18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 291 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
I beg to move,
That this House does not insist on their Amendment No. 47 to which the Lords have disagreed.
Following consideration of Commons amendments in the other place last Wednesday, hon. Members will know that the Government no longer intend to abolish the Youth Justice Board as part of the Bill. Therefore, I will not be asking hon. Members to insist on the Government amendment agreed by this House on Report. The amendment has reintroduced the Youth Justice Board into schedule 1 to the Bill. As my noble friend Lord McNally made clear in the other place, the Government have never waivered in our commitment to maintaining a distinct focus on the needs of children and young people in the youth justice system. We have never proposed to remove youth offending teams or dismantle the dedicated secure estate for young people.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
It is an unusual experience for a Committee to publish just after midnight a report containing recommendations that are accepted by midday the following day. As my hon. Friend has mentioned youth offending teams, I wanted to remind him that the Justice Committee, as well as pointing to the dangers of abolishing the Youth Justice Board, stated that if it survived it would have to take a lighter touch and a less centralised approach to the management of youth offending teams than it had taken in the otherwise good work it had done.
Mr Djanogly
I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution and acknowledge that the recommendation appeared in his report. I will certainly take it back to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), who will take up the matter in due course.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
My hon. Friend will know that many of us welcomed the announcement he has made and the decision the Government took in the other place. We understand that it was a finely balanced issue, because there is a good argument for reducing or eliminating quangos that are not needed, but on balance many of us will be reassured by the decision. I and others hope that the Youth Justice Board will continue its increasingly effective work in delivering a reduction in crime and a reduction in offending by young people.
Mr Djanogly
I will touch on my right hon. Friend’s point later.
During the debates on the future of the Youth Justice Board, we set out to persuade Parliament that, now that an effective youth justice system is in place, the oversight provided by the Youth Justice Board was no longer required and direct ministerial accountability for youth justice should be restored. My fellow Under-Secretary of State made that point on Report. However, we acknowledge the opposition to our original proposal to abolish the Youth Justice Board. Its abolition was never about saving money, as the Ministry of Justice does not have major savings contingent on its abolition. In that context, we have decided not to pursue abolition using powers provided in the Public Bodies Bill. Instead, we will reflect further on the Youth Justice Board’s future role.
I want to make it clear that the Government still believe that there should be more direct ministerial accountability for youth justice, that there is a strong case for the reform of the Youth Justice Board, and that we will consider our options for achieving reform outside the Bill. For example, a range of powers are open to us under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We will consider whether and how we can use those powers to achieve more direct ministerial accountability.
We will also consider the position of the Youth Justice Board within the context of the Cabinet Office’s policy on public bodies and its stipulation that all non-departmental public bodies should be reviewed at least once every three years. Let me be clear that the Government’s position on the Youth Justice Board will not be business as usual. Having said that, I assure all right hon. and hon. Members that over this period the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Justice Board have maintained effective working relationships, which will carry on as we take forward proposals for reform. The Government therefore support the motion agreed to in the other place, and I ask that this House does not insist on the amendment agreed to on Report.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his degree of elegance in basically climbing down from the Government’s previous position.
Our position all along—particularly in the shadow of this summer’s riots, which involved many young people—has been that it is essential not to make precipitate decisions on how we handle youth justice. We continually warned that it would not be appropriate effectively to abolish the Youth Justice Board, which continues to do such excellent work, but that does not mean that it should not be reformed from time to time, or at least reviewed.
I therefore welcome the progress made in the other place on the YJB, which I am glad to see has now been removed from the Bill, but I have some reservations about the Minister’s comments just now, and especially those made in the other place by the noble Lord McNally, who, when speaking about the future of the board, said that
“there is a strong case for the reform of the YJB, and we will consider our options for achieving reform outside the Public Bodies Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2011; Vol. 732, c. 1074.]
The Minister’s words today were almost a precise repetition of that, and it sounds like a threat. It sounds as though the Government have made up their mind, and that what we have heard today is not so much a climb-down as a temporary retreat in order to attempt to do on another occasion the same thing that they intended to do in this Bill.
Simon Hughes
If I may, I will add a couple of brief comments.
First, I am grateful to the Government for listening and responding positively, constructively and graciously, as my noble friend Lord McNally did in the other place on 23 November. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) for his work and that of the Justice Committee in looking at this issue and putting their wisdom on the table, ready for whatever decision the Government made. That wisdom is just as valid and can still be picked up by the Youth Justice Board and the Government in the circumstances that the Government have announced.
Lord McNally made clear one reason for this decision:
“The other point that has come through in contribution after contribution is that the real influence and power in all this has been the reputation of the YJB itself. It has been able to call on friends in its time of need because of that reputation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2011; Vol. 732, c. 1074.]
I associate myself with those whom I call parliamentary friends from across the parties, Lord Warner, who was the midwife—if that is not an inappropriate gender assignation—at the birth of the Youth Justice Board, Lord Elton, Baroness Linklater, Baroness Scotland and others. They have made it clear that although at the beginning it was not evident that the board would be hugely successful, it became more and more successful. I join in the thanks and the tributes to Frances Done, the chair of the Youth Justice Board, and to John Drew, its chief executive.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was right to point to the evidence on the ground of the success of youth offending teams and of that model. The figures, given all the trends in crime, have been extraordinary and have gone in the other direction. Youth crime has come down significantly. Sometimes we are confronted by campaigns or arguments in our local papers which suggest that youth crime is out of control and that youngsters are running amok. That is absolutely not evidence-based. In England, the figures have gone in the other direction. That is a tribute to those who have worked on the ground in youth offending teams, in collaboration with the local police and local authorities; those who work in the youth service, who do a valuable job; and those who have been on the Youth Justice Board over the years.
I wish to pay one tribute that I may not be thanked for, although I hope that I will be. Steven Bradford, who used to work with me in the House of Commons, went on to work in the Youth Justice Board. He was a wise and useful researcher when he worked here. The Youth Justice Board has been well served by a group of people like him who have been loyal and committed to an important part of public policy.
The Youth Justice Board has the confidence of young people, the confidence of the agencies that work with young people—Lord Ramsbotham is another person who was clear in his support of the Youth Justice Board—and the confidence of all those who watch these matters and seek a better penal policy. I hope that today is not regarded as a defeat for the Government, but as the Government understanding that it is right for the Youth Justice Board to go on. It will, of course, always be subject to review and it is right that Ministers have to answer in this place for the success of justice policies, whether in relation to adults or young people. They have done in the past and they will do in the future.
Mr Djanogly
I will briefly address the points that have been made, because I know that we have to move on to the next debate. First, I point out the consensus that there is in support of our position. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for that.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) made a point about nationalisation. I am not quite sure what he was getting at. He seemed to suggest that we should go back to business as usual. That is not our position. It is true that the YJB has done good work, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). However, it does need reform, as has been acknowledged by nearly all speakers.
We established a YJB transition programme at an early stage, to cover three strands of work: abolition, the moving of YJB corporate services to the Ministry of Justice, and the restructuring of YJB staff. The second and third of those strands will go ahead whether or not abolition takes place. It is difficult to disentangle the costs and attribute accurate costs to each, but that is the current position.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who explained his concern and, I believe, that of his Committee, that the YJB’s approach is too top-down. I assure him that I will take that point back to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), to help him in considering the options for reform before he brings forward his proposals in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 5
Power to modify or transfer functions: bodies and offices
Mr Djanogly
I beg to move,
That this House does not insist on their Amendment No. 53 to which the Lords have disagreed and agrees to amendments 53A to 53C proposed by the Lords in lieu of that Amendment.
Under Commons amendment 53, we would have retained the office of the chief coroner in statute but transferred its functions to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. However, we recognised the desire to have a single judicial figure responsible for leading the coroner system, a view that was expressed in both Houses and by a range of stakeholders. We therefore tabled further amendments in the Lords that would allow us to implement the office of the chief coroner without delay and bring into force the range of chief coroner powers envisaged under part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
We will not, however, implement the appeals provision under section 40 of the 2009 Act, which will be repealed. That will leave in place the existing system of redress, so that decisions can still be contested by way of judicial review or by application to the High Court by, or under the authority of, the Attorney-General.
The proposal before us will provide the system with leadership and will bring further improvements to jurisdiction, training and monitoring, and it will allow us to bring about all those things without further delay.
Jon Trickett
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out “agrees” and insert “disagrees”.
This is a similar debate to the last one, in the sense that the Government have now withdrawn an unreasonable proposal. The truth is, of course, that they did not have a majority in the other place to deliver either proposal, so although some good grace has been shown, there are also mathematical reasons to do with how the votes were going to go in the other place.
Hopefully, Members will never have recourse to the coronial system as a result of a sudden unexplained death of a loved one. We can all imagine that if we did, we would probably be in a difficult emotional condition. We would hope that we would be helped in discovering the true cause of that sudden and tragic death by a modern, professional, strong and independent-minded coroner.
Unfortunately, there have been too many cases reported in which the families, friends and colleagues of a loved one have felt let down by the coronial service that they have received. I do not need to dwell on the many occasions when the service was felt to have failed, but it became clear that the whole coronial service needed to be modernised, made more professional and above all made more accountable.
The Opposition are totally in favour of modernising public services that need to be modernised. We are in favour of reform, and I will not have anything else said. The view that the coronial service needs to be reformed and made more accountable is not simply that of a few party hacks in this place or elsewhere. It is the view of, for example, the Royal British Legion and of INQUEST, an organisation of which many Members will have heard. Between them, those organisations represent many bereaved families, including the families of our fallen heroes. So I have been perplexed throughout the Bill’s progress by the Government’s continuing failure to respond, not to our arguments, but to the voices of the bereaved and those who represent them, to the extent that, as the House knows, the Bill Committee refused to allow witnesses from the Royal British Legion to appear before it so that we could hear what they had to say on behalf of those families.
In the previous Parliament, it became the settled will of this House and the other place that the way to achieve far-reaching reform of the whole coronial service should be—at least in part—through establishing a new post, the chief coroner. The chief coroner’s tasks were well debated at the time and I will not rehearse them. Then, there was a change of Government and, bizarrely, as part of their review of quangos, this Administration decided to abolish the post of chief coroner, notwithstanding the fact that that post is not a quango. We repeatedly warned that that would be a major error and we therefore fully support the Government’s decision to take the office of chief coroner out of schedule 5, thereby securing the post’s existence.
I am happy that the hard work of organisations such as the British Legion and INQUEST, as well as that of many individuals, has finally paid off.
Mr Djanogly
Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why he thinks that the chief coroner’s decision is less likely to be judicially reviewed than any other decision?
Jon Trickett
There may be some judicial reviews under the chief coroner, but they will be fewer in number. It will be a far more efficient system. At the end of the day, we want to do what the families want. The families are saying to us—the British Legion, INQUEST and individual families—that they do not want what the Government are trying to achieve. If the Government’s reasoning is to save money, it would be more efficient, better emotionally and cheaper to allow section 40 to remain on the statute book so that a decision can be made in the fullness of time, with all the options having been carefully considered.
It has been suggested that removing the right of appeal, which was in the original Act and which the Government now wish to achieve, will effectively neuter the role of the chief coroner. More sinister than that is a rumour that is now circulating that the Government intend simply to fail to fill the post of chief coroner. Will the Minister now tell the House when he intends to fill that post?
Jon Trickett
I have said that I will not take any more interventions. The Government have moved considerably during the course of this Bill, and we will support the decision to retain the post of chief coroner. We welcome the Government’s decision in relation to that matter. For the reasons that I have given already, I will seek your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, to divide the House on the question of the retention of the right of appeal to the chief coroner.
Mr Djanogly
I can confirm that the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice will immediately discuss how and when the post will be filled.
Andrew Percy
I thank the Minister for that.
The question of the appeals process is not quite as simple or clear-cut as has been presented. Despite referring to the appeals process when I moved my amendment a few weeks ago, it was not one of the main drivers behind my joining the campaign. The fact that under the previous legislation it was accepted that the process would not start for some time demonstrates the difficulties that arise. There is the perception or concern that some people might use the appeals process almost to continue the grieving process. Members have talked about getting closure, but actually the appeals process can postpone that closure, which can be difficult for families.
I understand, therefore, that this is a difficult issue. The Opposition spokesperson made a sensible proposal—about having a trial—but that is not necessarily the answer, because, as the Minister said, those decisions can be judicially reviewed. The key point about the chief coroner was his role in driving the necessary reforms, which can continue with or without the appeals process.
Robert Flello
I might have a little more sympathy with that argument had the Minister not said on previous occasions that there was no need for a chief coroner, and that the precautions listed by the hon. Gentleman were not necessary. He cannot have it both ways.
Mr Djanogly
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Government’s reforms provided for training under alternative proposals.
Robert Flello
I do not disagree with the Minister—he did say that the Government wanted to provide for training—but the point was made time and again from the Dispatch Box that there was no need for the chief coroner to do any of the things that were mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley). Thankfully the Minister has seen sense in that regard. However, if the hon. Gentleman is right and the existence of a chief coroner means that all coroners will finally be up to standard, there will be few if any appeals, so where is the harm in including section 40? I suggest that there is no harm in it at all.
I think that the Minister needs to do the right thing. I know that he will not do it today, but I know that it will be done at some point in the future.
Simon Hughes
I strongly endorse the views just expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). I represent a coroner’s court in Southwark and we have had very good coroners—Monty Levine, who was very famous, and Andrew Harris, the current coroner, who is a friend of mine. However, like other colleagues, I have had experiences, involving constituents and others, of really bad coroner’s decisions. The Taylor family have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), and Michael, who died, was a constituent of mine. I am also talking about the inquests after the Marchioness sank in my constituency, the battle that the lovely late Eileen Dallaglio had to fight on behalf of her daughter and the battles that all the others like her had to fight. In the end, they had to go through a judicial review because they were terribly treated by the coroner who dealt with that case.
I welcome the fact that the Government have changed their mind and that the scheme introduced eventually by Labour—we had to push but it was eventually put on the statute book—can now be implemented in respect of creating a chief coroner. I urged, as others have, that that decision be taken. It is reasonable to proceed gradually along the road that has now been accepted by the Government. They are clear that they are going to report back on Army coroner’s inquests—the Armed Forces Bill does that. As Lord McNally said in the other place, this is not just about training; it is about monitoring, reporting and direction. That will give us a good base. There will also be an annual report to Parliament.
May I end by saying that I also have the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for the headquarters of the Royal British Legion, and I know that INQUEST has worked with the RBL very well. They are very honourable organisations, they have fought an honourable fight and they have won an honourable victory. The House owes its gratitude to them and to the Government for understanding the strength of feeling on this case.
Mr Djanogly
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me just repeat that the Government are committed to urgent and meaningful reform of the coroner system to ensure that inquests are timely, efficient and effective and that bereaved families are provided with the information and support they need throughout this emotionally difficult process. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) speaking in favour of reform. He needs to be aware that the position on the statutory basis for reform was the same between all the parties in the House, despite differences over the position on the chief coroner. I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) recognising that and making the point strongly.
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) made the very good point that as important as coronial reform is for military inquests, this goes much further than military inquests. I acknowledge his concern that faith groups should be considered and I take that back with me.
Various hon. Members spoke about cost and the implications for judicial review. My hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) pointed out the need for closure for families and made their points very well. I understand the concerns about the cost of judicial review, but the chief coroner would not have had the final word on appeals. The option of judicially reviewing the chief coroner’s decision would still have been available, and bereaved families might have been encouraged to exhaust all mechanisms for challenging the coroner’s original findings. As a result, we would not have expected any reduction in the number of judicial reviews; indeed, there could have been an increase.
Various hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Hemsworth and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) asked why we are not—