Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023

John Howell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023.

Before I set out the effect of the draft order, it may be helpful for hon. Members if I explain the legislation underpinning the change that the Government are bringing forward. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 governs the disclosure of cautions and convictions for most employment purposes. More serious convictions remain disclosable for life, but under the ROA most convictions become spent after a specific period. Once a conviction is spent, it does not need to be disclosed by someone applying for most jobs. That approach supports the rehabilitation of the offender, helping them to put their past behind them when they have not reoffended over a significant period.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 lists activities or categories of jobs in respect of which those protections are lifted, so that individuals, are still required to disclose spent convictions if asked to do so. That enables greater disclosure of criminal records information for people in specified roles and activities. The primary rationale behind the exceptions order is that there are certain jobs for which more complete or relevant disclosure of an individual’s criminal record may well be appropriate.

Although it is generally desirable to facilitate getting ex-offenders into employment, the public must remain adequately protected. There are some areas in which an employer should be made aware of a person’s fuller criminal history before an offer of employment is made, so that consideration can be given to any necessary safeguards. The exceptions order is therefore a counterbalance to the ROA in favour of the protection of the public, providing a greater level of disclosure for individuals performing roles or activities that require additional safeguarding: working with children or vulnerable adults, for example, or in positions of public trust.

The draft order will amend the exceptions order by adding four roles to the exceptions order: chartered management accountants, fire and rescue authority employees, justice system intermediaries and notaries public of England and Wales. Each of those roles has been identified as meeting the criteria for inclusion in the exceptions order: either they are in line with the existing roles and activities reflected in the exceptions order, or there is a compelling case to justify requiring individuals to disclose all spent and unspent convictions. I will set out the rationale for adding each of those four roles to the exceptions order.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware—this is an open question—whether, ahead of this legislation, other professional organisations are going further with respect to liberalisation?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. This is a very narrowly defined set of professions, and the draft order will fulfil a request from some of those professions. As I will address in my closing remarks, there is always a difficult balance to be struck between liberalising the regime, to encourage and facilitate people who have offended but have a subsequent clean record getting into work and back into normal life, and protecting the public in particular circumstances. That does not necessarily mean that the individuals will not be given a job, but it does ensure that their employers have full disclosure so that they can make an informed decision.

The first profession to be added to the exceptions order is members of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. The reason is that the functions that they carry out are fundamentally based on trust, and they present a particular opportunity to cause harm to the public through abuse of that trust: they provide services including accounting, taxation and financial management services. The exceptions order already includes chartered accountants and certified accountants, but not members of CIMA, even though they carry out similar functions. I am persuaded that members of CIMA should be included in the exceptions order to enable the institute to discharge its regulatory functions properly and to ensure consistency with Scottish legislation, which already includes them.

The second profession is fire and rescue authority employees, for whom I also consider that there is a clear case for change. From the independent culture review of the London Fire Brigade, from media reporting on services across England and Wales and from recent reviews of fire and police culture, we have seen the importance of ensuring that we effectively vet and check the people we employ in our key public services; we have repeatedly debated those important issues in this House. Furthermore, the recent spotlight report on culture and values by the fire inspectorate, commissioned by the Government, specifically recommends such a change. The case for making it is also supported by considering the roles that individuals in our fire and rescue services undertake, which can include attending schools or vulnerable people’s homes, attending incidents as medical first responders, exercising statutory powers and helping to safeguard others. We hope that the change will help to protect the reputation of our fire and rescue services, which are deeply trusted and highly reliant on public trust and respect for the amazing job that they do to carry out their roles effectively.

The third profession is justice system intermediaries, whose role is to enable communication in police inquiries and in court and tribunal proceedings with those witnesses and parties whose ability to participate is diminished because they are under 18 or are suffering from a mental or physical impairment. It is common for some intermediaries to have unsupervised access to vulnerable adults for the duration of a communication assessment. In rarer cases, they have unsupervised access to children under the age of 18. The role can also involve discussions with vulnerable people concerning highly personal or sensitive matters such as domestic or sexual abuse. Those factors add to the safeguarding risk and place the intermediary in a position of increased responsibility for the welfare of the vulnerable person.

The fourth profession is notaries. “Notary” or “notary public” is a term for a specialist lawyer who has undertaken further legal education and examination and is appointed and regulated through the Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Notaries are authorised to attest the authenticity of documents, certify documents, take affidavits and swear oaths. Most notaries are solicitors, but they do not have to be. In the light of the Ukraine crisis, the then Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), wrote to legal services regulators to ask how the Government could support them to uphold the economic crime regime. In response, the Faculty Office recommended adding notaries to the exempted professions under the exceptions order. Adding notaries to the order will provide parity with other legal professionals such as barristers and solicitors, who are already subject to standard Disclosure and Barring Service checks, as opposed to the basic checks. Furthermore, given that notaries handle sensitive information and often work with vulnerable people, we consider that the role of a notary meets the criteria for inclusion in the order.

At present, employers can request only a basic DBS check for the aforementioned roles, unless specific activity being undertaken as part of the role makes them eligible for more than that. A basic check is the lowest level of check available and shows only those convictions and cautions that are not considered spent. Approving the draft order will enable employers to request standard DBS checks for prospective employees in those roles. It will also enable employers to assess the suitability of a person for any office or employment that the draft order adds to part 2 of schedule 1 to the exceptions order, such as in the case of the fire and rescue services. Standard DBS checks contain details of both unspent and spent convictions, as well as cautions held on the police national computer that are not subject to filtering, which is a process whereby old or minor convictions are filtered off a standard DBS check.

It is important to bear in mind that where an employer is aware of a conviction, it should not be an automatic bar to employment. The Government strongly urge employers to exercise a balanced judgment, taking into account factors such as the person’s age at the time of the offence, how long ago the offence took place, the nature of the offence and its relevance to the position in question. The Government are committed to the rehabilitation of those who have ceased offending and want to move on with their lives. I am proud to say that we have completed the roll-out of prison employment leads, who match prisoners to jobs, and employment advisory boards chaired by business leaders, which link prisons with local industry. We have delivered those in 92 prisons, including all resettlement prisons, ahead of schedule.

We want to ensure that employers use the new powers granted to them under the draft order fairly and proportionately. As a condition of these professions being added to the exceptions order, representatives of each profession have agreed to produce or update guidance, which is being developed with the support of policy officials. The guidance will help to ensure that employers are fair in their recruitment decisions.

In conclusion, adding justice system intermediaries, fire and rescue authority employees, chartered management accountants and notaries to the exceptions order is a necessary safeguarding measure. The criminal records disclosure regime is designed to protect the public, particularly children and vulnerable adults, while enabling those who have offended in the past to move on with their lives. We believe that the change that we propose appropriately strikes that balance.

Independent Review of Administrative Law

John Howell Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I can absolutely reassure the hon. Gentleman that the proposals in fact are the opposite of a restriction or restraint on judicial review. The proposals include a recommendation that the rule about bringing a claim promptly be removed because it does not add anything to the overall procedural framework. Secondly, the three-month limit will remain, but there is of course within that discretion for the court to disapply or to entertain a late application. None of that is going to be interfered with. This review is not based upon some crude attempt to restrict a class of people from applying or to restrict the length of time. This is all about the scope of judicial review and the remedies that are on offer. It is a mature contribution to the debate, and I know that when Labour Members look at it carefully they will be compelled to draw the same conclusion.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]]

When many judges were beginning their legal career, I doubt very many of them ever came across judicial review, so much has this crept along over the last 40 to 50 years or so. Will the Lord Chancellor please accept my congratulations on his review of judicial review, and will he also accept that I would like to see it move quicker and faster in order to make sure that we do see a fundamental review? Certainly, of all the judges I have spoken to, I have not come across any who would contradict what we are trying to do?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to urge expedition. I think I need to temper his remarks with those of the Chairman of his Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who wants to make sure that this place and the other place have a proper opportunity to scrutinise. That of course will happen, because if there is to be primary legislation, that will need proper scrutiny.

However, I take my hon. Friend’s point. The truth is that there have not been many occasions in the last 50 years or so when we have taken a close look at these issues. Judicial review has developed quite significantly since the late 1970s, so most of our judges now will have had some experience unless, with respect, they are extremely senior. I agree with the point that he makes. We need to remember that this is very much part of the Government’s overall approach to take incremental, structured looks at aspects of our constitution to get the balance right.

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]

John Howell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

The ongoing disputes over the Bill have not related to the content of private international law treaties, but rather to parliamentary scrutiny of orders made pursuant to PIL treaties and scrutiny of the PIL treaties themselves. As far as the order-making powers are concerned, we have ended up today with a welcome compromise, eked out in the other place following a significant defeat and general kickback from basically everyone for the initial proposals for a Henry VIII clause.

To that end, there were counterproposals to limit the scope for orders to specific treaties, for reports to be laid before auditors and to a stated timetable and for a super-affirmative procedure. Although none of those proposals has been accepted, others have been. I welcome the concessions offered today by the Minister, who I have to say has now listened, in terms of the exclusion of some level of criminal offences punishable by prison, the introduction of a five-year sunset clause, albeit a renewable one, and a prior duty to consult on orders, although only with such persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. That is, frankly, as far as we are going to get on this and I shall support what is offered. However, I wish to make two related wider points.

First, while Government suggest that the PIL treaties are non-contentious, the sweeping scope and initially non-restricted life of order powers clearly represent a significant increase in the power of the Executive. It is also an attack on the constitutional principle that international agreements should only change domestic law if they are instituted by Act of Parliament. Here we need context, because if one looks at the range of current Government Bills, one sees time and again power being removed from this place to the Executive. That was recently described by one journalist as this Government’s Maoist tendency.

It may be that recent staff changes at Number 10 are going to reverse that tendency. The Government should keep in mind that the Executive will not always be a Conservative one, and messing with our finely tuned unwritten constitution may not be to the Conservatives’ advantage in the long run.

My final point concerns what has been persistently avoided in the Bill, which is the urgent need to reform the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 provisions for scrutinising proposed international treaties. Frankly, I have not been able to understand Ministers’ feet dragging on this issue. As things stand, it looks like CRaG reforms are more likely to come in piecemeal via the Trade Bill and the Agriculture Bill. In my view, that sectoral hotch-potch should be managed by the Justice team, to cover all international treaties. I suggest that Ministers apply their many talents to that task.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Let me first declare an interest as an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

I thought for a moment that I was going to welcome the agreement that there clearly is between my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and me, but, given his last comments, I am not sure any more—I need to think about them. However, I think we are on the same sort of page at the moment.

I, too, welcome these Lords amendments and point out that they are a very good compromise between this House and the other place. I also welcome what the Minister has said in bringing them forward. In taking away the criminality, having a sunset clause and bringing in a consultation, they have done a tremendous amount to bridge the gap that there previously was during our discussions on this Bill. But in fundamental essence, the Bill remains the same in what it can do, and I am glad that it does.

I made the point on Report as to why that was important. I am not going to repeat the entire speech that I made then—I probably could not get away with that—but I stressed the need for agility and flexibility, and I put that in the context of the Singapore mediation convention. There is a great necessity to get the Singapore mediation convention into working order and on the statute book. The reason for that is twofold.

First, it fundamentally does no harm whatsoever—in fact, it does a tremendous amount of good for the small businesses that are choosing mediation as a means of settling their disputes. Secondly, it ends the farce we have at the moment with the system that is in place whereby if one has a mediation, one then has to agree an arbitration, however short that may be, in order to take advantage of the New York convention. That is a nonsense that we do not want to continue with. We must implement the Singapore mediation convention, which allows the results of a mediation to be recognised in the countries that have signed up to this.

The Minister was kind enough to say that I am a great champion of the Singapore mediation convention, and he is quite right, because I have seen that it does a tremendous amount of good for this country. It is also because, as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said, a tremendous amount of alternative dispute resolution takes place in this country. We are world leaders in this, but we will not remain so for very long unless we sign up to the Singapore mediation convention and get stuck into what the rest of the world is getting involved in. All I can do is recommend to the Minister that he gets on with introducing the statutory instrument to get the Singapore mediation convention up and running in this country. To repeat what I said on Third Reading, I am very happy to serve on the SI Committee that introduces the Singapore mediation convention and to see a great dream come true.

[Alex Chalk]

Let me begin, a little sooner than I had planned, by saying that I am absolutely delighted that this Bill is now going to be supported across the House. It is worth reflecting on the journey that we have made, because, as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) rightly said, concerns were raised, first on Second Reading but also in the other place, but we have now got to the point where the Labour and Lib Dem amendments were withdrawn in the other place and this Bill will now receive cross-party support. In getting to this point, their lordships recognised, in the words of Lord Pannick, that “substantial and constructive” amendments had been made by the Government. We did so because we recognise that the issues we are addressing here, when it comes to the constitutional balance in our country, are ones that merit proper and careful consideration. But the imperative for this was in fact laid bare in the points made by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who is no longer in his place—[Interruption.] He is back, as if by magic. He asked whether there would be different treatment for British citizens in different parts of the world. That is precisely what the Bill is all about. It is to try to reduce those differences. If we had no private international law agreements, that is exactly the situation we would increasingly find ourselves in. Because we are now better able to implement them, we are better able to provide that certainty and clarity which are in the interests of our constituents and their businesses, whether they manufacture widgets or any other products.

Ministry of Justice: Legal Aid Spending

John Howell Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Westminster Hall

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), for securing this debate and for raising the points he has.

When I looked at the figures, the overall cut in expenditure for the Ministry of Justice since 2010 was about 38% and the reduction in legal aid spending was about 18%. My first question to the Minister is, was it worth it? Have we cut out a tremendous amount of abuse of the legal aid system, or have we merely tinkered away at the edges or cut out things that we ought not to have? In that context, and particularly in the context of the overall reduction in departmental spend, just how much have the changes that are occurring in the legal system been recognised? Have they been factored into the changes to its budget and to the legal aid budget? There has been an enormous advance away from litigation to mediation and arbitration. I must declare an interest as an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, which I happily do. The Minister and I were talking about it earlier. He was amazed that I had the time to be able to carry on any work at all, but there we are. There is an important point here, however. Yesterday, I spoke at a very big event, with about 200 mediators and arbitrators. The question that came up was: what we can do in order to get the message out? Many of the disputes of the kind that the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has mentioned can be better sorted by mediation, and occasionally by arbitration.

I pointed out that when I did an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship in the law, I sat for the first couple of times with a judge in the commercial court. Both cases were quite complex, but personal—one was a lawyer who was complaining about his treatment by a firm of lawyers. The judge made the point that they should go away and conduct mediation before they came back to him. I have no idea whether that person was eligible for legal aid, but the point is that mediation can sort things out much more quickly, and it can do it much more cheaply. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on alternative dispute resolution, I am trying to get that emphasis on mediation and arbitration pushed through the whole of Government and outside, so that people are able to take it on. There have been great successes. In family law, many people take mediation before they go into divorce proceedings, and I know from my own experience that that is done at a cut-price level. Again, I ask the Minister: has that been factored in? Is it part of the benefit that we are getting out of the reduction in legal aid?

The Chairman of the Justice Committee mentioned not-for-profit legal organisations, which provide a lot of experience. Education is needed there, too, about the fact that mediation is a better way of approaching things than going for expensive litigation in the first instance. I am pleased that the Government have put almost £5.5 million into that, but they need to look at the role that not-for-profit legal organisations play and whether they can be used in a far better way.

There is no doubt that this covid experience that we are all going through has changed how people access and want to access legal services. I am sure it has meant that a lot more people want to go for mediation and arbitration, rather than litigation. We should seize the moment to press these points home, enable people to do that and encourage the development of these skills in the legal profession, but not just there—one of the great advantages of mediation is the breadth of the types of people who have the skills to conduct it. I have to say that I think politicians are ideal to conduct mediation. We deal with it all the time when we resolve disputes between constituents and big organisations. I do not know about hon. Members in the Chamber, but I certainly approach that with a mediation bias, and use the skills that I have acquired in the process of looking at this. A lot of work could be done to ensure that the provisions are there for litigants in person to be provided with the right sort of legal aid to take this forward.

I will end on two questions to the Minister. First, what are the challenges for the future of legal aid, and has he taken mediation and arbitration into account? Secondly, what has been the impact of covid on legal aid? That is the basis on which we seek to provide the access to justice that so many people want, but they do not necessarily want it in court. As long as they get their access to legal justice somehow, they are very happy with that sort of solution.

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]

John Howell Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee stage: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

As to what we are going to do about arbitral arrangements, we have a growing arbitration centre in the UK. Arbitration and mediation are often seen as an important way forward for international dispute resolution, and we need to have a firm framework upon which we can undertake those matters in the future. The amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon and I have tabled are not intended to obstruct the Bill; they would help its passage through the other place, where I fear it will otherwise have some difficulty. The Minister has seen the speeches in the other place, so there is a bit of enlightened self-interest here. I urge the Minister to listen favourably to what we say and let us see whether we can find some compromise and undertakings at least on the way forward that will meet some of those legitimate concerns.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Let me first declare an interest, as an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. I take a different view on this Bill from my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). When I looked at the Bill and what it does, two words came out as being necessary to preserve, the first of which was agility. The Government need to have the agility to be able to implement treaties in this way. The second word was “flexibility”, which partly comes down to the issue of speed. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon was wrong when he said that these sort of treaties take forever and there is no rush to get them through. There is a rush to get them through. One example of where there is a need to get a treaty sorted out is the Singapore mediation convention. It harms absolutely no one. All it does is make the decisions that are reached in mediation in countries that have signed the convention applicable anywhere around the world. It stops the enormously artificial process of having a mediation and then changing the mediators for another set of arbitrators, who then introduce the arbitration on exactly the same lines as the mediation in order for it to be caught by the New York convention, which is applicable around the world and which we have signed.

Understanding why we need to be quick with that treaty, which, as I say, does no harm, comes back to the visit that I and colleagues from both sides of the Houses made to Singapore earlier in the year. We have heard that many people see alternative dispute resolution as the way forward, but that is a complacent way of looking at the situation in the UK. The UK is not doing very well at maintaining itself as a global hub for alternative dispute resolution. The facilities available for conducting arbitration or mediation are far inferior to those that can be found in Singapore. If we sit around for much longer thinking that we can carry on being the global hub for this, we will lose that position very quickly and it will go to somebody else.

The techniques that we need to approve a major treaty are completely different from the sort of techniques that are needed to adopt a small treaty such as the Singapore mediation convention. We are speaking not about a new Maastricht treaty, but about treaties such as the Singapore mediation convention. We do not need an Act of Parliament for that; we need Ministers to get on with signing and implementing them as quickly as possible.

The Law Society has rather missed the point. It stresses the point that the effects of a treaty can have influence on domestic law, but it totally ignores the need for speed and it falls into the trap of complacency when it looks at the situation in the UK and the global role that we play. The House of Lords, when it looked at the measure and made its recommendations, also failed to recognise those points. I say again to the Minister that he needs to judge these amendments and new clauses according to whether they increase his agility and flexibility to get treaties such as the Singapore mediation convention signed and operational as quickly as possible.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Eleanor. As a relatively new Member of Parliament, it really is a joy to be speaking on this Bill. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was a practising barrister for 30 years and for many of those years, I practised in these areas.

I am truly delighted to be speaking on this Bill in Committee. The very consideration of it is evidence that the transition period of our leaving the EU is coming to an end. For me, that is very welcome news. I support the propositions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who said that the Government need to be responsive, and there is a need for speed, agility and considered thought.

It is of course right that, prior to the end of the transition period, the UK takes steps to ensure continued participation in key agreements in its own right, at last as a free and independent trading nation. From 1 February, the UK has regained full competence to enter into this sort of international agreement in the field in its own right. This is wonderful progress. As the UK develops its wider trading policy with the EU and the rest of the world, PIL agreements will be key to supporting cross-border commerce, which will be particularly important going forward. They will also regulate the very foundations of our society—how we deal with international family law matters—and build confidence for consumers as to how trade and disputes will be settled, all of which are very good things.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Let me add my gratitude to everyone who has spoken in this debate. It has been a very good debate, and I am sure that we have all learned a lot from it. I congratulate the Minister on what he has been able to do. What amazes me is that he has been able to get through the Bill without once using my skills as a mediator. That must be to his great credit.

We have here something that is in the interests of the country and that gives us a new tool in the box. From a personal point of view, I look forward to the Singapore mediation convention being signed and ratified by this country as quickly as possible. I even volunteer to sit on the statutory instrument Committee in order to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]

John Howell Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who will share my strong belief in the success of the legal services sector both in England and Wales, and in Scotland, as well as in the Northern Ireland jurisdiction, and the importance of maximising the advantage that we have not just in our outstanding rule of law reputation, but our reputation as an international forum for the resolution of disputes. I can think in particular of issues related to arbitration and mediation, where important international conventions are being developed, where the United Kingdom not only needs to be part of it, but to be at the heart of it when it comes to improving not just the prospects for legal services, but the opportunities for the businesses and the citizens we serve.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the Council of Europe. I want to stick on that, because it works on the basis of signing international treaties to get things done. At the moment, they take forever to get through, and the UK is one of the worst signers of them. Is this going to help to speed up the process?

[Robert Buckland]

I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm and sense of impatience about the pace of change in fora such as the Council of Europe. I just need to caution him on this basis. When it comes to the use of the powers that we anticipate under this Bill, we are talking about a narrowly defined type of agreement—practical, detailed but important changes that will lead to the sort of improvements that I referred to in responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). I am sure that as he hears not just my contribution but the one made in winding up by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), he will be even clearer about the particular role that this Bill will play in the incorporation of international law.

That is very important, because concerns were raised in the other place that somehow this was a Trojan horse or an invitation to open the floodgates, to allow for the incorporation of major swathes of international treaty law into domestic legislation with minimal scrutiny. Nothing could be further from the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Italian torpedo is not a reference to the successful naval action by the Royal Navy against the forces of fascist Italy in the second world war. This is a particular device taken by parties who issue proceedings in a jurisdiction that they know will not accept control over the particular proceedings. It is, in other words, a massive delaying tactic that can cause real obstruction to the course of justice and to the resolution of important disputes, and that is why he is right to say that Lugano would be very much a beginning when it comes to the development and refinement of that type of important co-operation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) asked why we do not mention Lugano. Well, there is an obvious argument that I should have addressed, which is that, as we have not yet been able to join it, it would perhaps be premature for us to refer to it directly on the face of the Bill, as opposed to the Hague conventions, which we have joined. Regrettably, there will not be time to bring forward further primary legislation before the end of the year, should our application be approved within the next few months. Therefore, for that sad but practical reason, it would be right not to pass anticipatory legislation but rather to await the outcome of the negotiation and then to allow the use of the delegated power.

The power could also be used to implement other agreements. I have talked about mediation, and in particular the 2019 Singapore convention on mediation and 2019 Hague judgments convention. We have not yet taken a formal decision on either of those, but of course I am happy to talk more about those conventions with hon. Members during the passage of this Bill and, indeed, in the future as we decide on our final approach to these instruments.

[John Howell]

If I catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak a little more about the Singapore mediation convention, because I think everyone approves of it. All it does is bring mediation settlements under UK law in the same way that arbitration settlements are included within the New York convention. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend’s offer to speak to people who are involved with this includes me, because I would be very happy to discuss it further.

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and he is right to mention the New York convention. Indeed, it develops the point I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham about our ambition on the recognition of arbitral decisions and mediation resolutions, too.

The reintroduced delegated power would allow us to strengthen our internal UK and our wider UK family relationships, including those with the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories, by allowing us to apply and to implement the terms of an international agreement between the different jurisdictions of the UK or, indeed, to apply and implement an arrangement or a memorandum of understanding based on the terms of an agreement between a self-governing territory or a dependency and the United Kingdom. Of course, this would be done only with the agreement of the relevant devolved Administration or self-governing territory or dependency, because the Government recognise that private international law, including the implementation of agreements, is indeed fully devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and this will continue to be reflected in any reintroduced delegated power in the Bill.

In summary, this Bill will allow our country to capitalise on regaining full competence to enter into international agreements on private international law in our own right after our withdrawal from the EU. It simplifies the implementation of three important Hague conventions in domestic law, to which the UK will be an independent party from the end of the transition period. The reintroduction of the former delegated power will also allow us quickly to implement any new agreements we strike with our international partners, thereby remaining at the forefront of promoting global co-operation and, indeed, best practice in this area. Finally, it will also allow our citizens to harness the benefits of these agreements in a timely manner, including to assist in the resolution of cross-border disputes. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I first declare an interest as an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

I welcome this Bill and the proposals to change it during its next stages. As I said during an intervention, I want to mention one thing in particular—the Singapore mediation convention. This is a treaty that we have been waiting to sign since it was first talked about in 2018. It is absolutely unconscionable that it has not been signed, ratified and brought into UK law in a much shorter period. This goes to the heart of the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)—what do we need to do to keep ourselves ahead of the game in this? I went to Singapore and talked to the mediation community there. We are being left out. The centre of mediation is here in London. It is being left out because there is no means of making sure that the mediated conclusion to a dispute can be brought into law in another country. In fact, the process that one has to go through is a fairly arbitrary one where, after the mediation, one has to get new proponents as arbitrators, which increases the cost enormously, to have a formal arbitration that can be caught under the New York convention. That is an utterly absurd way to go about this.

We all know that mediation has become an important part of modern business, especially as the courts are busy. When I was doing my Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship in law and sitting with judges, I was very pleased that many of them advised the people who were pleading before them that they should go away and consider mediation beforehand. Getting a mediation settlement agreed and applicable across countries seems to be a very narrow and technical thing to do. It does not affect anyone in an adverse way, and it has been welcomed by almost everybody I have spoken to.

I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that this Bill will allow us to steam ahead in getting the Singapore mediation convention ratified and brought into UK law so that, for the future, we can maintain our position in the UK as the centre of mediation in the world.

Prison Staff: Health and Safety

John Howell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered health and safety of prison staff.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), because this debate is of his instigation. It was his idea, and it is regrettable that he is not here to move the motion, but he is doing the correct thing by self-isolating. I understand that the same is true for the ministerial Benches; it is the appropriate action to take. I thank the hon. Gentleman and his staff for the support and guidance they have given me, and for the opportunity to speak in a debate that is especially important not only at this juncture, but in the wider context of recent years.

We have to start with an explanation of who we are dealing with when we talk about prison staff, because there is a great lack of awareness, if not ignorance. As a young lawyer in Scotland many years ago—over a generation now—I would give a jury speech that would basically explain that the ladies and gentlemen of the jury did not know the jury system in Scotland. They knew more about Henry Fonda in “12 Angry Men” than they did about the fact that jury trials in Scotland have 15 members and three verdicts. Things are obviously slightly different when it comes to prison staff, but in many ways the context is the same. Many people’s impression of a prison will come more from “The Shawshank Redemption” than from the prison in the locality near them, or where people from their communities go. We have to challenge that.

The lack of awareness also extends to those who work in the Prison Service. That is why I put on the record the fact that they are a uniformed service; they are also an emergency service, although they are not classified in that way by Government. I think others will comment on that issue when we talk about how their pensions are treated: it is an outrage that people are expected to operate on a landing at the age of 68. Some jobs are age restricted, and being a prison officer should most certainly be one. They deserve to be treated the same as other services.

This is a historic issue. My good friend Professor Andrew Coyle served at both Peterhead prison in Scotland and Brixton prison down here in London, and is a global expert on prisons. I remember reading in his history of the Prison Service in Scotland that in the initial stages, police and prison officers had parity. The pay of a constable and the pay of a prison officer were the same until the latter part of the 19th century, but then that changed and since then prison officers’ pay has never caught up. To some extent, that is a tragedy, but it is where we are. I do not think we can reverse that, but we can mitigate it and take action, whether on pensions or other terms and conditions.

That brings me to the question of who we are talking about. As I say, there is a great deal of misunderstanding; I remember going into the Prison Service and chatting away to officers about this. There are many occupations at the present moment, such as health service workers, police officers or those who work with the children and elderly, where people will cross the street to thank them and shake their hand. That rarely happens for prison officers—they get a sharp intake of breath instead—but the service they give often mirrors that contributed by those other services, and the work they do is valuable.

There is also a sense of misunderstanding among those going into the service. I remember asking young officers at the training academy at Polmont in Scotland whether the job was what they had anticipated. They said they had gone in thinking their job would be like a security guard’s, but it was much more like that of a psychiatric nurse. Those of us involved in the prison estate know how much of the work is like that of a psychiatric nurse, even though these people are not properly trained or qualified for such work. It is about dealing with deeply troubled people; prison officers do have to deal with deeply violent people on occasion, but the work they do with young offenders, women prisoners and vulnerable prisoners is really quite exceptional. It is a matter not of brutality but of humanity, which is why we have to put on record our tribute to them.

We also have to remember that these people are not particularly well trained for this work, nor are they well paid. As I understand it, a prison officer in Norway goes through a degree course of four years. In Scotland, as in England, a person will be able to be active and working—albeit not necessarily on the landing—within a period of weeks that they can count on both hands. That is hugely different from what other regimes expect, but it is expected here. Indeed, once we include people’s toes as well as their fingers, they will be on the landing and expected to deal with frontline work. I do not argue that there needs to be a degree course, but I do think that we need to expect and understand the challenges that prison staff face, because they do that with sparse training and not for a king’s ransom, as has been mentioned in relation to a variety of other issues.

That takes us on to the particular issues. The first issue that I want to touch on is why the Minister and I are here. The reason is that the coronavirus is striking down Members of this institution as it will strike down members of our community.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to the coronavirus, will he accept that a large part of the problem that prison officers face is the working conditions and prisons’ terrible state of repair? On the Justice Committee, we estimated that the cost of the repairs would come to £900 million.

[Kenny MacAskill]

Yes, I fully concur. In many areas, the prison estate is Victorian; sometimes it even predates that era. It has to be upgraded. Good work has been ongoing in Scotland—that does not come cheap—and I know that work has been established here. Equally, we have to have the right institutions. Super-prisons are not the way to go. We have to have the right prison estate, and it has to be a suitable prison estate.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. It is also a pleasure to have two Front Benchers in this debate who have both been members of the Select Committee on Justice. They understand the sort of comments being made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), and I hope that they recall the report on prison governance that we produced, which covered a number of the issues.

We are in an enduring crisis of safety and decency in our prisons. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this crisis is not something that has just happened; it has been going on for a long time. Violence is at an all-time high. Up until March 2019, there were more than 34,000 assaults in the prison system and, of those assaults, more than 10,000 were on staff. That is an increase in assaults on staff of 15%.

A major contributory factor to the level of violence and the state that prison officers must endure is working conditions. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the prisons are mostly Victorian—or earlier—constructions. We need to tackle the level of accumulated maintenance in such prisons, but the focus of Government activity seems to be on 10,000 more prisoner places, rather than on curing the maintenance problem.

I give full credit for the £100 million put into the Prison Service to improve safety and security, and we should not lose sight of that, but the concentration on providing an additional 10,000 places has meant that repairs to prisons have taken a back seat. We can address much of that, and the prison in Leeds is doing so. Working parties of staff and prisoners together carry out maintenance activity within the prison. I would like to see something similar taken on board by other prisons, to get the work done. The Justice Committee looked at this and came to the conclusion that the backlog of maintenance required in prisons came to about £900 million—an increase from £716 million in 2018. That that is an incredible backlog, and it shows that not enough is being done to tackle this.

Several things contribute to the problem. One is a real crisis of leadership in prisons. There has been a tremendous amount of activity to try to give governors more power over what happens in their prisons, but I do not think that that has gone far enough. We need governors who really have control of their prisons, because after all, they see the detail of where maintenance is required and can deal with it continually.

Another significant aspect is space being made available for purposeful activity. There is no doubt in my mind that purposeful activity plays a strong part in prisons. I have said in the House before that, with previous Justice Committees, I have been to Denmark and Germany to see how prisons there deal with purposeful activity. In Denmark, one thing that made the biggest difference was not purposeful activity in the sense of making things, but the way in which the prisoners were treated. What made the biggest difference was that they did not eat communal style, as in the “Porridge” series, but were allowed to earn their own money and to cook their own food. There were some restrictions, such as knives having to be chained to the wall, but that made a huge difference in keeping the lid on violence in that prison and making sure that the prisoners were fit for rehabilitation. The German prison I visited—this goes back to the point that the hon. Member for East Lothian made about where in a prison these issues can be tackled—had a big warehouse for making furniture. The prisoners all played a part in making furniture, which had an enormous impact on their lives.

My last point, which I will just make before I leave space for others to come in, is that there has been too much ad hoc dealing with the problems in the Prison Service over the years. Nobody has taken a strategic direction, grabbed the issue by the neck and sorted it out. If there is one message that I would give to the Minister, it is that strategic direction needs to be put into the Prison Service. The issue needs to be addressed, because it is not just a question of prisoner safety, but of prison officer safety.

Procedure for Appointing Judges

John Howell Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the procedure for appointing judges.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I look forward to a positive and perhaps consensual debate on the procedure for appointing judges and the importance of those procedures being consistent with the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers and the rule of law.

I sought this debate because I was concerned about certain headlines that appeared in the press in the days following the Supreme Court judgment in the Cherry and Miller cases. I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for her work on the Cherry case, as well as the legal team, which did such great work. I was pleased to be one of the MPs party to that case. The headlines I was concerned about came in response to a decision that the Government did not particularly like. They were perfectly entitled not to like the decision, but they were not entitled to consider changing the system for appointing the Supreme Court judges.

For example, a headline in the Daily Mail read:

“Geoffrey Cox suggests UK could move to US-style political vetting of judge appointments in the wake of the Supreme Court’s prorogation ruling”.

The Daily Telegraph ran the headline:

“Supreme Court justices could be appointed by MPs in wake of Brexit ruling, Geoffrey Cox says”.

In a slightly more understated fashion, The Law Society Gazette headed its report with certain exchanges in the Commons Chamber with the headline:

“Supreme Court appointments may need MPs’ approval—attorney general”.

In fairness to the Attorney General, it took a degree of journalistic licence to get from what he said in the Chamber to what was reported. Those headlines arose from exchanges in the Chamber during an urgent question tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the independence of our judiciary and the way in which we appoint them is admired right across the world, and that that fits in with our role in the Council of Europe, which is there to uphold the rule of law?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly. I will return to that point later. The exchanges that sparked those headlines came when the Attorney General was asked by one of his Back Benchers whether it was time for MPs to get involved in approving appointments at the Supreme Court level. The Attorney General responded:

“I do think that we are going to have to look again at our constitutional arrangements…there may very well need to be parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments in some manner.”—[Official Report, 25 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 666.]

As I said, I think the subsequent headlines required considerable journalistic licence. It would be useful if the same headline writers would publish the subsequent remarks that the Attorney General made during Attorney General’s questions last week, when he said that

“certainly US-style hearings—would be a regrettable step for us in our constitutional arrangements.”—[Official Report, 3 October 2019; Vol. 664, c. 1360.]

Similarly, I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s words this morning at Justice questions in defence of judicial independence and against any notion of political appointments.

With impeccable timing, as soon as I received notification that I had secured this debate, I received a written answer from the Minister—I welcome him to his place—confirming that there were no plans to change the judicial appointments processes. The answer continued:

“Our judges are selected following a rigorous, independent, merit based process which is key to maintaining the quality, integrity and independence of our world class judiciary.”

That answer echoed the point made by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell).

In the light of all those assurances, I wondered whether it was worth proceeding with this debate, but I think it is. I am grateful to hon. Members for staying to take part. It is still relevant to proceed because, despite the words of the Minister, the Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor, one fairly significant member of the Government does not seem to be singing from quite the same hymn sheet—perhaps not for the first time. Between the Attorney General’s original comments and his clarification, when the Prime Minister was asked about the consequences of the Supreme Court judgment by The Sunday Telegraph, he said:

“It will take a while to be worked through. But I think, if judges are to pronounce on political questions in this way, then there is at least an argument that there should be some form of accountability.

The lessons of America are relevant.”

Whether the Prime Minister was thinking about putting the UK on the path to a US-style system, under which Supreme Court judges are overtly political appointees, as The Sunday Telegraph interpreted it, only he knows—I very much hope not.

The pot was stirred even more firmly by a former Conservative leader who told The Times at the end of last week that

“more and more people are beginning to ask, with some legitimacy, whether it might be time to hold hearings as they do in America to find out what their political views are and what we can expect. We need to know more about these people.”

I could not disagree more strongly with that statement. A better response to the Prime Minister’s comments came from a former Cabinet colleague of his in an article for The Sunday Times this weekend:

“If he means we should learn from the weaknesses of the US system, he is absolutely right. If he means we should copy that system, he is wrong. It involves far too much political interference in the appointment of judges and also too much judicial law-making.”

My ambition in this debate is, therefore, quite modest: to achieve as broad a consensus as possible, saying clearly and loudly that we believe in the rule of law, the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary; that our appointments processes must always respect that; and, specifically, that we reject the politicisation of the judiciary, in particular through US-style appointments processes. The Prime Minister and some of the less sensible members of the Conservative party should stop stirring that pot.

I am not saying that the appointments processes in the UK are absolutely perfect, whether through the Judicial Appointments Commission of England and Wales, through its Northern Ireland equivalent, through the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland or through the appointments commissions that are convened for the purposes of selecting Supreme Court justices. No system is perfect, and they have all been criticised. It is absolutely right that we should keep those systems under review and scrutinise them to ensure that they deliver the appointment of the best judges.

Other hon. Members may want to make suggestions about how we can improve each of those systems, including to better protect judicial independence or to improve the scrutiny and accountability of judges through ombudsman and complaints processes. I have no doubt that more can be done to improve diversity on the bench, for example.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing this debate. I agreed with virtually every word he said, and I hope we can establish a consensus in Westminster Hall. Like him, I was heartened to hear the very clear statement of the Government’s position from the Lord Chancellor in Justice questions today. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that were we to embark on an American-style system of political selection for our Supreme Court or any other court, we would indeed be the poorer for it. Anyone who has seen the farrago that passes for confirmation hearings before the Senate in the United States—a process that diminishes the quality of law and, frankly, if anything, undermines the integrity of its judiciary—would never wish to see that in the United Kingdom. I think the debate is useful, because it perhaps enables us to put a hare that has been set running by one or two people firmly to rest, where it belongs and where it should stay.

[John Howell]

Would my hon. Friend make a distinction between the sort of confirmation hearings that we hold as members of the Select Committee on Justice and those in the United States? The ones we hold are very much part of the establishment and are a way of looking at the process, rather than being a way of generating political attacks on the individual.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is right. There are two misnomers in this sense. Confirmation, in the strict sense of the word, is not really what we are doing. We are scrutinising the integrity of the appointments process, which is an altogether different matter and entirely consistent with our tradition. In the same way, I wonder, were the legislation for the Supreme Court being drafted now, would we call it a Supreme Court, as opposed to a Court of Final Appeal? That has rather unfortunate implications, but that is really what it is. It is not quite like the Supreme Court in the United States, and the name sometimes gives people the wrong idea about its function.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East is absolutely right to say that in the recent cases that have attracted press attention, the courts—both at first instance the High Court or the Court of Session and then the Supreme Court—were asked to answer legal questions, and they gave legal answers. It is as simple as that. The judges did their job as lawyers. The attacks on our senior judiciary by some of the press are an outright disgrace and a shame upon this country. They should be called out for what they are: gutter journalism. Would to God that we had a press in this country that had anything like the quality and integrity of our judiciary. We would be the better place for it.

We are fortunate in the quality of our judiciary in all parts of the United Kingdom. We have a rigorous selection process. I am particularly aware of the work of the Judicial Appointments Commission in England and Wales, but I am cognisant of the like work that is done in Scotland and Northern Ireland by their appointments boards. I pay tribute to the work of Lord Kakkar and his colleagues on the Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales. The Justice Committee has had the opportunity to observe and scrutinise its work, and it is accountable to us and to Parliament for the process it engages in. Recently it published its report for the year just gone; it is a substantial document that clearly sets out the methodology by which it works and the consequences.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

John Howell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered imprisonment for public protection.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Sentences of imprisonment for public protection are an often overlooked part of our criminal justice system, despite their huge impact on those prisoners continuing to serve them. They were intended to protect the public from serious offenders and ensure that dangerous violent and sexual offenders stayed in custody for as long as they presented a risk to society.

Under the IPP regime, offenders given an IPP sentence were set a minimum term that they had to spend in prison, but unlike with most other sentences, there was no upper limit, meaning that once the minimum tariff had been served, the offender must apply to the Parole Board for release. Only if the Parole Board is satisfied that they are not a danger to the public can someone serving an IPP sentence be released. Release is therefore not automatic, and if the Parole Board is not satisfied that someone serving an IPP sentence has demonstrated that they no longer pose a risk, the prisoner can remain in custody indefinitely.

I have discussed these concerns with colleagues, including the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who also realises the gravity of this important issue and how it impacts on so many families. That is why I applied for the matter to be debated by right hon. and hon. Members in Parliament.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

The point that the hon. Gentleman has just made is very important. This issue has a big impact on families. I do not think we should lose sight of that as the debate proceeds. The other point is that the number of prisoners who self-harm during these sentences is much higher than the number across the rest of the prison population. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those two factors should play a part in his thinking?

[Mr Dhesi]

With great eloquence, the hon. Gentleman has highlighted two of the key reasons why this debate is so important. I concur fully with his views.

In many cases, IPP sentences that had shorter tariffs, of less than two years, have become in effect a life sentence as people have been stuck in limbo, unable to prove that they no longer pose a risk, often for reasons beyond their control. For those IPP-sentenced prisoners, the sentences did not work as intended and instead have become an unfairly punitive aspect of our criminal justice system. I would like to focus my remarks today on those prisoners, as it is those on the shortest tariffs who have experienced the injustice.

Why were IPP sentences abolished in the first place? Although designed to protect the public from serious offenders, IPP sentences were in reality handed down for a far broader range of offences than was intended. They were handed down at the rate of more than 800 a year, moving thousands of people into prison indefinitely. That led to offenders who had committed more minor crimes facing a short tariff but an indefinite sentence.

The Prison Reform Trust published late last year a report that showed that more than half of prisoners still serving an IPP sentence had a tariff of four years or less and 15% had a tariff of less than two years. Custody and imprisonment should be used as a last resort; and indefinite custody, with no fixed end, should be used only where a very serious offence has been committed. I fully appreciate that there are cases in which individuals have committed heinous crimes against humanity and therefore the local communities are extremely concerned about the prisoner’s release. One such case was highlighted to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). He and his predecessor in that seat had both worked with the local community to highlight their very serious concerns about someone who had killed three children and impaled them on railings after murdering them in their home.

However, I am most concerned about the non-serious cases wherein someone is sentenced to a short sentence but ends up being imprisoned for years on end. Where people are safe to be released, we should not be keeping them in custody to serve many multiples of their tariff for the crimes that they have committed. That stands against the principles of natural justice, on which our justice system was founded. The more widespread use of IPP sentences than was intended has also led to a number of instances in which offenders who committed the same offence in the same context were handed sentences such that one offender could be expected to spend a lot longer in prison.

Even the author of IPP sentencing, David Blunkett, acknowledges that this was a flawed policy. Lord Blunkett has noted:

“The consequence of bringing that Act”—

the Criminal Justice Act 2003—

“in has led, in some cases, to an injustice and I regret that”.

In 2012, the Government rightly took the decision to abolish sentences of imprisonment for public protection for offenders, meaning that that option was no longer available to judges. However, although that was the right decision, the issue remains of what to do to address the situation of those who are currently serving an IPP sentence.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Howell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights his extensive work in this area. It has been a pleasure to meet him on a number of occasions, and I am due to do so again. As I said, there are considerable statutory powers for the CCRC, but as he knows, the commission can refer only those cases it considers to meet the statutory criteria, and there are no plans currently to review that.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with me that forensic science is a major area where a lack of transparency is inhibiting the review of post-sentencing disclosure?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of forensic science in convictions —increasing the number of cases that go through court and result in convictions—and therefore of the role it plays in reviewing cases post-conviction. If he wishes to write to me with further details of specific issues in that context, I will be very happy to write back to him responding to those points.