Prison Staff: Health and Safety

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) for leading this debate and for starting it in such a helpful and comprehensive way. I also thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), in his absence, for securing it. I entirely agree that he is doing the right thing, as is the Minister for whom I am standing in, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who is also self-isolating.

The debate has been genuinely excellent. One of the points made early on was this business about “The Shawshank Redemption”—the extent to which in our constituency mailbags the conditions in prisons are not necessarily the No. 1 priority. However, everyone in this House recognises that the state of our prisons is a critically important aspect of a functioning and decent society. I am grateful to all those who have taken the trouble on this most difficult day to make their points as they have.

I will add my own perspective briefly. A meeting with a constituent that I will never forget was with an experienced prison officer from Cheltenham. He had been seriously injured by an inmate at HMP Bristol, and came to speak to me about what had happened. What was so striking was that, despite that ordeal, he remained in post, undaunted, unbowed and utterly committed to his job. He demonstrated the finest values of the Prison Service, to which I pay tribute—not just with the usual platitudes about dedication, but acknowledging the values of courage, compassion, judgment and professionalism. He also demonstrated what everyone in the debate recognises as important: the determination to root out what Winston Churchill referred to many years ago as the

“treasure in the heart of every man”.

As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, being a prison officer can be a rewarding career for that very reason—being able to turn lives around.

Perhaps the most important point that I have taken away from this debate, made by both Government and Opposition Members, is that we need people like my constituent to stay in the Prison Service, because there can be few jobs in which experience is more important. Those senior officers provide leadership to others and set the culture of a successful prison. Equally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) said, those governors who have been in post will make the difference too. That is just one reason why this debate is so timely and important, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Easington for bringing it before the House.

I will set the context not by way of excuse but as a fact that we have to address. The prison population is more volatile than it was 10 years ago. That is partly down to drugs and partly down to various other social symptoms, I am sure, but that population is more volatile. That is part of the context.

Let me turn, however, to the issue of covid-19, which the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), rightly raised. Covid-19 is testing, and will test further, every part of our national life. Our prisons will not be immune from that. The most careful thought and planning has gone into preparing our prisons. That work does not emerge from a clear blue sky, but is built on existing and well-developed policies and procedures to manage outbreaks of infectious diseases.

Prevention is of course better than cure, and basic hygiene practice has been rolled out in prisons, as one might expect. For those infected, prisons are well prepared to take action whenever cases or suspected cases are identified. Plans include isolating where necessary. Turning to the point about HMP Berwyn made by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), the issue of whether specific prison wings can be used is a matter, quite properly, for consultation with the governor. That may be the appropriate thing to do, but it is not a diktat from Whitehall. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising the issue. The governor will need to be looped into any such decision.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I seek from the Minister a response to the concern locally that Berwyn will continue to fill. Its population is currently about 1,800, so it is slightly under capacity. It has been filled slowly, deliberately. At this time, it is even more important that there is not a rush to fill that prison, because it has the potential to do very good work in other ways.

[Alex Chalk]

I take that point and leave it where it lies. I thank the right hon. Lady for making it.

There is a long-standing national partnership agreement with the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England for healthcare services for prisoners. Under that agreement, people in prison custody who become unwell do, as hon. Members know, have the benefit of on-site NHS healthcare services, which provide the first-line assessment and treatment response.

This second point is really important. We recognise the importance of prisoners maintaining contact with their family during this difficult period. Public Health England supports our desire to maintain normal regimes for as long as we can. If those cannot continue, well-worked-up plans are in place to ensure that that continues by other means, to the fullest extent possible.

Keeping people informed is also essential. We are issuing regular communications to staff and all the individuals in our care to explain the steps that we may need to take to protect them from the virus, to minimise anxiety and ensure maximum understanding and co-operation as the situation develops. That means providing regular updates via National Prison Radio, issuing guidance to staff and governors, providing posters and so on.

Let me turn to the staff impact. Staff have been and will be affected by this disease. We are moving swiftly to make additional staff available to establishments so that if current staff are unable to work because of infection, we can continue to run as normal a regime as possible. Some contingency planning may include the need to ask staff to work in a different place and potentially do different tasks; that will be to ensure that we can maintain frontline operational delivery to protect the public and robustly manage risks. In addition, as and when required, operational staff currently working in headquarters will be redeployed to prisons to support the service to maintain minimum staffing levels. May I take this opportunity to thank the unions, which are engaging proactively and co-operatively in this national endeavour? We are hugely grateful for that support.

The point was made about not penalising non-delivery of teaching hours. That seems to me eminently sensible. I hope that the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd understands why I cannot commit to anything, but I take that point in the spirit in which it was intended and I hope that it will be given appropriate consideration.

Let me turn to the fair point that was made that existing safety measures are necessary to tackle a threat that exists, notwithstanding covid-19. There has been significant investment in increasing staff numbers. We recruited more than 4,000 additional full-time equivalent prison officers between October 2016 and December 2019. A fair point was made on pay. In July 2019, the MOJ accepted the Prison Service Pay Review Body’s recommendations in full. The pay award was worth at least 2.2% for all prison staff, and there was a targeted 3% increase for band 3 prison officers on the frontline. It is the second year in a row that we have announced above-inflation pay rises, over 2%.

However, pay is only part of it. I completely recognise that conditions are critically important, too. How do we go about improving conditions so that experience is embedded in the Prison Service and those valuable officers will remain in place, providing the guidance, the culture and the leadership that a successful prison needs?

The first point is about the key worker role. This critically important initiative allows staff dedicated time to provide support to individual prisoners. That will help us to deal with emerging threats and improve safety, and of course it is important for those individuals to feel that they are being listened to and their concerns addressed. That helps them to feel valued, and of course helps the safety and stability of the prison. Key workers have a case load of about six prisoners. They have weekly one-to-one sessions with their prisoners to build constructive relationships and reduce levels of violence. That has started in all 92 prisons in the male closed estate, with 54 now delivering key work as part of their business as usual.

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley made an excellent point about purposeful activity and gave the useful example of what is happening in Germany and, I think, Denmark as well. That is exactly what we need to be getting to, and I commend him for making that powerful point.

The second point is serious offender intervention. We also have a range of capabilities to manage the risk that the most serious offenders pose in prison, including rehabilitative interventions and separation centres. Mental health was rightly raised. There are mental health facilities, but, as per the entirety of British society, mental health is a bigger issue now than it was in 2010. In fact, one of the bright lights, if I can use that expression, in the prison estate is the improving quality of mental health provision. That needs further strengthening, of course.

The third point is about equipping prison officers. We are committed to providing prison officers with the right support, training and tools. One essential matter is that we have started to roll out PAVA synthetic pepper spray for use by prison officers, but we want to ensure that PAVA defuses tensions, not creates them. All roads lead back to having established and experienced staff, because they will need to use their discretion in a sensible way to operate it.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The association between PAVA and key workers is understandable, but when many staff are away from duty and dependent on bringing staff in on detached duty to another prison, prisons end up, I am told, without that critical number of key workers—there is a vicious circle and PAVA will not be able to be implemented. Will he commit his Department to looking at how PAVA can actually be brought into prisons? The association between key workers and PAVA at present is not working in all prisons.

[Alex Chalk]

I will certainly look at that and escalate it to the right hon. Lady.

[Patricia Gibson]

Time is slipping away. I appreciate all the Minister is saying about what the Government are doing to make prison officers feel more valued and safe, but I must press him on the issue of pension age. A lot of forceful points have been made today and we have little time left to address them. I ask him simply to say whether he is sympathetic.

[Alex Chalk]

I absolutely take the point that the hon. Lady and others raised. The reality is that whether a prison officer is 68, 67 or 66, there will be challenging circumstances. If there is a 25 year-old prisoner and a 52 year-old officer, that will present real challenges. I do not have a glib response for the hon. Lady, but I have heard the matters that she has raised. To solve the issue of our prisons we need to ensure that there are enough staff of the right level of experience to deal with these challenges. That will be the most important point and, frankly, that will make more difference than whether somebody is 68 or 67. The reality is that we need enough people of the right calibre and the right experience to manage volatile situations.

Time is against me and I want to leave the hon. Member for East Lothian time to respond. I could talk further about the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which addresses the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who is no longer in her place, raised. It means that those who assault emergency workers, including prison officers, feel the full force of the law.

We are supporting the emotional and social wellbeing of staff, which is critically important, as well as protecting them from violence. They have access to an occupational health service. We are rolling out TRiM—trauma risk management—that, as hon. Members will know, is being rolled out among police forces as well. There are post-incident care teams, occupational health support, cognitive behavioural therapy, and so much more.

The health and safety of our staff and those in our care remains the top priority for the Ministry of Justice, and we are making significant efforts to ensure that the safety challenges in prisons continue to be addressed. Covid-19 presents a new set of challenges. We are tackling them, informed by the best scientific evidence available, alongside the existing health and safety pressures we are facing in our prisons. I take this opportunity to thank prison staff. They are being tested and they are going to be tested. We value, admire and support them, and we are going to get through this.

Sports Coaches (Positions of Trust)

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for securing this important debate and for her distinguished service as a Minister. Her speech was absolutely in the spirit of that distinguished service.

As my hon. Friend indicated, I have been in post for only a few short weeks, but it is already crystal clear to me that this is an extremely important issue which requires a clear, considered and decisive response. The Government have been reviewing the law in this area. I have said that we should urgently consider all options, including legislative change, and must be in a position to announce next steps by the end of May.

Turning to some basic principles, protecting children and young people from the scourge of sexual abuse and exploitation is a top priority for this Government. Ensuring that the law is effective in providing that protection is not just our priority, but our duty. As most stakeholders acknowledge, however, this area is not without complexity—that is not a reason not to tackle it, but we need to advert to it. I will set out some of the issues and explain why charting the way ahead requires careful thought.

It is worth taking a moment to summarise the state of the existing law. In a short debate, that can only be a brief overview. As we know, sexual activity with a child under 16 is of course always a serious criminal offence, regardless of consent, and non-consensual activity is a crime regardless of the age of the victim or the relationship between the victim and perpetrator.

Alongside those two offences, to turn to positions of trust, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 created a number of offences that specifically target any sexual activity between a 16 or 17-year-old young person and people who hold a defined “position of trust” in respect of that young person, even if such activity is consensual, as my hon. Friend indicated.

Those offences were designed to build on the general child sex offences in the 2003 Act, and are defined to target situations in which the young person has considerable dependency on the adult involved, often combined with an element of vulnerability of the young person. The offences are directed at those who are employed to look after young people under the age of 18, such as those providing care for a young person in a residential care home, a hospital or an educational institution. That particularly adverts to the fact that the state has a role in the child’s development or care.

As my hon. Friend made crystal clear, those offences do not cover all positions in which a person might have contact with, or a supervisory role of, a young person aged under 18. That was a deliberate decision by the Government of the day. In preparation for this debate, I looked up some of the relevant debates. The issue of scope was raised in the other place by Baroness Blatch, a Conservative, on 13 February 2003. She noted that she was “disappointed” that provision had not been made in the Bill to encompass those being supervised as scouts or in youth centres. Interestingly, when responding to her that same day, Lord Falconer said:

“I understand the noble Baroness’s argument, but a line has to be drawn somewhere and we think that is the right place”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 2003; Vol. 644, c. 878.]

My sense is that that judgment may well be wrong but, in fairness to the noble lord, it is not a straightforward one to make. What is at stake here is a need to balance the legal right, as prescribed by Parliament, for young persons aged 16 and over to consent to sexual activity, with the proper desire to protect vulnerable young people from manipulation.

Another complicating feature is the evolving case law in the area. In certain situations, the criminal division of the Court of Appeal has already been clear that supposed consent may be vitiated or even negated, thereby creating a criminal offence in any event. To put that in plain English and to give an example, in the case of McNally, deception by a defendant as to her sex—she falsely claimed she was a man—was held to vitiate the victim’s consent to intercourse.

That is important because, as the Crown Prosecution Service now indicates in its charging decisions, in certain circumstances that ruling could apply where perpetrators were in a position of power in which they could abuse their trust over a victim. If we look at the CPS charging decision—in other words, when making a decision about whether there truly was consent in a relationship—one of the matters that has to be considered is:

“Where the suspect was in a position of power where they could abuse their trust, especially because of their position or status—e.g. a family member, teacher, religious leader, employer, gang member, carer, doctor”.

The point is that it is no longer necessarily automatically good enough for the defendant to say, “Look, she consented”, if in fact that will was suborned in some way. That might well be a very proper reason why the CPS could conclude that there had been no consent.

[Richard Graham]

On that point, does the list of categories for the CPS to consider include or exclude—or is it neutral on—the issue of sports coaches, music teachers and driving instructors, for example?

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend makes a characteristically pertinent point. That is a non-exhaustive list, which is an important consideration to bear in mind. The proper points that he made are not lost completely on some charging prosecutors, and that is an important part of the context.

[Tracey Crouch]

If that is the case, let us scrap section 21. Then there would be no prescribed list, and a definition of “position of trust”, which the CPS is clearly working on, could include sports coaches, driving instructors and music teachers.

[Alex Chalk]

An interesting balance has to be struck. On the one hand, this place properly might want to prescribe where that happens, allowing no discretion for the CPS, but on the other hand, there may be a relevant public policy interest in saying to prosecutors that in other cases there is wider discretion. I have already made the point that in 2003 Parliament decided to draw a distinction that appears to focus on circumstances in which the state has a particular role in caring for the individual. That is something to be considered.

In 2019 the Government, recognising the concerns powerfully and properly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, began a review of the law on such abuses of positions of trust. Notwithstanding the narrow focus of this debate—on sports coaches—concerns about scope range far wider, as indicated by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). That is why the review also took account of the IICSA report—independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—on the Anglican Church, which focused on the diocese of Chichester and the response to allegations against Peter Ball, a former bishop who in 2015 pleaded guilty to a series of sex offences. Recommendation 3 of that report stated:

“The government should amend Section 21 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 so as to include clergy within the definition of a position of trust. This would criminalise under s16–s20 sexual activity between clergy and a person aged 16–18, over whom they exercise pastoral authority, involving the abuse of a position of trust.”

Other settings might conceivably be relevant, such as youth clubs and scouts—as Baroness Blatch pointed out in 2003—and drama groups, choirs, Army cadets and learner drivers, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has done such a good job of drawing to the attention of the House.

Ministry of Justice officials have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders across youth and criminal justice sectors, including, in the area of faith and religion, the Anglican dioceses of Chichester and Lincoln, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Gardens of Peace, the Hindu Council UK, Marriage Care, the Sikh Council UK and St Philip’s Centre. In the sporting sector, the review team has heard from British Canoeing, British Fencing, British Gymnastics, the Football Association, the Lawn Tennis Association, the Royal Yachting Association, the Rugby Football League, the Rugby Football Union, Sport England and Swim England—I could go on.

A huge number of people have been consulted on this important issue. Officials have gone beyond those two areas to speak to youth organisations, including the National Citizen Service, the National Youth Agency, the Scouts and Volunteer Police Cadets. Those discussions were candid and wide ranging, and views were shared throughout the process. On behalf of the MOJ, I am extremely grateful to those who have given of their time for that important process.

A number of themes and suggestions emerged during the review, and it is right to note that many were non-legislative in nature. They included the better provision of education, the consideration of the effectiveness of the DBS system in practice, raising awareness and understanding of what grooming and genuine consent really look like, and the measures needed to protect young people from this type of abusive behaviour. Many measures can be taken alongside any potential changes to criminal law, which I am not ruling out at all—we will look at them very carefully. It is important to note that they deserve careful consideration.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a former national coach for Squash Wales—I notice that squash was not on the Minister’s list—part of my role was to hold coaching courses and increase the number of coaches. There are clear guidelines in squash that coaches cannot form any sort of relationship with a person under their care. I do not think that is good enough. If I could say to those coaches that it is against the law to form a relationship, it is clear cut and definitive. That should be the ruling.

[Alex Chalk]

That is precisely the matter that we have to grapple with. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for expressing her point.

Returning, for completeness, to the exhaustive process of review, most stakeholders that the MOJ heard from felt that a change in the law was required. Most also agreed that any change or reform of the existing laws raised difficult and complicated issues. Some expressed concern that drafting the law too narrowly, or perhaps simply listing roles or jobs considered as a position of trust, risked creating loopholes or definitions that could be easily exploited or circumvented by abusers. Equally, others raised the point that any broad or wide-sweeping new definition could raise the age of consent by stealth.

If we do not get this right, it is not difficult to think of hard cases that would risk undermining confidence in the criminal justice system. One could imagine, as was imagined specifically by Lord Falconer in the 2003 debate, a consensual relationship between a 19-year-old coach and a 17-year-old footballer where no abuse of power or trust had taken place, and with no suggestion of any sort of bargain whereby sexual activity was traded for, say, team selection. In such circumstances, there might be proper public concern about criminalising that coach. Let us be clear: he or she would be at risk of conviction, punishment and disgrace, alongside a conviction that would remain on the police national computer for life. He or she may well be subject to stringent notification requirements. His or her life would be, to a large extent, ruined.

With that in mind, the Government are considering all options, including legislative change, and they are doing so with pace and care. As noted already, I have asked that that work be prioritised, and I will be in a position to announce next steps before the end of May.

This debate has offered a valuable contribution to the evaluation of these important issues. They are important because safeguarding young people in all situations, not just those limited to sport, is essential.

[Tracey Crouch]

Before the Minister concludes, will he give two guarantees? First, will he meet the NSPCC, which is asking not for guidance but for the legislative loophole to be closed? It is the country’s largest child protection charity and it ought to be listened to with respect for the campaign that it has run for a long time. Secondly, will he listen to some audio of former athletes who were abused or were in coercive relationships with their coaches? Once he has listened to their stories and the likes of Sport England and the Child Protection in Sport Unit, perhaps he will come to a different conclusion and take a different path.

[Alex Chalk]

Yes, of course I will be delighted to meet the NSPCC. Secondly, if my hon. Friend wants to send me footage to listen to, I will gladly listen to it. My door remains entirely open if she would like to take up these matters further with me.

I invite my hon. Friend not to presuppose what road the Ministry or I am on. In the short period that I have been seized of this matter, I have recognised its urgency and pressing nature. I have, I hope, properly adverted to the fact that there are complexities that needs to be ironed out. The singular injustice to any victims would be that, in a legitimate attempt to improve safeguarding, we undermine public confidence in it. That is why we have got to get this right—because, ultimately, safeguarding young people will remain a relentless focus of this Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Judicial Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges' Pension Schemes (Contributions) (amendment) Regulations 2020

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges’ Pension Schemes (Contributions) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.

What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson, and it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship.

The draft regulations before the Committee relate to judicial pension schemes member contribution rates. The purpose of the draft regulations is to amend the current member contribution rates and earnings thresholds in two different traditional pension schemes for subsequent financial years. The first is the judicial pension scheme, which was established by the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015 following wider public service pension reforms. The second is the fee-paid judicial pension scheme, which, following the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in the case of O’Brien v. Ministry of Justice, was established by the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017 in order to provide fee-paid judges with a pension.

Both the 2015 and 2017 regulations make provision for contributions payable by members and set a different rate of contribution dependent on the salaries or fees earned by a judge in a year. The regulations being debated today maintain the current member contribution rates in both schemes for the financial year 2020-21 and each year thereafter, until such time that alternative provisions are made. They also uprate the earnings thresholds under £150,001 per annum in the member contribution rate structure for both schemes on 1 April 2020, in line with the consumer price index. Additionally, the regulations provide that the related earnings thresholds will be automatically uprated each year in April in line with the consumer prices index rate of the previous September.

The reason for making these amendment regulations is that the current provisions for member contribution rates will expire on 31 March 2020. The draft regulations are needed to specify the member contribution rates which will apply from 1 April onwards. The regulations will enable us to ensure the continuing operation of the schemes by deducting the appropriate member contributions from judicial salaries and fees. Given the ongoing uncertainty about the value of public service pensions after April 2015 due to both recent litigation and the consequential decision to pause one element of the actuarial valuation of the schemes, the Government propose to maintain existing contribution rates from 1 April 2020 onwards.

Following the reform of public service pension schemes in 2015, and under the current legislative framework, Departments are required to undertake valuations of public service pension schemes, including the judicial pension scheme, every four years. The valuation does two things. First, it informs the employer contribution rates. Secondly, it tests whether the value of the schemes to current members has moved from target levels and needs to be adjusted to bring it back to that point, which is known as the cost control mechanism.

Work was undertaken in March 2016 on the first such valuation of public service pension schemes to analyse the provisional results of the valuation for each affected scheme. The work was affected by the age discrimination cases brought to court by members of the judicial and firefighters’ pension scheme—the McCloud litigation. That litigation concerned the transitional protection policy that was applied by the Government in implementing the 2015 public sector pension scheme reforms. The courts found that the transitional protection policy amounted to unlawful age discrimination, and in June 2019 the Government’s application for permission to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court.

In January 2019, the Government took the decision to pause the cost control element of the valuation. They were prudent to do so, because the effect of the McCloud litigation on public sector pension schemes was unclear. Although the outcome of the litigation is now known, addressing the discrimination, including settling the details of tax treatment, is a complicated process and involves decisions across Departments; it will take some time to deliver. The pausing of the cost control mechanism will therefore continue until the McCloud remedy is finalised.

In order to avoid the need to make further interim regulations, it is proposed in the regulations that the current rates will continue to apply, with no specific expiry date. Once the McCloud resolution work is complete and the outcome of the cost control element of the valuation is known, the Government will reconsider whether further changes to member contribution rates for these schemes are required.

Turning to the issue of earning thresholds, no changes were made to thresholds for member contribution rates as part of the measures put in place for the year 2019-20. However, the Government are mindful that it would not be desirable for the earning thresholds to fall significantly out of step with salary or fee rates. That is why the regulations provide that all earning thresholds below the top £150,001 threshold are uprated each year in line with CPI. This approach is consistent with various other aspects of public service pensions, and in recent years increases to public service pensions in payment have been in line with the September to September increase in CPI.

CPI is already used to annually uprate the earning thresholds in other public service pension schemes such as the local government pension scheme and the teachers’ pension scheme. The £150,001 band will not be increased, because in the 2015 scheme the rates were designed to align with the top rate of income tax in such a way that the net of tax contribution rates were broadly the same above and below the £150,001 threshold. The total contribution rates are broadly the same in the case of the fee-paid 2017 scheme, when the member and dependent contribution rates are taken together. Additionally, the Government consider it desirable to maintain broad parity between the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 and the two sets of judicial pension regulations being amended, as the £150,001 threshold is common across all judicial schemes.

As the regulations provide that the lower earning thresholds below will be uprated automatically each year, similar provisions will not be needed next year. However, the Government will revisit the issue of appropriate levels of contribution rates and thresholds once wider pension issues have been resolved.

The relevant legislation, section 22 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, requires the Government to fulfil a number of procedural requirements prior to making changes to features of the scheme under the 2015 regulations, which are classed as “protected elements”.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

How long will it take this Government to come up with the McCloud remedy?

[Alex Chalk]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; that is a fair challenge. It requires careful consideration. The McCloud judgment is not a case of simply saying that everyone was better off under the old scheme, and therefore a matter of making a simple adjustment in that regard. It is more complex than that. Those on the new scheme might be better off, and it has to be treated in a more granular, detailed way than one might consider. It has been considered with great concern and all due diligence and expedition. We will be hearing an outcome in due course.

[Ms Eagle]

A non-answer.

[Alex Chalk]

I thought it was an extremely good answer, but thank you.

Turning to the consultation, member contributions are one such “protected” element and as such cannot be altered without the Government first consulting the persons or representatives of those persons affected, with a view to reaching an agreement. I can confirm that the Ministry of Justice issued a four-week consultation from 25 October 2019 to 22 November 2019. The Ministry of Justice consulted representative judicial organisations with a view to reaching agreement. An additional statutory requirement for changes to “protected” elements is that an accompanying report must be laid before Parliament setting out the rationale for the amendment. I can confirm that such a report has been laid, and I refer Members to the report for details of the consultation responses.

Separately, we also satisfied the requirement to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to judicial offices with Scottish jurisdiction, and he was content with the proposal. Furthermore, as the judicial pension schemes to which these regulations relate are UK-wide, we have kept the devolved Administrations informed of progress, and they support our proposed approach. We will continue to engage closely with them on further developments.

Drawing the threads together, under this further interim measure the cost of accruing pension scheme benefits will remain the same for most members but will be reduced for some members, as they will pay contributions at a lower rate than they would have done had no changes been made to the earning thresholds.

I conclude by reinforcing the point that the existing arrangements for member contribution rates expire on 31 March 2020 in relation to both the 2015 and the 2017 judicial pension schemes. That is why these draft regulations are a necessary further interim measure to continue the effective operation of these pension schemes until a long-term solution is put in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

I thank those who have spoken for their helpful contributions to the debate. To address the points made a few moments ago, of course the implications are significant; that is precisely why they have to be considered with care. As a courtesy to the hon. Member for Wallasey, I would like to say a little more about the McCloud litigation. The first thing to emphasise is that the Government have been working at pace to develop the McCloud remedy, bearing in mind that the decision in McCloud does, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, read across to other public service pension schemes.

If there were ever a example of something that needs to be thought through with care, this is it. In addition, a final remedy hearing in relation to the judicial scheme was held on 10 January 2020, when declarations were made for salaried and fee-paid judges, with the effect of giving litigants entitlement to membership of the relevant legacy scheme from 1 April 2015. The MOJ has already gone some way to addressing the discrimination for claimants. It has not been sitting on its hands. Most significantly, the claimants have been moved to the JUPRA scheme, which is the pre-2015 scheme, effective from 1 December 2019. Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice has stopped judges from tapering from the JUPRA scheme into the NJPS scheme from October 2019.

The next hearings in the employment tribunal are on injury to feelings in June 2020 and then financial losses in October 2020. Those hearings should settle the detail of how past discrimination will be rectified. Officials in the Department are continuing towork hard, engaging with the employment tribunal on that process.

The MOJ is also committed to addressing discrimination for judges in the same legal and factual position as McCloud claimants, and officials are working at pace to develop proposals for how that discrimination will be addressed. Those proposals will be consulted on in spring this year. Before the formal consultation, the Ministry of Justice will undertake non-technical discussion with the scheme advisory board and pensions board, and engage with the wider judiciary.

In summary, there are a lot of moving parts. This has to be handled in stages and with care. Those are the principles that underpin the approach that is being taken.

[Ms Eagle]

The Minister is giving us some useful detail about the work that the Government are undertaking. What lessons has he learned as a Minister from this debacle, with particular reference to the Government’s aim, which the Opposition support, to have a more diverse set of people putting themselves forward to be judges? What has he learned about what happened, which is that the Government discriminated illegally against people who have not traditionally been seen as judges—younger people, black and minority ethnic people, women? What message does he think it sends out to younger lawyers who might aspire to get to the bench and to be judges in future that the Government have somehow managed, at the same time as saying that they want a more diverse bench, to introduce policy found to be unlawfully discriminatory against those very people?

[Alex Chalk]

I am disappointed that the hon. Lady felt it necessary to take that tone. This Government are proud of the fact that, in terms of recruits to the judiciary, we have the most diverse judiciary ever. We are on the right path to making it more diverse and more representative of the people whom that judiciary serve.

A judgment has gone against the Government, but judgments go against all Governments of all stripes. I am sure that even when the hon. Member for Wallasey was a Minister, judgments went against the Government. What matters is how the Government respond to that; that is the hallmark of a good Government. We are responding with care, thought and consideration to ensure a scheme is in place that can stand the test of time. That is what we are focused on, and it is precisely the right approach.

The draft regulations are an interim measure until such time as the long-term solution is in place. They will specify member contribution rates from 1 April 2020. Under the measure, the cost of accruing pension scheme benefits remains the same, but will be reduced for some members, as they will pay contributions at a lower rate than they would have done had no changes been made. That is why passing this interim measure is the right thing to do. I hope that the Committee agrees that the regulations are necessary to continue the arrangements for member contribution rates and for the effective operation of the judicial pension scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

24. What assessment he has made of trends in the number of people able to access early legal advice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

In a nation of laws, access to justice is a fundamental right. Legal aid for early legal advice remains available in many areas, such as for asylum cases. In addition, legal aid is available under the exceptional case funding scheme in any matter where failure to provide it would breach or risk breaching someone’s rights under the European convention.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I spoke last night about the deaths since 2014 of social security claimants the Government had deemed to be fit for work. The number of social security claimants wanting to appeal a decision by the Department for Work and Pensions to stop or reduce their support who received legal advice fell from 82,554 in 2012 to 163 in 2013—I repeat, 163—and it has since remained at that level. What role have the cuts in legal advice to claimants had in failing to protect our most vulnerable citizens, including from the state?

[Alex Chalk]

Later this year, the Government will conduct a review of the scope of legal aid, but that will sit alongside a lot of work on scoping pilots to ensure that legal aid and support is provided quickly, because early legal support is much better than late legal support, that it is evidence-led on the basis of the pilots and that it truly goes to those who need it most.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Working in an advice agency, I saw for myself that many people have complex, interrelated problems and that access to early advice that covers all aspects is key to the prevention of often devastating and costly consequences, both to the individual and the state. Will the Minister look into extending the pilots to other areas of law, including family, housing and social security law?

[Alex Chalk]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she did in an advice agency. I entirely agree that if early support is provided, it can make an enormous difference in solving problems that would otherwise fester and become more difficult. A pilot is taking place on social welfare law that will consider housing and a raft of other aspects of law, and we will consider that evidence extremely carefully. If the hon. Lady would like to speak with me about it, I would be delighted to do that.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is now more than a year since the Government published the “Legal Support: The Way Ahead” action plan as part of their response to the review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Since then, hardly any of the deadlines for Government action have been met, including the promise to

“pilot and evaluate the expansion of legal aid to cover early advice in…social welfare”,

which was meant to happen “by autumn 2019.” Will the Minister confirm when we are likely to see the proposals on early legal advice and explain why the Government have completely missed the deadlines in their document?

[Alex Chalk]

Proposals for the early legal advice pilot will sit alongside pilots for co-located hubs and a legal support innovation fund. Those pilots have to be got right, so they are being considered together with academics to make sure that they will work precisely as required, because what is ultimately provided must be evidence-led and based on an exhaustive scrutiny of what works, so that it is sustainable in the long run. That is precisely what we shall do.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

May I welcome my hon. Friend to his new role and suggest as his first piece of homework that he look at Law for Life’s Advicenow website, which provides early legal support for social welfare claimants? Will he make sure that that is rolled out to existing legal aid deserts, such as my constituency? Many of my constituents could benefit from Advicenow’s services but simply do not know that they exist in the first place.

[Alex Chalk]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s extremely distinguished service in the Department. On legal aid deserts, it is of course right that those who are entitled to legal aid support can always access it over the telephone—that is an important point—but none the less, I very much take on board his points and would be happy to discuss the matter with him should he wish.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is appalling to hear of the experience of her constituent. On the specific issue of compensation, following conviction for an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 or, indeed under the Theft Act 1968, the court has the power to award compensation to victims or even order confiscation of assets. I would, of course, be delighted to speak to her to see how we can strengthen protections more generally.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Grenfell public inquiry has been delayed again after firms demanded assurances that their testimony will not be used against them in a criminal case. We need new laws that force officials and private companies to come clean about wrongdoings and failures. The brave Hillsborough and Grenfell families called for a public accountability law that would do this. In the past, there has been cross-party coalitions of support for such a law, often referred to as the Hillsborough law. Does the Justice Secretary agree that it is now time for such a law?

[Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

T6. Twenty-two members of a county lines drugs gang who are infiltrating rural towns across Powys have been sentenced to a combined 101 years. I cannot praise Dyfed-Powys police enough for their role in this action. Will my hon. Friend assure me that repeat offenders of the scourge of county lines will face harder, longer and tougher sentencing?

[Alex Chalk]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and for his tribute to the police. What we have done already, as he will be aware, is that, for the most serious violent and sexual offences, offenders will now have to serve two thirds of their sentences, rather than half, sending a clear message that those who commit serious crimes will be expected to pay for them.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

T2. Since the 2007 Corston review into women in the criminal justice system, more than 100 women have died in our prisons. Inquest has recently published an update to its report, “Still Dying on the Inside”, which details both the tragic and often unavoidable circumstances surrounding deaths of women in custody. What concrete action have the Government taken to resolve this crisis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

May I say what a joy it is to see such a fantastic team on the Front Bench?

Now that the case of the Post Office workers against the Post Office has concluded with two damning judgments against the Post Office, it is time for those wrongly convicted workers to have their names cleared. Will the Minister work with the Criminal Cases Review Commission to allow these cases to be dealt with as a group, to ensure that justice can be done without further delay?

[Alex Chalk]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the injustice that has been suffered by so many, including—I am bound to say—someone in my own constituency. The CCRC is seized of this matter. It will, of course, have to consider the cases individually, but I know that it will want to proceed at pace, and I understand that it is meeting in March to consider the issue fully; let justice be done.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

T5. My constituents struggle to get legal aid support when their benefits have been stopped. This is leading to people being forced to use food banks and, in some extreme cases, even losing their tenancies. Do the Government regret cutting £900 million from the legal aid budget since 2010, and what is going to be done to redress this injustice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

T8. Law centres such as the North East Law Centre, which serves my constituents, provide a significant cost saving in public finances by helping people to resolve legal issues before they spiral out of control. Will the Minister commit to securing Treasury funding to provide law centres with a central grant to help ensure their survival?

[Alex Chalk]

I pay tribute to the work of law centres, including Gloucester Law Centre in my county of Gloucestershire. We will continue with a pilot to ensure that there is that early legal support—whether face-to-face legal advice or other forms of legal support—so that people can get the assistance they need early.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

The prisons inspectorate has this morning published its latest report into Her Majesty’s Young Offender Institution Aylesbury. I very much welcome the progress that has been made, and pay tribute to the governor and her staff for that, but there is still a great deal to do. Will my hon. and learned Friend commit to providing the resources that will be necessary to implement all the recommendations of the report?

Draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) Order 2020

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 General Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. I call the Minister to move the motion.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) Order 2020.

The order is straightforward and, I hope, uncontroversial. It relates to the functions of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives—CILEx. In summary, the order enables the first-tier tribunal to hear and determine appeals against CILEx in its role as a licensing authority.

As the Committee is aware, the Legal Services Act 2007 defines six reserved legal activities that only individuals and firms regulated by one of 11 approved regulators can provide to the public. CILEx is an experienced regulator under that Act and authorises and regulates individuals and firms in respect to five of the six reserved legal activities: conduct of litigation, right of audience, reserved instrument activities, probate activities and administration of oaths.

In February last year, statutory instrument 2019/166, the Legal Services Act 2007 (Designation as a Licensing Authority) Order 2019, designated CILEx as a licensing authority as well as an approved regulator, which means that, as well as regulating individuals and firms, it can license alternative business structures—legal firms that are owned or operated by non-lawyers. They were introduced by the 2007 Act to encourage competition by allowing, for the first time, lawyers to join with non-lawyers, such as accountants, engineers and social workers, and raise external capital. Notable alternative business structures include the Co-op Legal Services and the big four accountancy firms.

Alternative business structures have been permitted by the 2007 Act since October 2011, and there are now more than 1,300 in England and Wales. Most of the other legal services regulators, including the Law Society and the Bar Council, are already licensing authorities. The Act stipulates that there must be an independent body to determine appeals against decisions of licensing authorities. The order enables the general regulatory chamber of the first-tier tribunal to fulfil that role.

In the 12 months since CILEx became a licensing authority, an interim appeals procedure, agreed by the Legal Services Board, has been in place. It is more appropriate, however, that the first-tier tribunal determines any appeals against CILEx in its role as a licensing authority. The first-tier tribunal has judges with experience of considering regulatory appeals. Furthermore, similar orders have been made in respect of appeals against the decisions of the Bar Standards Board, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales when each was designated as a licensing authority.

I reassure the Committee that, although Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service will face additional costs associated with the potential increase in cases to be determined by the first-tier tribunal, CILEx will meet the set-up and operating costs, so there will be no net financial impact on the sector. On that basis, I commend the order to the Committee.

Draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2020

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2020.

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. The order is straightforward and uncontroversial. It designates the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales as an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007, for the reserved legal activity of the administration of oaths. The institute is already an approved regulator and licensing authority for probate activities.

If approved, the order will allow the institute to authorise and regulate individuals and firms administering oaths within the scope of the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889, the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1891, and the Stamp Duties Management Act 1891.

The Legal Services Act 2007 defines six reserved legal activities that can be provided to the public only by individuals and firms that are regulated by one of 11 approved legal regulators. The administration of oaths is one such activity, and the Committee will be familiar with others such as exercising a right of audience.

The institute is already an approved regulator and licensing authority under the 2007 Act, but only in respect of probate activity—another reserved legal activity —for which it currently regulates more than 300 firms providing probate services. The institute wishes to expand the range of legal services that its members can provide. As such, it made the required application to the Legal Services Board, seeking to expand its functions and, following a recommendation from the board, the then Lord Chancellor confirmed in May 2019 that he agreed to make an order to designate the institute as an approved regulator for the reserved legal activity of the administration of oaths.

We envisage that expanding the institute’s remit will improve consumer choice, enhance competition and enable firms that are regulated by the institute to expand their practice.

Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill

Alex Chalk Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, like me has much experience in the criminal justice system. He will know that deciding whether remorse is real or feigned is sometimes a difficult judgment for a court to make. He makes his point very well.

I think it is right for me to deal at this stage with the concept of whether we should have gone further and introduced a rule of “no body, no release”. Tempting though that might be—and I listened carefully to the arguments—there is a danger that if we proceed too far along that path, we could inadvertently create an artificial incentive for people to mislead the authorities and to feign co-operation or remorse. Of course, in another context, we see the dangers that are inherent in what I have described as superficial compliance with the authorities. There is a fine balance to be maintained, but I think that the Bill as presented maintains it in a way that is clear, that increases public confidence in the system and that makes it abundantly plain to those who are charged with the responsibility of assessing risk that, in the view of this House, this issue is of particular public interest and public importance when it comes to the assessment that is to be made.

I was dealing with the essence of the non-disclosure, and I would add that the Parole Board must in particular take account of what, in its view, are the reasons for the non-disclosure. This subjective approach will allow the board to distinguish between circumstances in which, for example, the non-disclosure is due to a prisoner’s mental illness, and cases in which a prisoner makes a deliberate decision not to say where a victim’s remains are located. This subjective approach is fundamental to the proper functioning of the Bill. It ensures that the non-disclosure and the reasons for it—in other words, the failure by the prisoner to say what they did with the victim’s remains—are fully taken into account by the board when it comes to decision making. It is then for the Parole Board, as an independent body, to decide what bearing such information has on the risk that a prisoner may present and whether that risk can be managed safely in their community. It reflects the established practice of the Parole Board, as included in its guidance to panel members in 2017, but it goes a step further in placing a legal duty to take a non-disclosure into account. This, as I have already mentioned, is part of our intention to provide a greater degree of reassurance to victims’ families by formally setting out the guidance in law.

I turn now to the second part of the Bill, which deals with the non-disclosure of different types of information by offenders. This has been prompted by the horrific case of Vanessa George. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) in his place. Vanessa George was recently released by the Parole Board after serving 10 years in prison, following conviction for multiple counts of sexual abuse against children at the Plymouth nursery where she worked. She also photographed the abuse of those children in her care and sent the images to other paedophiles. This was a horrific case, which those of us who had young children at the time, me included, remember all too graphically. Vanessa George’s crimes have caused widespread revulsion. Her abuse of the trust placed in her by the families of the children she was meant to care for and protect is shocking. Their pain has been compounded by the fact that the children she photographed cannot be identified from the images, and that she has refused to disclose their identities to the authorities. All the families involved have been left in a truly terrible limbo, not knowing whether their child has been a victim.

Again, we are seeking to respond by stipulating in law that such appalling circumstances must be fully taken into account by the Parole Board when making any decisions on the release of such an offender. Clause 2 of the Bill will amend the release provisions that apply to an extended determinate sentence that has been imposed for the offence of taking or making indecent photographs of children and, as in clause 1, we will place a statutory obligation on the Parole Board to consider the non-disclosure of information about the identity of a child or children featured in such images when the board makes a public protection decision, including one to release the prisoner. The provision will apply when the Parole Board does not know the identity of the child or children in such an image but believes that the prisoner is in a position to disclose it and has chosen not to do so. It is this non-disclosure and the reasons for it, in the view of the Parole Board, that must be taken into account before any release decision is made.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I heartily applaud the Government for taking this important step. Does the Secretary of State agree that we also need to reassure people that when such an individual comes to be sentenced in the first place, if they have not at that stage disclosed where the body is or the identity of the victims of their crime, the judge should be able to take that into account in setting the minimum period that they should serve? In other words, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the impact does not simply crystallise at the point of release?