against it, because we cannot perfect that mess of a clause—clause 1. I will not repeat the arguments that I have made on that, and I really do not think that the amendment improves the clause with the addition of various statutes, as the Minister said. I think that we should reject the amendment.

I agree that amendment 6D is a wrecking amendment. We know that the delineation of clause 4 specifically with individual cases was a proper and right addition to the Bill from the outset, which I think makes it compliant with the rule of law. Therefore the amendment should be rejected. I will not repeat my arguments on amendment 10D. I still think that there is a class of people who served this country, and bravely exposed themselves to danger, who have not yet been dealt with. Many of them are in Pakistan. It would perhaps have been helpful to see an amendment in lieu to deal with that point, as the Minister did with regard to modern-day slavery, for which I thank him.

I was pleased to hear the detailed reference that the Minister made to the progress being made by the Government of Rwanda to implement the provisions under the treaty. That is clearly the issue at the heart of amendment 3E and clause 2. He knows my concern about deeming provisions and the desirability of their meeting the reality of the situation, which is why I welcome his statement, and the statement of the noble Lord, the Advocate-General in the other place, that the Bill will not come into force until the treaty has been implemented.

I think the Minister conceded that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Hope is not a wrecking amendment; it is designed to ensure that there is a mechanism through which this place can deal with the fact that Rwanda is a safe country, and to ensure that if, God forbid, the situation ever deteriorated such that it was no longer a safe country, we would not need primary legislation to correct the situation. At the moment we would. The second proposed new subsection in amendment 3E would allow this place to be involved in a situation where Rwanda might no longer be a safe country, on the advice of the independent monitoring committee, which of course is a creature of the treaty itself, set up under the treaty, as the Minister described. It is not part of the Hope amendment to set up a new body. That is not the intention.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I share my right hon. and learned Friend’s reservations about the inability of this House to reconsider the matter of the safety of Rwanda under the current legislation, but is the problem with the noble Lord Hope’s amendment not that the mechanism that he describes gives to the monitoring committee the final say on the safety of Rwanda? It does not give this House the opportunity to say, “We’ve heard the advice of the monitoring committee, but we none the less believe that Rwanda remains a safe country for the purposes of the legislation.” My right hon. and learned Friend and I might think that that is a wholly unlikely scenario, but as a matter of parliamentary sovereignty, does he agree that it must remain possible?

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Up to a point, Lord Copper. I think the second proposed new subsection in the amendment—proposed new subsection (8) of clause 1 —will provide leeway for the Government to disagree with the advisory committee, which might advise that Rwanda is no longer a safe country when in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is. Then it would be a matter for Parliament to determine, and the trigger would not come into place. On the first proposed new subsection in the amendment—proposed new subsection (7) of clause 1—my right hon. and learned Friend is on stronger ground, in the sense that it relates to a statement from the independent monitoring committee. However, I have no problem with an independent monitoring committee that has been set up by a treaty that has been agreed to by this Government and by the Government of Rwanda, and which has come into force in our law through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 provisions. Slightly inelegant though it is, it is difficult to see another way to do this that could be conclusive, and which could give certainty to all those involved in the operation of the scheme.

The Minister knows that I seek to remove and reduce the possibility of legal challenge. I do not want to see the legislation becoming the subject of angst, sturm und drang in either the High Court, the Court of Appeal or, God forbid, the Supreme Court. We saw the effects of what happened when the situation as of 2022 was determined on the evidence by the Supreme Court. The Minister knows my views about that. Whatever concerns I have about the Supreme Court in effect conducting a test on evidence, which frankly is not what it should be doing—the Supreme Court should deal with and interpret the law of this country—that is the reality in which we operate. I want to ensure that the Bill does not lead to the same problem. That is why the noble Lord Hope’s amendment has strong merit. It clears up any doubt that there is not a mechanism either for the Executive or this place to apply the provisions of the Bill, or to disapply them when the facts change.

Let us ensure that the reality keeps pace with the law, and that deeming provisions, however attractive they might be, are not used as a device to cut corners and to run ahead of ourselves in a way that will only cause problems, not just for the judicial system but for the operation of the policy itself, which the Minister knows I have consistently supported, and will continue to support, as an innovative and proper response to the unprecedented challenge of mass migration that the west is facing now. This is serious stuff. I want the Government to get it right.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Jeremy Wright

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I note your strong exhortation to address the amendments, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will address them in turn. It is tempting to get into a debate about whether the Bill offends the rule of law. “The rule of law” is used as an absolute term, but it is in fact a political term; it is an important principle that underlies much of our constitution, but it is sometimes misused and elevated in a way that does not do it or the debate justice. Inevitably, we have had wider discussions about the safety of Rwanda as a country, and about the geopolitics, but that misses the point. The point is whether we can be satisfied that the Rwandan Government are meeting the obligations they agreed to in the treaty of late 2022. That treaty was underpinned by a Government Command Paper and is, in effect, the basis of the Government’s answer to the exam question put to them by their lordships in the Supreme Court.

In the other place, Lord Howard of Lympne spoke powerfully about the need for the arms of the constitution to respect each other, and I entirely agree with him on that. I have said the same here in debates on this issue. We are perhaps not in the place that constitutionalists like me want to be in, but none the less, we are dealing with a judgment of the Supreme Court, based on the merits of the case and the test that it is allowed to apply: was there was a risk of a breach of the European convention of human rights—or, in this case, more a risk of refoulement as set out under the refugee convention? The Supreme Court decided that there was a risk, and the Government have rightly tried to take action to fill that gap.

I simply ask the Minister: is he satisfied that the helpful steps outlined by their lordships’ International Agreements Committee in its report of 17 January are being undertaken? I refer to those nine points that Ministers in the other place were pressed on repeatedly by, among others, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who made the point powerfully. I will not recite the nine steps, but they relate to making sure that Rwanda’s process for dealing with claims is fair, transparent and in accordance with the treaty that it entered into. It is important that the Government and the Minister address that point.

Lords amendment 1 just adds more potential justiciability and legal argument to a clause that, as I have said on other occasions, I despise, because it is full of declaratory law at best, and it creates a lot of legal opportunities for my colleagues in the profession; I declare an interest, of course. I do not think that we can perfect the clause by adding Lords amendment 1. However, Lords amendments 2 and 3 seem to have force, because if we are to go down this road of using deeming provisions, it is vital that we do not end up in a position where the law goes so far ahead of reality—say, through Rwanda’s failure to carry out its treaty obligations, or its slowness to do so—that we create that legal fiction that a lot of us are rightly worried about. I am therefore minded to support Lords amendments 2 and 3.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for allowing me to intervene before he moves off Lords amendments 2 and 3. As he knows, I share his concern about the artificial finality that the Bill’s drafting presents. When it comes to the treaty, does he agree that the problem with amendments 2 and 3 is that they give all the authority to the monitoring committee? They allow it to determine that there has not been adequate compliance with the treaty, and under the amendments, that automatically feeds through to a statement that Rwanda is no longer a safe country. Under the rubric of the rest of the Bill, that decision should remain with the House of Commons and the House of Lords, not with the monitoring committee.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point. The amendment is capable of perfection. The suggestion that I think I made on Report was that the Bill should not to come into force until a Minister of the Crown was satisfied that Rwanda had met its treaty obligations both internationally and domestically. I take his point—more can be done—but there is force in their lordships pursuing that point, so that we marry up the reality with what we want to achieve legally. Unless that is done, I am minded to support Lords amendments 4 and 5, because I am yet to be satisfied that we are in a position where a deeming clause, although not unprecedented—they have been used on a number of occasions—or unconstitutional, is reflective of the reality.

The Lords amendments relating to clause 4 complicate the position. That clause is clearly drafted to deal with individual cases, and I do not think that we should upset that. Lords amendments 7 and 8 do not take matters significantly further. However, Lords amendments 9 and 10 have some force. Exemptions relating to modern slavery should be clear. We have led the world in our modern slavery legislation, and have a proud record on it. That work was led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and others in their lordships’ House. It would be unfortunate, to say the least, to end up with the Bill riding a coach and horses through our important provisions on modern slavery; I am sure that is not the intention of my colleagues on the Front Bench.

Finally, on the Afghan provision, both my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and I were in the trenches, working on that issue, back in the summer of 2021. I was helping to get judges out of Afghanistan, while she was working day and night to ensure that we saved people who had risked their lives for our way of life. I take her point and, in fact, would go further: although I expect the Government to be sensible and sensitive to the position of any future Afghan refugees and not put them into this scheme, it seems to me that we would lose nothing by accepting amendment 10.

For the reasons that I have given, the Lords amendments are a curate’s egg, as all Lords amendments will be, but there are times when it is important that a point is made. I am afraid that this is one of those occasions when I will make that point.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Jeremy Wright

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I spoke yesterday to the amendments that stand in my name and are potentially subject to Division later, so I will not trouble the Committee on that. My amendment 58 would amend clause 7 to preserve a small element of clause 1—namely, the definition of a safe country. I listened carefully to the reasoned arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), whose position is similar to mine, except that he takes exception to parts of clause 1 that I want to retain. I would rather get rid of the rest of clause 1, because it is bad lawmaking, but I will come back to that in a moment.

I might have an answer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s sensible question of why the definition of a safe country in clause 1(5)(b)(ii) contains reference to the other country’s “obligations under international law.” It is simple: that has to flow, because unlike many people’s understanding of this scheme, it is not about the offshoring of UK processing, but the wholesale handing to another country of the determination of applications. That is why the measure is in the Bill. I hope that gives him some satisfaction. It is why, in considering my amendments, I decided to retain the entirety of subparagraph (ii) by moving it to the interpretive clauses towards the back end of the Bill. It was the only part of clause 1 that I could see had any function whatsoever.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I understand the argument that my right hon. and learned Friend is making, and I will not be dogmatic about the approach that I set out earlier. Is there not a danger, if we retain the language that he is referring to, that we open up another channel of legal challenge, which is exactly what the Government are seeking to avoid? If the question becomes, “Is Rwanda in compliance with its international law responsibilities?”, that is something else that someone may choose to argue if they wish to resist their transfer to Rwanda.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I think I have said outside the Chamber that, when it comes to the passage of statute, the principle of “less is more” is not only fundamentally Conservative, but fundamental to good lawmaking. Although the Bill does not weigh in at a heavy number of clauses—it has a mere 10—we as parliamentarians have a continuing duty to demonstrate economy. Any clause—in this case, clause 1—that is titled “Introduction” should give us all pause for thought, if not breaking out into a cold sweat.

It seems to me that the language in clauses 1 to 6 would belong better in a White Paper or an accompanying policy document. We know what the purpose of the Bill is. We have read the treaty, and most of us will have read the policy document that accompanied the Bill’s publication—that is where such language belongs, not in a Bill. That is not just because I have a tidy and ordered mind—well, I try—but because of the very point made by my right hon. and learned Friend: the more words we put into legislation, the more opportunity we give for their litigation and justiciability, and the arguments that will then go before the court about fundamental issues at a high level that, in my view, really should not be the province of litigation.

It is for the contracting parties to a treaty to agree its terms and sign the document, and then either directly, as in the case of Rwanda or, in our dualist system, via the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—the CRaG procedure that is ongoing—the treaty will come into force. So, to use one of my favourite wartime adages, I must ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, for whom I have great esteem: why is our journey really necessary?

In my view, clause 1 needs to go, save for the retention of clause 5. Although we will have a stand-part vote anyway, I tabled amendment 27 just to emphasise my extreme distaste for clause 1. It is a distaste based on the fear that this somehow becomes the norm and we start to see legislation of this nature proliferate. Let us start with clause 2, because that is what the Bill is all about: the safety of the Republic of Rwanda. That is where it should begin. What clause 2 says is clear, and I spoke to it yesterday.

I turn now to clause 3, which throws up a series of interesting questions. I am not a particular fan of section 3 of the Human Rights Act, because I never liked the read-down provisions, which draw the justices—the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in particular—into a province where they are acting almost as a constitutional court. We have seen it happen: the read-down provisions where judges in effect pass and reinterpret the will of Parliament. It is a sticky and dangerous place for the Court to go, and I do not like it. If I had had the opportunity and we had done what we said we would do in the manifesto, which I helped to write, we would have updated the Human Rights Act by now. We could have got rid of section 3, so we would not have needed to refer to it in this ad hoc way in the Bill. It was a horrible echo of that Bill of Rights, which happily never saw the light of day—it did not even have a Second Reading, thank goodness—and perhaps some of what I am saying in the context of these amendments and the stand part debates is an echo of my deep distaste for aspects of that failed legislation.

Why have we got clause 3 in the Bill? I can see what the Government want to do—they want to avoid arguments relating to the Human Rights Act—but I am afraid that they cannot get out of jail. As people have an individual right to petition to Strasbourg anyway—I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) that we helped to set up that Court and have direct ownership of it—we are in effect sending the arguments to that so-called foreign Court. Of course, the danger in allowing petitions to go to Strasbourg without any airing of the arguments in domestic courts is that we do not really get that margin of appreciation evidence that is so crucial for the Strasbourg Court.

I do get frustrated by inelegant, inaccurate comparisons between the Luxembourg Court—the Court of Justice of the European Union—and the Strasbourg Court, which is a very different place. We have a much wider margin of appreciation, much bigger discretion and much more room in which to make arguments of interpretation and context—indeed, political context as well—about the way in which we do things in this country. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the number of times the United Kingdom is found to be in breach of the convention is vanishingly small.

We have heard about prisoner rights—more cases, anybody? We might remember the Abu Qatada case, which is on all fours with what we are dealing with here. We solved the problem by making sure that Jordan had a fair trial system. If I am right, I think Abu Qatada was tried and acquitted in Jordan, but the point was made. That is the point on all fours with this Bill: if we are to rely on the processes of another country, getting them right in order to be compliant seems to be the best way forward. That is why the Government’s treaty approach is to be commended. So, no, I do not see the need for clause 3—get rid of it. We will end up with these arguments whether we like it or not.

I turn to clause 5, which is another clause that, in the words of my hon. Friends, is just unnecessary. I do not see how interim measures equate in any way to the binding nature of final judgments, which article 46 of the convention draws us to, or indeed anything different from the approach that we take to interim injunctions in domestic cases that High Court judges, county court judges—judges of all shapes and sizes—will be enjoined to create or refuse on ex parte or inter partes applications.

In the context of the debate about interim measures, it is important to pray in aid the work done in the plenary sessions of the European Court of Human Rights last year. The rules will be changed, with that coming into effect in 2024. May I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to work with colleagues in the Attorney General’s Office—his former Department—and indeed the Lord Chancellor, to ensure that the Council of Europe and the plenary sessions of the Court get on with implementing these changes? The changes to interim measures are really important.

First, the limiting of the granting of interim measures to “exceptional circumstances”—those words do not currently exist in the definition of rule 39—will change the ball game at a stroke. Secondly, there is the end to anonymity for judges, which is a proposal that will be enacted. Finally, and importantly, there is the opportunity for parties to the proceedings to request the court to reconsider its decision. So the United Kingdom will have an opportunity to say, “No, there is no imminent risk of irreparable damage here. We can fly people back from Rwanda if there is a problem.” In any event, because of the measures that we are taking in the Bill, we will not be sending people who are vulnerable or at risk—those who might be terminally ill, pregnant or have some serious condition, whatever it might be—to Rwanda in the first place. We have got the arguments to deal with rule 39 and we should have the self-confidence and the ability to make our case. I think that the reforms to rule 39 will be significant.

I am delighted to have followed the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who made a thoughtful contribution. He and I have had some differences of opinion about things in recent days, but he always couches his arguments in a respectful way, and for that I thank him.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Jeremy Wright

Report stage
Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman is right to make that point. That is why in other jurisdictions we have seen agreement reached between big tech and newspaper titles to ensure that there is that element of fairness. I agree with him; I want to see similar fairness and equity applied across the market. What I and others who agree with me are trying to do is to ensure that, in creating this brave new world of energetic and efficient regulation, we do not as a Parliament upset the balance by giving too much power to a particular regulator. A lot of us in this place have watched with concern the failure of other types of regulation—in our water industry or our energy industry, for example. I do not think anybody would deny that, at times, we have got regulation wrong. That is why it is important that we have this debate.

There are people outside this place who have put pressure on us by saying, “The Bill is in perfect order. There is no need for you to look at it any more; great minds have thought about it.” I say to them that it is for this place to make those decisions. I do not look kindly on comments made by the chief executive of the CMA about the merits of what this place is considering while the Bill is in Parliament. I absolutely accept the independence of the CMA and the important role that it plays, but we should not confuse independence with lack of accountability. That is a point that I will warm to in a little while, when I address the relationship between regulators—in this case, the CMA—and Parliament. At the moment, that relationship is wholly inadequate.

I was making the point that, unlike the Competition Act 1998, there is a relative lack of worked-out court interpretation of this Bill’s subject matter. That has led to distinguished commentators—no less than Sir Jonathan Jones, former Treasury counsel—making the point in evidence to the Committee that, in effect, the DMU would be able to decide who was going to regulate, set the rules that apply and then enforce those rules. The phrase “legislator, investigator and executioner” was used. While that is colourful language—perhaps too colourful for a dry debate about competition law—it is important that we reflect on the view of that former Treasury solicitor and be very careful that in going down this road, we are not making false comparisons.

A lot has been said about Ofcom and its decisions, and comparisons have been made, but we must not forget that those Ofcom decisions were heavily governed by EU framework directive 2002/21. Article 4 of that directive says that on ex-ante telecom appeals,

“Member States shall ensure that the merits of the case are duly taken into account and that there is an effective appeal mechanism.”

That is a bit different from the provisions in the Bill. A simple JR-type review is precisely that, and no more.

I listened with interest to the intervention made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who made a really good point that needs answering. We need to understand where proportionality comes into this. If the principle of proportionality is being used in the first instance, that is all well and good, but we need to understand how that fits with the provisions of the Bill: whether it implies that the courts deem every decision made by the DMU to be proportionate, or whether there is a way to challenge a particular decision by saying that it was not made according to the DMU’s own principles, acting in a proportionate way.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

It seems to me—I would be interested in my right hon. and learned Friend’s view—that on the basis of the Government’s proposed wording, it is more likely that a firm will be able to challenge whether the CMA has applied its proportionality test appropriately, but the means by which it will do so will be under JR principles on appeal, rather than on a merits basis. It is not that proportionality is not subject to challenge, but that that challenge is limited by JR principles at the appeal stage. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree?

[Sir Robert Buckland]

That is what we need to bottom out. The primary worry that a lot of us have about the JR principle is that it means that any challenge will probably be vanishingly small, which is not good for ensuring that the regulator is working in the best way. None of us wants to encourage incontinent litigation—or incontinent legislation, bearing in mind the importance that we place on it—but sometimes, challenge is essential to create greater certainty. There will be ambiguities; there will be occasions where there needs to be a test. We should not be frightened of that.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Jeremy Wright

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland]

They will have in place reasonable procedures to prevent people from acting on their behalf and unjustly benefiting their own companies and entities. Let us not forget it is a partnership offence as well. I do not see that as some sort of general exhortation to small and medium-sized businesses to suddenly put in place measures to prevent fraud in general—that is not what the offence says.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that part of the answer to the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is that the vast majority of businesses will not need to do anything differently, because what they do now is perfectly reasonable. If what they are doing is reasonable, they will be perfectly safe from this legislation. This legislation is intended to catch those who do not behave reasonably and those who behave dishonestly, which will be a tiny minority. We accept that the legislation will not lead to a huge number of prosecutions or convictions; it is supposed to lead to a change in behaviour where that is needed.

End-to-end Rape Review

Debate between Robert Buckland and Jeremy Wright

Monday 21st June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman is right to press me on speed. I remind him that the decision to publish the rape review now was made in the light of a very important judicial review that was mounted by representatives of the sector; I listened to their representations and quite rightly waited for the outcome of that important case before publishing. However, I take the point. I am as anxious as he is to get on with things, but in respect of the section 28 roll-out I have to work hand in glove with the judiciary, who are operationally responsible: for example, a listing of a section 28 remote cross-examination will take some time in the court day. We have seen some really good examples in which it is working well, but I am listening very carefully to the judiciary’s observations about how it can be rolled out fully. I will push as hard as I can to achieve my personal ambition to see section 28 become the norm. Through the scorecard mechanism that we are introducing, we will be held accountable at regular intervals and he will have an opportunity to press me if he does not think that it is going fast enough.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said. As he recognises, what is done in the preparation of a case matters at least as much as what is said in court, so I urge him to link closely the work that the Government are already doing on disclosure with the work that he has described this afternoon. However, as he also knows, what is said in court matters too. To reinforce the point that the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) made, if we are to ensure that rape myths are properly challenged, will the Justice Secretary make sure that in his conversations with the judiciary he looks carefully at the judicial directions given to juries, and that if they need further refinement, they get it?

[Robert Buckland]

I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend, who as Attorney General worked very hard with me on the issue of disclosure and started the process that resulted in the revised Attorney General’s guidelines issued last year. He and I both know from our professional experience that a badly prepared and badly run case, in terms of disclosure, can be extremely destructive and frankly a miserable experience for those involved. He will be glad to know that we are not only pledging to ensure that victims’ phones are returned after no more than 24 hours, but working on new technology to ensure that analysis of data can happen that much more quickly. We want to ensure that 10,000 devices are examined through the year, rather than being left for months and months before the investigation can be taken further. On the court process, he will be glad to know of my decision to ask the Law Commission to look at some of the enduring issues surrounding the trial process, which I think will address many of his observations.

Sentencing White Paper

Debate between Robert Buckland and Jeremy Wright

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for taking up the baton on that issue from her predecessor in Dwyfor Meirionnydd. She is absolutely right to draw me back to a campaign that I helped to champion in order to criminalise stalking and to enhance and improve the law further. I will look at that case more carefully, if I may. I am sure that more work can be done, particularly with regard to awareness and training of police and prosecutors with regard to the true seriousness and invidious nature of stalking and what it can lead to.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on this White Paper, which reflects what he has long argued: an intelligent criminal justice policy requires provision to promote both punishment and rehabilitation. I particularly welcome what he said about sentencing code consolidation, which will not just reduce the number of mistakes made in sentencing but help victims to understand the system better. May I urge him to turn his mind urgently to the practicalities of the interesting proposal to keep offenders in custody for longer if they are radicalised in prison, particularly with a view to giving the Parole Board the tools it needs to make judgments on intelligence material that they will not be familiar with dealing with?

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. and learned Friend and I toiled in the vineyard with regard to criminal sentencing procedure. He did not quite write the book, but he certainly read it. I am grateful to him for his warm support and for the excellent work of the Law Commission now being enshrined in law by this Government. That is the bedrock of what we are doing, and we are going to build on it in an intelligent way. He is absolutely right to talk about the role of the Parole Board. I have taken a particular interest in making sure that sensitive intelligence material is indeed released to it in the most proper way. I pay tribute to the former vice-chairman of the Parole Board, Sir John Saunders, who my right hon. and learned Friend will know from his days as a Birmingham practitioner, and who made those points very cogently. We have acted on them, but we are going to go further with a root-and-branch review of the Parole Board to make sure that it and other mechanisms are truly working in such a way that it makes fully informed risk assessment decisions.

Probation Services

Debate between Robert Buckland and Jeremy Wright

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. She will be glad to know that last year we invested a further £22 million in through-the-gate services in England and Wales. I have seen for myself how probation officers working in prison on offender management in custody really creates a cohesive approach where the prison officers, together with the probation service, are working weeks or even months in advance of release. That is very much part of our ethos. We are going to increase our emphasis on that and use tools such as release on temporary licence in order to make the transition as smooth and as safe as possible, not just for the offender but for the public.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I very much welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the involvement of voluntary sector organisations in the delivery of rehabilitation. As he has recognised, private sector organisations have played a role in the criminal justice system and its central challenge of reducing reoffending over many years, under Conservative Governments and Labour Governments. Does he agree that it is important now not to denigrate the efforts of anyone who has worked hard to reduce reoffending, whatever the correct shape of probation services in future, just because they have a private sector employer?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who served with distinction in the Department I now lead. He is right to make that point that this is not about blind ideology, but about people and the shared values we have across the sector. That is very much within the CRC. I will make this point, and he will remember this: it was this Government who finally created licence and supervision periods for people on short-term prison sentences. That was a singular omission from the system that the previous Government failed to address.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Jeremy Wright

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In fact, I think it is right to say, in the context of Northern Ireland, that we have given such careful consideration to the engagement of article 7 that we have chosen not to extend the legislation to Northern Ireland. The way in which the sentence is calculated and put together by the Northern Ireland courts does cause potential issues with regard to engagement and therefore potential interference with the nature of the penalty itself. I think that is actually very important in this context: it is real evidence of the fact that the British Government have thought very carefully about the engagement of article 7, and have not sought to take a blanket approach to all the various jurisdictions within the United Kingdom.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about a review mechanism. He will be reassured to know that a counter-terrorism Bill is coming forward that will cover all parts of the United Kingdom. There will be an opportunity on that Bill to debate and analyse further long-term proposals. Inevitably, the status and provisions of this Bill—I hope, by then, an Act of Parliament—will be part of that ongoing debate. I am confident that, through the mechanisms of this House, we will be able to subject these provisions to post-legislative scrutiny in the way that he would expect.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned the effect of this legislation that will keep terrorist prisoners in custody for longer, and he has rightly paid tribute to prison imams, who maintain religious interventions for those whose motivation for their terrorist offending is at least claimed to be religious. Can he reassure us that, given the extra time in custody that many of these prisoners will now serve, such effective and in many cases very brave interventions by prison imams will be given the extra time available to take further effect?

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. and learned Friend the former Attorney General speaks with great experience and knowledge of these matters. He is absolutely right to focus on the specialist intervention of our imams. I think I referred to the fact that we are going to increase resources and increase the number available within our prisons. Both the Home Secretary and I have seen at first hand the partnership working that goes on within the high-security estate when it comes to dealing with these particular challenges. It is precisely that type of specialist intervention that he and others can be confident we will be supporting in the years ahead.

I was going on to explain the extension of parole release to those who serve standard determinate sentences and other transitional cases currently subject to automatic release. In line with the normal arrangements for prisoners released by the Parole Board, the board will set the conditions of an offender’s licence for this cohort when they are released before the end of their sentence. The Parole Board, as I outlined earlier, has the necessary powers and indeed the expertise to make risk-based release decisions for terrorist offenders. The board currently deals with terrorists who serve indeterminate sentences, extended sentences and sentences for offenders of particular concern—the “SPOCs”, as they are colloquially referred to.

There is a cohort of specialist Parole Board members who are trained specifically to deal with terrorist and extremist offenders. They are, in effect, the specialised branch of the board that will be used to handle these additional cases. They include retired High Court judges, retired police officers and other experts in the field, all of whom have extensive experience of dealing with the most sensitive and difficult terrorist cases. Due to the nature of the emergency legislation, I have proposed that the provisions cover England, Wales and Scotland.

The justification for this emergency, retrospective legislation—out of the ordinary though I accept it is—is to prevent the automatic release of terrorist offenders in the coming weeks and months. Given the risk that this cohort has already shown they pose to the public, it is vital that we pass this legislation rapidly before any more terrorists are automatically released from custody at the halfway point. Therefore, we are aiming for this legislation to receive Royal Assent before the end of the month. With the support of this House, I am confident that we can do that. I commend the Bill to the House.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Jeremy Wright

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend has coined a very powerful phrase—psychological hostage—which is the right characterisation of the relationship he describes. I welcome his support and observations, and I am truly grateful to him.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

rose—

[Robert Buckland]

I will give way to my right hon. and learned Friend, the former Attorney General.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend and I congratulate him on the way in which he is making the case for this very important Bill.

My right hon. and learned Friend has talked about the confidence that we need to give domestic abuse victims in the experience they are likely to have within the criminal justice system. He is right to highlight special measures, and I know he will also talk about preventing defendants from cross-examining complainants.

In relation to special measures, may I ask him to consider something that he and I know has worked well elsewhere—not just pre-recorded examination in chief but pre-recorded cross-examination? The benefit, as we know, is not just the complainant’s ability to get their part in the case out of the way altogether—dealing with the point about delay that the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) made—but that it very often causes the defendant to recognise the position that he, and it often is he, is in and to plead guilty early.

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. and learned Friend speaks with immense experience. He is absolutely right about what we call the section 28 roll-out, which proved in the pilot to be a really successful scheme whereby victims of sexual abuse—child victims—are both examined in chief and cross-examined on video. It is an immensely sensible use of resources. It saves time for the victims. It is all done much more quickly and, as he said, it often leads to a much more sensible resolution in terms of the admission of guilt.

I am very interested in taking that concept further. That does require discussions about resource, and requires me to consult fully with the Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary, as I am constitutionally obliged to do, on its impact. I will obviously have further discussions on that matter and I will discuss it with my right hon. and learned Friend and other hon. and right hon. Members who have both a knowledge of and a commitment to this important issue.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Well, I will go on if Members want. I could talk all day about this topic—[Interruption.] Oh, forgive me, Mr Speaker, I demoted you.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) mentioned the Istanbul convention and made a very proper point about the need to fill the gaps, which is why it is important not only to emphasise what the Bill is already doing but to remind ourselves what the convention requires us to do. We have to criminalise psychological violence and to take extraterritorial jurisdiction over that and certain other violent and sexual offences. This Bill, of course, gives effect to that.

Dangerous Driving

Debate between Robert Buckland and Jeremy Wright

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

As I said at the outset, it is difficult for me to comment on particular cases, and it is for Crown prosecutors to decide what the appropriate charge should be. We would all expect, however, that where they feel they are able to prove that driving fell far below the required standard, dangerous driving would be the appropriate charge; or, indeed, as others have said, in cases of gross negligence manslaughter would be the appropriate charge. The difficulty is that where prosecutors believe that in their judgment it is not possible to prove that driving fell far below the required standard, were we to remove this offence from the statute book they would simply be left with the charge of careless driving, which, of course, has considerably lower penalties.

[Mr Buckland]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend could widen the issue. Prior to the change in the law in 1991, the old offence of reckless driving used to apply—the subjective test. There were a lot of problems with that test, which is why we went to an objective test, but does he think that there is any merit in looking again, 20 years on, at whether there are some merits in either what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West says, or looking again at a subjective test?

[Jeremy Wright]

There is merit in listening carefully to all that has been said in this excellent and thoughtful debate, and it is right that I consider many of the ideas and thoughts expressed in it, so I hear exactly what my hon. Friend says.

On ensuring that the law is effective, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith said, we have introduced a variety of new offences over the years to fill perceived gaps. We have created a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, ensuring that dangerous drivers are punished appropriately when their actions have serious consequences short of death. The new offence fills the previous gap by specifically targeting cases in which dangerous driving results in serious injury. In addition, the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which received Royal Assent on 25 April, introduced the new offence of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of certain controlled drugs in excess of set limits. The new drug-driving offence will improve the law available for tackling the problem of drug-driving, which presents a significant road safety risk. That resulted from the campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and the death of one of his constituents. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith said, many of these changes come from such sources.

The Sentencing Council, which has been mentioned several times, has developed guidelines for the courts when dealing with these offences. It is important to recognise the distinction between the Sentencing Council’s guidelines and maximum sentences, the latter being for the Government and Parliament to set. The Sentencing Council sets guidelines for how courts ought to approach sentencing within those maximums, and has developed guidelines for the courts when dealing with this type of offence. Summary offences, including dangerous driving and careless driving, are dealt with within the magistrates courts sentencing guidelines—most recently updated in 2012—and the sentencing guidelines on causing death by driving were published by the then Sentencing Guidelines Council in 2008. The latter covers the offences of causing death by dangerous or careless driving as well as causing death by dangerous driving while under the influence of drink or drugs and causing death by driving unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.

Several Members have referred to those sentencing guidelines, so it might be worth my drawing their attention to one or two specifics within them. First, on the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, it is an additional aggravating factor—in fact, the first in the list—if a person has previous convictions for motoring offences, particularly offences that involve bad driving or the excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs before driving. Causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood mentioned, is also on the list. On that list are offences committed at the same time such as driving other than in accordance with the terms of a valid licence, driving while disqualified, driving without insurance, taking a vehicle without consent and driving a stolen vehicle. These matters are in the existing guidelines.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Buckland and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

2. What progress he has made on improving special educational needs provision within the youth custodial estate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

The House will know of my hon. Friend’s interest and expertise in the subject, and he will know that a significant proportion of young offenders have some level of special educational needs, which might only be identified once they enter custody. Young people have an educational assessment on entry to custody, and anyone who shows signs of a learning difficulty or disability will be screened so that they can be directed for further assessment and can receive the provision they need. Through our consultation paper “Transforming Youth Custody,” we seek to improve further what we do in that area.

[Mr Buckland]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Children and Families Bill is currently making its way through the House, but it has no provision relating to young people in custody. Will he work closely with the Department for Education to ensure that there will be a co-ordinated approach to help young people in custody with SEN?

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, we certainly will do that; indeed we are doing it. My hon. Friend will be conscious of the fact that there are specific arrangements, whether educational or otherwise, that cannot be taken with the young person into a custodial environment, but that does not mean that we do not need to work hard to make sure that the transition into, and out of, a custodial setting is managed appropriately for young people.