Reform of Private Family Law Hearings

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) on securing this important debate, and I applaud the thoughtful and considered way that he has approached a very challenging area. I think we all want to mitigate the disruption and pain that family law hearings cause to children, and he is correct to say that we all want to have children’s best interests as the anchor point in everything we do. I applaud the way that he set out his concerns.

It is well known that family breakdowns are almost always challenging. At times, disputes are unavoidable and often intense, with children caught in the middle. The family court plays a crucial role in resolving such disputes. I want to clarify that magistrates who sit in the family court are formally referred to as “lay justices”. However, for the purposes of today’s debate, I will use the term “family magistrates”, as it is more widely recognised.

The hon. Member is well aware that the family justice system in England and Wales relies on the work that family magistrates do to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society, particularly children, are protected and that their best interests are prioritised. I welcome his words about the importance of magistrates in our justice system, even though he has concerns about the role that they play in this particular area.

Although family magistrates do not have formal legal qualifications, they undergo a rigorous selection and a comprehensive training process that is provided by the Judicial College, and it is worth noting that family magistrates were involved in family proceedings long before the inception of the family court in 2014. Before that, family magistrates in the civil and county courts would sit on family proceedings and make decisions about arrangements for children. There is a long history of that in our law.

Family magistrates are recruited from the community and bring a diverse range of impartial perspectives and experiences to the court. This diversity helps to ensure decisions are fair. It is crucial that we recognise and preserve their contribution to the family justice system for several compelling reasons, especially in the light of the arguments made by the hon. Gentleman in both his recent article and this debate, suggesting that family magistrates should no longer be able to make child arrangement orders. The House will know that these are family court orders that detail arrangements for a child, including where the child will live and how they will spend time with each parent. The hon. Gentleman has clearly spelled out some of the implications.

The Government appreciate the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman regarding the training of magistrates. However, we believe the existing system has safeguards in place, which I will outline to offer reassurance not only to him but to everyone listening to this debate. I am talking about the training that magistrates receive, the role of the justices’ legal adviser, and the robust protocols the family court has for allocating and reallocating cases.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the quality of training provided to magistrates is of a high standard. To safeguard their independence from Government, the statutory responsibility for training family magistrates rests with the Lady Chief Justice, as set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. These responsibilities are exercised through the Judicial College, which offers a comprehensive training programme to equip family magistrates with the necessary skills and knowledge to handle the intricacies of private law children’s cases effectively. This training ensures that family magistrates are prepared to make informed decisions that prioritise the welfare of the children involved. Further information on the college’s training programme can be found on the judiciary’s website.

When sitting in the family court, family magistrates are supported by the justices’ legal advisers, who are qualified to provide advice on the law and procedures that family magistrates must follow, and who are also subject to an ongoing family training requirement. All judges, including family magistrates who hear applications for child arrangement orders, are obligated by the Children Act 1989 to have the child’s welfare as their paramount consideration and must undergo extensive training. To be appointed as a family magistrate, each individual must undertake training on determining the best interests of the child, navigating the welfare checklists, and ways of communicating with people in court, particularly where there is high conflict.

Let me emphasise and underline the role of justices’ legal advisers in assisting family magistrates in these cases. A panel of family magistrates decides cases with the presence and involvement of the justices’ legal adviser. The recent case law, Derbyshire County Council v. Marsden, confirms that these advisers play

“an integral, and legally required, part of the decision making process.”

Justices’ legal advisers provide essential guidance and support to family magistrates, ensuring that decisions are made with a thorough understanding of the complexities of family law, and always prioritising the best interests of the children involved.

Nor are family magistrates operating in a vacuum. They rely on assessments carried out by trained professionals for arrangement orders, prohibited steps orders and other key rulings when making arrangements for children. This collaborative approach enhances the quality of the family court’s decisions in these very sensitive cases.

Family magistrates do not deal with the most complex cases in the family court. Established rules and guidance determine the appropriate level of judiciary based on a number of factors, including the complexity of the case. Cases involving certain complexities will be immediately allocated to other tiers of the judiciary—district judges, circuit judges and, at the most serious level, High Court judges—in accordance with the issued guidance. It is like a lift that the judiciary enter at the appropriate level.

The judiciary, including family magistrates, have an ongoing duty to keep allocation decisions under review, particularly if further information is received from the parties and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The case can then be reallocated to a more appropriate level of judge depending on the complexity and the issues in the case, and that can happen in the course of proceedings. The system ensures that magistrates handle appropriate cases for which they are trained, while more complex cases are managed at a different level of the judiciary, depending on the issues in the case. The mechanism not only maintains the efficiency of the legal process, but ensures that justice is served appropriately.

Family magistrates also play an essential role in the effective functioning of our family justice system. The number of outstanding cases in the system has grown since 2018, and the average time taken for cases reached a high of 47 weeks in 2023 under the previous Government, which is similar to the data the hon. Member shared earlier. While we have taken steps to address the underlying issues, which means we are on track to reduce the outstanding caseload by more than 10%, there are still significant challenges facing the system. Family magistrates routinely deal with a number of cases about children. Removing that capacity from the system would fundamentally undermine the effective administration of justice, but more than that, the resultant delays in resolving cases would have a profound impact on the wellbeing of the children involved and on parents seeking to resolve their issues.

Furthermore, the Government remain committed to reforming private family law processes where appropriate. Just last week, the Government announced that our new pathfinder model of private family law proceedings will be extended to mid and west Wales in March and to West Yorkshire in June. It is a significant reimagining of private law proceedings, with dedicated support for domestic abuse survivors, up-front multi-agency information sharing and a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the production of a child impact report. Those proceedings allow our judges, including family magistrates, to have a much richer understanding of a family’s circumstances from the outset and ensure that parties are fully supported by professionals.

It is clear that family magistrates are indispensable in hearing private law children’s cases. Their collaboration with justices’ legal advisers, the quality of their training, the mechanisms for allocating and reallocating difficult cases and their contribution in alleviating the burden on all our judges are all critical factors that contribute to a more efficient and effective legal system. By maintaining the involvement of family magistrates in those cases, we can ensure that the best interests of our children, which are what we are all focused on, are upheld and that justice is delivered in a timely and compassionate manner.

Question put and agreed to.

Arbitration Bill [Lords]

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes.

On account of the Bill’s 18 clauses being grouped together, I will speak to them in numerical order. I begin with clause 1, which contains one of the Bill’s key reforms: provision for determining the governing law of an arbitration agreement. This is important because different governing laws may give different answers to important questions such as who is party to the agreement and whether the type of dispute is capable of being arbitrated.

Clause 1 will determine the governing law of the arbitration agreement by replacing the common law approach established in Enka v. Chubb with a new statutory rule. The law governing the arbitration agreement will be the law expressly chosen by the parties. Otherwise, it will be the law of the seat. By way of simple illustration, if someone arbitrates in London, by default the applicable law would be English law.

Whereas the common law approach is complex and uncertain, the new approach in clause 1 is simple and predictable. It reduces the prospect of satellite litigation to determine governing law, which can be slow and costly. Where the arbitration takes place in London, as is the choice in so many international arbitrations, by default the arbitration will be fully supported by English law.

For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to add that an express choice of law to govern the main contract rather than the arbitration agreement is not enough. Clause 1 will not apply where the agreement is derived from standing offers of arbitration contained in treaties or foreign domestic legislation, as with investor-state arbitration, for example, as these are better underpinned by international law and foreign domestic law respectively.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 make provision in relation to the arbitral tribunal. Clause 2 requires an arbitrator to disclose circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality. It will apply prior to the arbitrator’s appointment, when they are being approached with a view to appointment. It will be a continuing duty that also applies after their appointment. This codifies the duty of disclosure recognised by the Supreme Court in its decision in Halliburton v. Chubb and will enhance trust in arbitration.

Clauses 3 and 4 will reassure arbitrators that they can take the right decisions in their proceedings without fear of reprisal from a disappointed party. Clause 3 provides that an arbitrator will not be liable for the costs of an application to court for their removal unless the arbitrator has acted in bad faith. Clause 4 provides that an arbitrator’s resignation does not give rise to any liability unless the resignation is shown by a complainant to be unreasonable.

Clauses 5 and 6 both concern jurisdiction. There are two ways for a party to question the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. One way is to wait until the tribunal has issued a ruling and then challenge that ruling under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which allows a challenge to an arbitral award on the basis that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The other is is by invoking section 32 of that Act, which allows the court to decide whether the tribunal has jurisdiction as a preliminary point.

Clause 5 makes clear that if the tribunal has already ruled on its jurisdiction, any challenge must be brought through section 67. Clause 6 provides that where the arbitral tribunal or court rules that the tribunal has no jurisdiction, that tribunal can nevertheless award the costs of the arbitration proceedings up until that point. This will ensure that if a party wrongly starts arbitration, they can still be held responsible for the wasted costs incurred.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9 deal with arbitral proceedings and the powers of the court. Clause 7 will confer an express power on arbitrators to make an award on a summary basis—that is, adopting an expedited procedure—to dispose of an issue where an arbitrating party has no real prospect of succeeding on that issue. This aligns with the summary judgments available in court proceedings and will deliver more efficient arbitrations. This power can be exercised on application by any of the parties. The procedure to be adopted is not prescribed. It will instead be a matter for the arbitrator to decide on a case by case basis after consulting with the arbitrating parties.

Clause 8 concerns emergency arbitrators. Arbitral rules sometimes provide a regime for the appointment of emergency arbitrators on an interim basis. Such arbitrators can make orders on urgent matters, such as the preservation of evidence, pending the constitution of the full arbitral tribunal. Emergency arbitrators were not commonplace when the 1996 Act was drafted, so it is important that we now expressly empower them. Clause 8 will provide that failing to comply with an order made by the emergency arbitrator will have the same consequences as those for a normal arbitrator.

Clause 9 concerns interim court powers exercisable in support of arbitral proceedings. Under section 44 of the 1996 Act, the court can make orders in support of arbitration proceedings on certain matters—for example, the taking of witness evidence, the preservation of evidence, sales of goods and interim injunctions. Clause 9 will amend section 44 to make it clear that such court orders are also available against third parties. For example, the court will be able to make an order preserving assets against a third party such as a bank. This will mirror the position in court proceedings.

Clauses 10, 11 and 12 concern powers of the court in relation to an arbitral award. An arbitral tribunal can issue an award on whether it has jurisdiction, and it can issue an award on the merits of the dispute. Either type of award can be challenged under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis that the arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction. Clause 10 will equip the courts with the full suite of remedies for section 67 challenges. When the court has a jurisdiction challenge in front of it, it will have two new options: to declare the arbitral award to be of no effect, or to return the matter to the arbitral tribunal for consideration so that a revised award can be made. These remedies already exist for other challenges, for serious irregularities and for appeals on points of law, so this provision fixes something of an inconsistency in the 1996 Act.

Clause 11 also amends section 67 of the 1996 Act. It will confer a power for rules of court to provide that, unless necessary in the interests of justice, there should be no new grounds of objection and no new evidence put before the court unless it was not reasonably possible to put them before the tribunal. The amendments made to section 67 by clause 11 also provide that evidence taken by an arbitral tribunal should not be reheard by the court. This will avoid these challenges from becoming full re-hearings, departing from the precedent set in the case of Dallah v. Pakistan. Re-hearings can involve duplication of time and costs, and it can be unfair to allow a party who lost before the tribunal a complete rerun.

Clause 12 amends section 70 of the 1996 Act, which governs how arbitral awards can be challenged before the courts. It will clarify that the 28-day time limit for such a challenge will start running only after any arbitral process of appeal or correction has concluded.

Clause 13 concerns appeals from High Court decisions and corrects a rare drafting error in the 1996 Act. Section 18 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and section 35 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 were amended by the 1996 Act. When read at face value, those sections currently suggest that High Court decisions made under the 1996 Act can be appealed to the Court of Appeal only if expressly permitted in the 1996 Act.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is clear from what my hon. Friend is saying that the Bill is welcomed by the legal sector. What engagement has he had with the legal sector and relevant stakeholders?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

There has been massive engagement with parties interested in this Bill. The Bill began in the last Parliament, to which I am grateful for the work already done. It began in the Lords, who engaged fully with parties at that stage. The Lords have had to restart the Bill in the new Parliament, so they have had two bites at the cherry, and all the feedback from stakeholders has been very positive. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that out in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I rise in support of this Bill, which introduces important measures to modernise our arbitration framework. We Liberal Democrats welcome the approach that the Government have taken in refining the Bill’s provisions to ensure clarity and effectiveness.

Clause 1 is a key part of this new Bill, and we are fond of the changes made following the recommendations from the Special Public Bill Committee in the previous Parliament. For example, the Committee proposed removing two words to prevent undue confusion, and I am pleased that the Government have accepted that recommendation. In addition, the Government have further clarified that investor state arbitration agreements derived from treaties or non-UK legislation will not be subject to the default rule, which is a welcome and sensible step that is necessary to bring greater legal clarity to the process.

I also welcome the five amendments to clause 11, which enable procedural reforms under section 67 of the 1996 Act. These changes respond directly to concerns raised in the last Committee, and strike the right balance between efficiency and fairness in arbitration proceedings.

Further improvements were made in the other place, where the Government tabled amendments to clause 13 to correct drafting issues, which have been mentioned, and to ensure that access to the Court of Appeal aligns with established case law. These amendments received cross-party support and I am pleased to reinforce the Liberal Democrats’ support for them today.

This Bill strengthens the UK’s arbitration framework by improving clarity, ensuring fairness and refining procedures. We support its passage and urge the House to do the same. We do not expect any problems with that.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I give my sincere thanks to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions today to what has been a succinct and precise debate. We are all agreed that this is an important step forward, and I am particularly grateful to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), for welcoming the improvements to the Bill and recognising that they have been the work of many people in the Lords and the Commons as well as of contributors from outside, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) reminded us earlier.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle raised the important issue of corruption. As I mentioned during the Bill’s Second Reading debate, arbitral corruption is not the result of our domestic framework, which provides several effective remedies to quash corrupt practices. We support sector initiatives to enhance anti-corruption practices such as the International Chamber of Commerce’s anti-corruption taskforce, and we will push for the adoption of best practices as they are developed.

The hon. Member also raised third party litigation and funding issues. The Government have carefully considered the impact of the UK Supreme Court judgment in Paccar, and have decided to wait for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council review before deciding whether to legislate. A comprehensive review of the market will allow us to take a wider range of factors into account. Following the Paccar judgment, concerns have been raised about the need for greater regulation of litigation funding agreements and greater safeguards for claimants. This is therefore an opportune moment to review the status of the market. The review is being undertaken by the Civil Justice Council, supported by a wider consultation group of experts across this area. The final report and recommendations will be published in the summer of 2025, after which the Government will consider the way forward.

The hon. Member also mentioned mandated mediation, and I will try to pick that up as well. The Government agree that dispute resolution, such as mediation, has a key role to play in ending disputes more quickly and cheaply. This is why all parties to a small money claim in the county court are now required to attend a free one-hour mediation appointment with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s small claims mediation service as an integrated step in the litigation journey. This reform will help thousands of people and businesses each year to resolve their legal disputes without the need for a court battle. We will continue to work to drive the uptake of dispute resolution throughout the justice system to allow parties to resolve their disputes more consensually and at an earlier stage.

That concludes my responses to the points raised during the Committee of the whole House. I once again thank all those who have contributed to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Let me first thank all Members of this House and the other place who have spoken in support of this important Bill and the reforms within it. I am particularly grateful for the support expressed on Second Reading by the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover); the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) has added his approval today as well. I am also grateful to all the hon. and right hon. Members who contributed to this afternoon’s Committee proceedings. It is encouraging to see enthusiasm on both sides of the House for further improving our already world-leading arbitral framework, and for the business that those changes will generate.

I also thank the many noble Lords who have given this Bill and its predecessor in the last Parliament such thoughtful consideration. Without their input and expertise, the Bill would not be so finely tuned. I pay tribute to the former special Public Bill Committee, which marshalled expert evidence from the sector, the judiciary and the world of academia. That Committee was ably and expertly led by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I am also grateful to all the other noble and learned Lords who have contributed to the passage of both Arbitration Bills in the other place, particularly Lord Hacking, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, Lord Verdirame, Lord Beith, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Mance. I wish to give special mention to Lord Bellamy, who first introduced these important reforms to Parliament as a Justice Minister under the previous Government.

Of course, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Law Commission for its exceptional work reviewing the Arbitration Act 1996 and recommending the reforms that are being taken forward in the Bill. Professor Sarah Green and her colleagues at the commission have led what can only be described as a masterclass in public consultation and law reform. I particularly thank Dr Nathan Tamblyn for his work leading the commission’s review, and for the support he gave the Ministry of Justice in taking forward this legislation. It is fair to say that no one knows the Arbitration Bill better than Nathan. His contributions to this area of the law will, no doubt, have a long-lasting and positive effect.

This Bill has greatly benefited from the input of experts and practitioners from across the arbitration community. Their contributions were made both through the Law Commission consultations and during evidence-taking by the former Arbitration Bill’s special Public Bill Committee. As has been recognised by both Houses, it is vital that our modernised arbitral law works effectively in practice. This has been made possible by the involvement of those who will use this legislation once it comes into force.

Lastly, I put on record my thanks to the officials who have worked on this Bill since it was introduced in the last Parliament. I thank the policy lead, Lee Pedder, the Bill manager, Iona Bonaventura, and Helen Hall from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. I also thank my excellent private secretary, Gillian Atkinson.

I conclude by highlighting again the importance of this Bill for the arbitration sector and for UK economic growth more generally. We have a proud history of arbitration on these shores—a point that I covered in some detail on Second Reading. Since the 1996 Act came into force almost 30 years ago, the UK has been the chosen arbitral location for many thousands of disputes from across the world. This House can be confident that the modernisation in the Bill will enable our jurisdiction to continue playing that vital role for many years. This is very much a growth Bill—a growth Bill from a growth Government. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Prison Capacity Review

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

My noble Friend, the Minister of State for Justice (Lord Timpson), has made the following statement:

Unlike the previous Government, this Government have a plan to ensure we are never again in a position where we have more prisoners than prison places. We have launched the independent sentencing review to ensure that our future prison system is sustainable, in balance and that there is always space in prison for dangerous offenders. In December, we published the 10-year prison capacity strategy and the first annual statement on prison capacity. Our strategy is detailed, setting our commitment to build the 14,000 places the last Government failed to deliver, with the aim of completing the build programme by 2031. Our plan is realistic, recognising that prison building is complex. We are also committed to improving transparency via the publication of an annual statement on prison capacity.

The Lord Chancellor announced that we would be launching a review into the handling of prison capacity. The previous Government’s approach to the criminal justice system was flawed and this review will consider the reasons why prison supply and demand did not meet, making recommendations that may help future Governments avoid the cycle of repeated prison capacity crises, helping to guide our strategy.

Specifically, the review will consider strategic supply and demand choices and how these choices affected remaining prison capacity. It will shine a light on relevant decision making and an analysis of impacts on the wider criminal justice system. Alongside this written ministerial statement, the terms of reference for the review have been published on www.gov.uk.

The Lord Chancellor has appointed Dame Anne Owers to lead the review. Her extensive knowledge of the criminal justice system means that this review will be conducted to the highest standards. The review will report its findings in spring 2025.

[HCWS426]

Justice

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill [Lords] on 29 January 2025.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am getting towards the end of going through the clauses. In fact, I have come to the last and final clause that I wish to comment upon, clause 15, as you had probably worked out, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that usually comes after clause 14. [Laughter.] There is no clause 16, so clause 15 is the final clause.

[Official Report, 29 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 335.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin):

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am getting towards the end of going through the clauses. In fact, I have come to the last and final clause that I wish to comment upon, clause 15, as you had probably worked out, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that usually comes after clause 14. [Laughter.] Clause 15 is the final clause I will speak to today.

Arbitration Bill [Lords]

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am pleased to be opening this Second Reading debate on the Government’s Arbitration Bill. This legislation is a direct response to recommendations made by the Law Commission of England and Wales in its report on arbitral reform, published in September 2023. If enacted, the Bill will make targeted reforms to the Arbitration Act 1996, which governs arbitration in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland has its own devolved arbitral framework under the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010, which this Bill will not affect.

Arbitration is a major area of business activity. For example, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, headquartered in London, has more than 17,000 members across 149 countries. As the House will know, arbitration is greatly valued by individuals and businesses alike as an alternative to going to court, giving parties the ability to appoint a private tribunal to resolve disputes by issuing a binding and enforceable award. For example, when parties enter into a commercial contract, it is common to find a clause that provides that any disputes will be resolved through arbitration in this great capital city of London, rather than through litigation in court. That is often true even where a contract has no other connection to the UK, such is the prestige of arbitration here. Furthermore, thanks to an international convention commonly called the New York convention, which dates from 1958, arbitration awards made in the UK can be enforced anywhere in the world. Studies suggest that such enforcement is often faster and more reliable than seeking to enforce court judgments.

The New York convention may date from 1958, but arbitration has been a feature of our justice system for centuries. Arbitration was a common way of settling disputes back in Anglo-Saxon times. It was largely a public affair, with enforcement through community pressure. By Norman times, parties could choose their arbitrator, someone known to both sides and well placed to facilitate a reconciliation. In the 14th century—[Interruption.] The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), is enjoying my little canter through the historical background, which I am sure the massed attendance this afternoon is also enjoying. In the 14th century, the mayor and aldermen of London set up, in effect, an arbitration centre here in this great city. This also provided services to foreign traders whose disputes had no other connection to England. Arbitration then grew in Elizabethan times, and by the mid-18th century arbitration clauses were very common, as were professional arbitrators.

It is said that our first arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act 1698, was single-handedly drafted by the famous political philosopher John Locke after he had been tasked by the then Board of Trade to devise a scheme that would help merchants to reach a satisfactory settlement of their disputes. John Locke’s arbitral framework fitted on one or two sides of paper, which is a real achievement, is it not? If only we could emulate that today, but things have got more complicated and therefore more precise. Arbitration has come a long way since then, though we salute John Locke and his efforts in setting us on this journey.

Today, arbitration happens in a very wide range of settings, from rent reviews through commodity trades and shipping to international commercial contracts and investor claims against states. In each instance, it enables parties to resolve the dispute at hand and move on from it. The parties can choose a neutral venue to resolve their dispute. They can choose trusted arbitrators or arbitral institutions to preside over the proceedings. I add with emphasis that some of the world’s leading trade and arbitral institutions are headquartered here in London. I may have mentioned that before, but we need to be proud of it. They range from the aforementioned Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the London Court of International Arbitration to important specialist organisations concerned with matters such as shipping and trade in grains, oils and sugars.

Parties can tailor the arbitration process to their own needs, which results in an award that is internationally enforceable. At the same time, the process is respected for its integrity—at least, that is the position here in the UK, thanks in large measure to the regulation of arbitration through the Arbitration Act 1996. The Act ensures that arbitration is conducted in a way that is impartial, fair and without unnecessary cost and delay. The English courts, which command much respect worldwide, retain a supervisory jurisdiction.

Building on its extensive history of arbitration, and thanks to its legislative framework, London has become the world’s leading destination for international arbitration. It is highly respected as a neutral venue for resolving disputes across the world, something in which we all rightly take immense pride. In fact, the Law Commission estimates that at least 5,000 arbitrations take place in England and Wales each year, directly contributing at least £2.5 billion a year to our economy in fees alone. So arbitration and the Bill are part of our growth agenda for our great country. However, as arbitration is a largely private affair, we may speculate that its direct value is likely to be even greater than that £2.5 billion.

Arbitration is also an important offering in our country’s international business package, one that includes legal services, banking, insurance and trade. It is a great advantage of our jurisdiction that business can be done here in the knowledge that when legal disputes arise, they can be resolved swiftly and fairly. We enjoy a worldwide reputation for the quality, independence and ethics of our legal professions. It is therefore no surprise that arbitration here in London is a showcase for that, or that it is very much in demand.

Given that the Arbitration Act 1996 is approaching 30 years of age, the previous Government rightly asked the Law Commission to undertake a thorough review of the legislation back in 2021. It was tasked with determining whether the 1996 Act required amendment to reflect modern practices and maintain its effectiveness in a growing global market when competing jurisdictions had already updated their own arbitral frameworks. The Law Commission was painstaking in its review, carrying out the commission given to it by the previous Government, and I pay tribute to the members of the Law Commission for their painstaking work on this matter, from which we all benefit.

An initial consultation paper was published in September 2022. It laid out the Law Commission’s analysis of the law as it stood and proposed a small number of areas for reform. That consultation received responses from abroad and from an expert base of consultees including individual practitioners, academics, specialist bodies and international firms and institutions, as well as from our judiciary. Taking this feedback on board, the Law Commission refined its proposals and published a second consultation paper in March 2023. After yet another round of engagement, final proposals and a draft Bill were published in September 2023.

As I said, this process has been painstaking and thorough, and we need to credit everybody involved, including the Conservatives for their leadership of the process during that time. It is a testament to the longevity and flexibility of our arbitral framework that only targeted updates were recommended, with the Law Commission concluding that while some modernisation of the 1996 Act was needed and desirable, root and branch reform was not. And it is testament to the Law Commission’s thorough consultation that the Bill commands such support in the arbitral and legal sectors.

I cannot resist adding that the work has been watched carefully by our competitor jurisdictions abroad. The Law Commission’s report was cited by the Singapore court of its own initiative, and in the last few months, seeing the positive developments here, France has announced a need to review its own arbitration laws. We lead the way, and this Bill will ensure that we stay ahead.

As hon. and right hon. Members will be aware, the previous Government introduced an Arbitration Bill in 2023 that also sought to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations. That Bill had made its way through Committee in the other place when Parliament was dissolved for the general election. The legal sector was emphatic in expressing the view that the proposed reforms are vital for updating the arbitral framework and making sure that our jurisdiction remains competitive.

We are first in global class on arbitration, and this Bill will ensure that we stay first in global class. The Government agree wholeheartedly with the legal sector’s view, not least because of our commitment to fostering economic growth in our country. As such, this Bill was introduced in the other place at the very earliest opportunity in July 2024, as one of the first acts of this Government after the general election. I am pleased to see the Bill finally arrive in this House, as I am sure you are, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is worth saying that the 1996 Act boasts some key strengths. It provides flexible procedures that allow parties to shape proceedings to best suit them. Parties can, for example, arbitrate their dispute with one of our jurisdiction’s many world-leading arbitral institutions, which have developed procedures that parties trust will deliver a fair and timely outcome.

Our current framework also permits effective recourse to our courts, where needed. Parties can request that our courts determine a preliminary matter in the arbitration, such as jurisdiction, or later challenge an award produced by arbitration. Arbitrators can similarly apply to the courts to assist their proceedings, such as by enforcing their orders. At the same time, the regime of court support is carefully balanced to prevent parties from dragging their feet and re-litigating cases. This gives parties huge confidence that arbitrations taking place in our jurisdiction are both efficient and fair.

Many of this Bill’s reforms are designed to build on the strengths of the 1996 Act. I will now go through the key clauses, because I can tell that Members are deeply interested in checking through the detail so that, should we move to a vote, we know exactly what we are voting on.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Quite right.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am pleased to see the Opposition spokesman give me a willing eye of encouragement, for which I am duly grateful.

I start at the beginning. Clause 1 will make it much simpler to determine what law applies to an arbitration agreement. Currently, the rules for identifying the governing law are found in the common law and a recent Supreme Court decision. That decision shows both immense learning and the complexity of the current approach. The Supreme Court was split in its judgment, and its approach was different from that of the Court of Appeal, which used an approach different from that at first instance.

Instead, to make the law clearer and more predictable, clause 1 provides that the governing law will align with the legal location—that is, the seat—of the arbitration by default. This will ensure that arbitrations, where seated in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, will be fully supported by our law, which is among the most supportive of arbitration globally.

Clause 2 codifies a duty for arbitrators to disclose circumstances that may cause doubts as to their impartiality. This will codify the common law and align domestic law with international best practice, such as the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law model law, which our expert lawyers had a major hand in drafting. The model law’s influence can be found in other jurisdictions as far apart as Scotland and Switzerland. It will promote trust in arbitration by promoting trust in the integrity and impartiality of arbitrators.

Clause 3 and, in the interest of briskness, clause 4 will support arbitrators in making impartial and proper decisions by extending their immunity against liability when they resign for good reason or are removed for no fault of their own. This will support arbitrators to make robust and impartial decisions without fear.

Clause 5 clarifies the two pathways for a party that wants to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitrators—that wants to question whether the dispute should be arbitrated at all. The party can either apply to the court for an early ruling, or it can wait until the award is issued and then go to court. Clause 5 clarifies that it cannot do both. It is either/or.

Clause 6 ensures that, where arbitrators agree that they should not be hearing a dispute after all, they can still award the costs incurred up to that point against the party that generated those costs.

Clause 7 will allow arbitrators to adopt expedited procedures to dispense with issues that have no real prospect of success. This aligns with summary judgments available in court proceedings and will make arbitrations more efficient.

We move seamlessly to clause 8, which will help emergency arbitrators. Emergency arbitrators are appointed on a temporary basis while a full tribunal is being established—that process can sometimes take weeks. They are, therefore, very important to arbitrations. They are often tasked with vital preliminary matters, such as preserving evidence or assets, and are important to ensuring that arbitrations can proceed smoothly. As the practice of emergency arbitrators post-dates the 1996 Act, our framework did not make explicit provision for them, so looking again gives us an opportunity to examine their role.

Clause 8 empowers emergency arbitrators to handle urgent matters better and ensure compliance with their directions by equipping them with final orders and court enforcement. That will give emergency arbitrators the same pathways to enforce their orders as other arbitrators, and will enhance their effectiveness.

Clause 9 provides that court orders made in support of arbitral proceedings can be made against third parties, which aligns with the position in court proceedings. For example, it would enable a party to arbitration to get an order freezing assets held by a third party, such as a bank.

Clause 10 ensures that when a party challenges an arbitral award at court, the court has the full range of remedies available, regardless of the pathway. This clause irons out discrepancies that courts and practitioners have otherwise sought to work around.

Clause 11 provides more efficient court challenges to the tribunals jurisdiction through rules of court that would prohibit repeating evidence and arguments already debated in front of the tribunal. That will avoid such challenges becoming full re-hearings, reducing costs and delays.

I can deal with clause 12 pretty quickly, you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker. Clause 12 ensures that the time limit for challenging awards is consistent across the Act.

Clause 13 corrects a rare example of a drafting error. What the Act meant to say was that court orders could be appealed, but in some cases there would be restrictions. What it actually said was that court orders could be appealed only where there were restrictions. To its credit, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords spotted this error and interpreted the statute as it was meant to be read. We have taken this opportunity to correct the drafting to reflect the judicial ruling, as a useful bit of tidying up.

Clause 14 streamlines the requirements for applying to court to obtain preliminary rulings from the court on questions of law, or on whether the arbitrators have jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Early rulings, such as those from expert judges, can save time and cost.

I am getting towards the end of going through the clauses. In fact, I have come to the last and final clause that I wish to comment upon, clause 15, as you had probably worked out, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that usually comes after clause 14. [Laughter.] There is no clause 16, so clause 15 is the final clause. Clause 15 repeals provisions that were never brought into force, simply to tidy up the Act. Those provisions would have meant slight differences in approach between domestic arbitrations and international arbitrations. In the event, they were never used or needed, never brought into force and there remains no demand for them. Our arbitration law is first class and applies equally to domestic and international arbitrations, so removing the provisions is a helpful way to tidy things up.

In sum, the Bill will greatly approve the arbitral process in our jurisdiction and further cement our position as a top global business destination, where legal disputes can be resolved fairly and quickly. The Bill has already gone through the other place, where it received considerable examination and support from noble and learned Members, including many experienced arbitrators. There are, apparently, a lot of experienced arbitrators in the other place, and they brought their knowledge, experience and expertise to the debate, for which we are very grateful.

Indeed, I emphasise that the Bill has been reviewed by Members of the other place not once, but twice. The first time, scrutiny was provided by a Committee, led by the noble and learned Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that took further evidence from expert stakeholders. The several technical improvements made to the previous Bill because of that work are retained in this Bill. This time, the Bill was reviewed on the Floor of the other place, where the Government amended clause 13 to fix a long-standing error in our framework on arbitral appeals.

I have been quite thorough in covering the ground. I hope all Members feel they have got a good understanding of the issues behind the Bill and why we need to take the steps that I am urging the whole House to take.

To conclude, I second the remarks made by Lord Thomas on Third Reading:

“We must find a means of doing this very rapidly, as we must keep English law—I say English law deliberately—attractive and at the forefront of use internationally, for the benefit of our whole economy.”

—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1499.]

I hope the House agrees, and will give the Bill a Second Reading.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

A tour de force. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank all Members for their contributions. I thank the Conservative spokesperson for recognising, as we do, the work of Lord Bellamy, Lord Hacking and other peers in the other place, as well as everybody who has contributed to where we are today. I also very much welcome what the Liberal Democrats spokesman said on the tackling of issues through the process—that is, giving greater confidence about tackling corruption risk and the issues around the right of appeal. I am grateful for the constructive way in which this debate has been pursued.

The Bill mirrors that of the last Government’s, save for two changes, which I will note here for completeness. The first, as I mentioned in my opening speech, was the amendment to clause 13 to better reflect the case law on appeals. The drafting error it fixed was in section 18 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and in section 35 of its Northern Ireland equivalent, the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. That suggested that appeals to the court of appeal under part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 would only be permitted if expressly permitted in the 1996 Act. However, case law established that the intended regime for appeals under the 1996 Act was to permit appeals to the Court of Appeal, unless there is provision in the 1996 Act that adds an explicit restriction on those appeals. I hope that deals with that issue.

Clause 13 therefore corrects the drafting error identified in the House of Lords’ judgment in Inco Europe v. First Choice Distribution and makes it clear that appeals from High Court decisions under part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 may, subject to provision in that part, be made to the Court of Appeal. A slight amendment to the long title was also required to reflect that change.

The second change was to clause 1, which we made prior to the Bill’s introduction to Parliament. That was to address concerns about the effect on arbitrations between investors and states, in particular those that follow from an open invitation to arbitrate made in a trade agreement or in domestic legislation. The current position is that those arbitrations are governed by international law and foreign domestic law. Sector feedback made clear that that is what should continue. Our change therefore provides that new section 6A(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 does not apply to arbitration agreements derived from standing offers to arbitrate contained in treaties or non-UK legislation. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) wish to interject?

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I just a pause for a little reflection while I gather my thoughts on the other issues to do with arbitral corruption. I am sure the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire, for whom I have the highest regard, would not want me to skimp on dealing with arbitral corruption, which has been raised by both the speakers in the debate so far.

[Richard Fuller]

indicated assent.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am encouraged by his nodding.

We take corruption very seriously. However, we have concluded that arbitral corruption is not caused by any issue with our domestic arbitral framework. The Arbitration Act 1996 and common law already provide remedies to deal with corrupt conduct. The courts are empowered to set aside arbitral awards where there are serious irregularities, as they have done recently in the well-known case of Nigeria v. P&ID. Furthermore, arbitrators are under a statutory duty to be impartial and to reach a fair resolution of the dispute. They can issue an award that prevents the corrupt party from benefiting. Although arbitration procedures are often private, corruption can be exposed. Common law allows an exception to confidentiality when disclosure is in the public interest.

However, there is a need for arbitral practitioners and institutions across the world to ensure that their practices are continually developing to weed out attempts to exploit them. We shall support and keep track of initiatives that are under way, such as that of the International Chamber of Commerce’s anti-corruption taskforce. We will engage with the sector to adopt the very best practices as they are developed. I hope that that assures the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover).

I give my sincere thanks to right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It has been a measured and helpful debate, which underscores the broad support for this legislative programme. I am happy to have heard so much support for this Bill, particularly those contributions that emphasise its importance to economic growth. Our legal services are a vital element of our economy both for creating favourable domestic business conditions and for attracting investment in the UK. And this Government will continue to support them.

I re-emphasise that these reforms are very much appreciated. Many businesses will be deciding whether to designate London as their seat of arbitration versus competitors such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Sweden or Dubai, which have updated their arbitral frameworks in recent times. This decision is not just to settle disputes via arbitration now. Arbitration agreements are often pre-emptive, so these businesses will be making a decision as to where and how disputes may be settled many years in the future.

For the past quarter of a century, our Arbitration Act and our law have been a key draw, making our shores the natural choice for arbitration. In 1996, we created a truly world-leading legislative framework, which contributed to London becoming the preferred forum for arbitration proceedings across the globe. We must maintain our leading position and continue to attract businesses to ensure economic growth. It was therefore important that these measures sought only to improve the arbitral process and promote trust in arbitration. It would have been no good had these reforms created red tape—we would not want to see that.

Arbitration must remain a quicker and a more flexible means by which to resolve a legal dispute versus going to court. But also it is key to promote trust in arbitration to ensure that proceedings on our shores remain robust and respected internationally. The Law Commission needs to be commended for doing such a brilliant job—a superb job—reviewing our framework line by line and seeing where improvements can be made. This Bill contains, as I have said, the expertise and wisdom of myriad practitioners, experts, firms, judges and others.

I will, if I may, indulge in sharing some of the supportive quotes from the sector about the Law Commission’s work.

[Dr Mullan]

No!

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I have only a few. [Laughter.] The House would be the poorer for not hearing these quotes—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I feel that it is important to share them. More are available, but I will restrict myself to just a few. The Bar Council said:

“We welcome the Law Commission’s characteristically careful and balanced review of the Arbitration Act, and we support the proposals for reform which it makes. It is extremely important that the government finds parliamentary time,”—

we are doing that—

“for the short bill which the Law Commission proposes. London has a well-deserved reputation as the foremost centre”—

the foremost centre—

“for international arbitration. It is important to legislate to make the modest changes to the arbitration regime which the Law Commission has recommended in order to maintain and enhance that reputation.”

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators said that it welcomes

“the proposed changes, the majority of which are in line with our recommendations, which were informed by input from our membership… It is a sign of the Arbitration Act 1996’s strength and value that only specific changes to ensure that Act remains current have been recommended as opposed to an overhaul. As well as underpinning the attractiveness and competitiveness of London as an arbitration seat, the Act forms the basis of legislation in many other jurisdictions, lending global significance to this development.”

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

“worked closely with the UK Law Commission to inform the review. We support regular review of such legislation to ensure arbitration remains effective, fit for purpose, and a viable means of justice in a modern world.”

White & Case LLP said that

“we expect that the amendments proposed by the Law Commission will promote the efficiency and finality of arbitration proceedings, whilst not unnecessarily introducing drastic reform to existing legislation. The Report therefore is to be welcomed as a positive, incremental step in maintaining London’s position as a major centre for international arbitration and dispute resolution more generally.”

The last quote is one of many positive comments that have been received on what we are doing today and on the Law Commission’s work. Herbert Smith Freehills LLP said:

“There can be no suggestion that any changes are being made for change’s sake. The Law Commission has respected the importance of this legislation and sought only to make changes that are necessary…If enacted into law, they will continue to ensure that the arbitration legislation of England and Wales maintains its market-leading status.”

That is what we all want, Madam Deputy Speaker. We want this Arbitration Bill, which began under the previous Government and was completed under this Government, to maintain our market-leading status. We are determined to do that by working together across this House.

Those are, I assure the House, only a small sample of those who engage with, and support, the Law Commission’s review. However, I will also highlight that these comments were made almost a year and a half ago now on the publication of the Law Commission’s final report. Although it is indeed the case that law reform can take some time, this Government are committed to ensuring that these reforms find their way on to our statute book as quickly as possible.

We must ensure that the Bill faces no further delay. These measures must now proceed at pace through the House. Dispute resolution matters. Disputes that go unresolved are bad for the parties and have knock-on consequences for everyone else. At best, disputes distract from firms getting on with their business and individuals getting on with their lives. At worst, the slow and stressful impact of legal disputes can have much greater impacts elsewhere. Businesses may have money tied up in litigation that could and should go towards investment. Individuals may find that a protracted court battle, with its costs and delays, may lead to sickness, which of course will have its own knock-on effect on economic productivity.

Resolving disputes allows everyone to move forward—all the more so if disputes can be resolved by a process that is trusted and respected and that can be tailored flexibly to the needs of those involved. It is no wonder that arbitration has proved such a popular method for resolving disputes in the UK and why UK arbitration has proved such a popular method for resolving disputes worldwide.

I will also take a moment to compliment the other excellent forms of dispute resolution on our shores. In the construction sector, many disputes will by default go to an expedited adjudication with experts, allowing for a quick determination that enables the project to proceed without further delay. We also boast an excellent network of ombudsmen, which deal with all manner of disputes, including consumer matters. We also have a growing mediation sector, which, in both commercial and family matters, is expert at facilitating negotiation between parties to come to a truly consensual resolution to disputes.

The Bill will enact long-awaited reforms to our arbitration law framework, which will enable more efficient dispute resolution for domestic and international parties alike. It will attract international legal business and promote UK economic growth—not just directly because arbitrations happen here, but because it promotes the UK as a one-stop shop for business. Our arbitrations are respected, and so too are our lawyers engaged in arbitrations—lawyers who are then engaged for transactional businesses; business that is funded by our banks, underwritten by our insurers and mediated through our trading houses; and trading houses that also offer arbitral services in a mutually reinforcing offering.

The Bill ensures that our arbitration law is cutting edge. As I have said, it has attracted attention the world over, serving as a reminder of why the UK remains a premier destination internationally for businesses everywhere. The Bill is therefore of great importance to the legal services sector and to the Government. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Victims and Prisons Act 2024: Commencement of Parts 1 and 4

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I am pleased to announce that today the Government have commenced the first tranche of victim-related measures in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. This underscores the Government’s commitment to ensuring that victims receive the vital information and support they need. As well as provisions that inform the meaning of part 1 of the Act, such as the definition of “victim”, we are also commencing the following measures:

First, we have commenced the obligation on those who provide victims code services to comply with the victims code unless there is a good reason not to. This underlines our commitment to ensuring victims receive the service that they deserve under the victims code, and that agencies are held to account for delivering this.

Secondly, we have commenced new measures that will help the Victims Commissioner to better hold bodies accountable for how they are delivering for victims. This includes:

bringing new bodies into the commissioner’s remit, including the criminal justice inspectorates and additional Government Departments;

requiring that those subject to the code compliance duty in section 5 of the Act to co-operate with the commissioner, for example, complying with reasonable requests for data or access when requested, so far as it is appropriate and reasonably practicable;

making clear that the commissioner can include recommendations in their statutory reports, whether made annually or to the Secretary of State throughout the year; and requiring that those within the commissioner’s remit respond to recommendations made in those reports where relevant to them within 56 days; and requiring criminal justice inspectorates to consult the commissioner when developing their inspection frameworks and programmes.

Together, these measures will enable the commissioner to gain a deeper understanding of the victims landscape. They will also foster greater transparency and accountability between authorities, encouraging good practice and respectful treatment of victims.

Finally, we have commenced the measure that will simplify the complaints process for victims who need to escalate their complaints. Where victims of crime want to make complaints to the Parliamentary Health Services Ombudsman (PHSO) relating to their experience as a victim, this measure removes the so-called “MP-filter” which required victims to make these complaints via their Member of Parliament. The measure also enables those acting on behalf of a victim to bypass the filter and make the victim’s complaint directly. This means victims can choose whether to make their complaint themselves, or through an MP or other trusted person if they prefer.

By implementing this initial tranche of measures, we are laying a stronger foundation for victims to have confidence that they will receive the information and support they need and deserve. We will continue to build on this foundation through the Government’s manifesto commitments to increase the powers of the Victims Commissioner and introduce independent legal advisers for rape victims, ensuring there is more accountability where the needs of victims are not being met.

[HCWS393]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

2. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of the terms and conditions for prison officers’ pensions on the recruitment of prison officers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our prison staff for the essential work that they do? We are committed to improving the retention of experienced staff, because they are vital to keeping our prisons running. The Lord Chancellor has requested advice from officials on the pension age of prison officers, and we will continue to engage with trade unions as this is considered.

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the Minister for his warm words and encouraging remarks. He will know that in Scotland the “68 is too late” campaign by the Prison Officers Association enjoys cross-party and Scottish Government support, but the UK Government have refused to take action on this important issue. The current retirement terms ignore the reality of the frontline role that prison officers perform in prisons on a daily basis across the UK. It is a dangerous role, and no less so than that of firefighters or the police, who enjoy very different terms. Although justice is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the pensions of Scottish prison officers are controlled by the UK Government. So will the Minister or the Secretary of State commit the Government to reviewing the current prison officer retirement age of 68, and will he meet me to hear this case in more detail?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

As I have said, the Lord Chancellor has requested advice on this matter. We promote our strong employee total reward package as part of our recruitment. The terms and conditions of the civil service pension scheme are some of the best in the public sector, with a low employee contribution rate and a significant employer contribution rate of 28.97%. However, that does not mean it is not a right and proper question to ask, and if the hon. Member wishes to have a meeting with me, I am quite happy to meet him.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to support female offenders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

18. What steps her Department is taking to support female offenders.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

This Government’s plan to support women is clear and ambitious: to reduce the number of women going to prison and to have fewer women’s prisons. Our Women’s Justice Board, which met for the first time last week, will support implementing this vision. I would also remind the House that, as the Minister responsible for youth justice, I have initiated a review of the placement of girls in custody, on which Susannah Hancock will report at the end of this month.

[John Whitby]

What family support is available for women at Foston Hall prison and young offenders institution?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We know that family support is very important to women in custody, which is why grant funding has been awarded to the charity Parents And Children Together—PACT—to provide a resettlement family engagement worker in HMP Foston Hall, as well as in seven other women’s prisons.

[Jayne Kirkham]

Gaie Delap, the mother of a constituent of mine, was recalled to prison just before Christmas, despite complying with her curfew conditions, because the Government’s electronic monitoring services contractor could not fulfil its contract and find a tag to fit a frail 78-year-old woman. Can the Minister and the Secretary of State help to find a solution so that Gaie Delap can be released on her curfew, and so that women are not disadvantaged by the failings of the contractor’s electronic monitoring system?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. In this case the court’s decision was to impose a prison sentence, and neither Ministers nor officials can intervene in sentences passed down by our independent courts. I understand the frustrations and can assure the House that we are working hard to find alternative approaches to ensure a secure resolution to this issue.

[Paul Davies]

There are more than 3,000 women prisoners in England and Wales—a number that the Ministry of Justice projects will rise to 4,200 by November 2027. Like many, I welcome the newly established Women’s Justice Board, which will oversee efforts to tackle this issue and ensure a tailored approach to female offenders. What measures are being implemented to provide support through community sentences and residential women’s centres?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We are awarding £7.2 million for the upcoming year to community organisations and local areas that are already supporting women in the community. We are also employing options to increase the use of residential provision as an alternative to short custodial sentences. That includes engaging with the judiciary to ensure that the option of a community order with a residential requirement is considered in appropriate cases.

[Becky Gittins]

I welcome the launch of the Women’s Justice Board, which is intended to reduce the number of women in our prisons, cut reoffending and better support our children. Will the Minister work with organisations from across the country, including North Wales Women’s Centre, to ensure not only that their voices are at the heart of the work going on, but that they have the resources and support needed to support the most vulnerable in our society?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I pay tribute to women’s centres across the country such as that in north Wales for the excellent contribution that their work makes. I agree that short custodial sentences can be problematic; they exacerbate women’s underlying needs without allowing time for rehabilitation, and they separate mothers from children and mean that women are more likely to reoffend. That is why the Women’s Justice Board—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming it—aims to increase the number of women supported in the community. The board will also look at how we can better support mothers with young children.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that allowing biological men into women’s prisons increases the risk to female offenders? Does he further accept that only biological women should be housed in women’s prisons?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The vast majority of transgender prisoners are in men’s prisons. We have continued the policy of the previous Government, but all policies are always under review.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Across the UK we face the bizarre and worrying reality that common-sense protections for women are being dismissed. For example, in Northern Ireland a motion to ensure that biologically male prisoners who identify as women are held in male prisons has been opposed by many elected representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and it is an issue that extends across the UK. What assurances—we do want assurances—can the Minister give that women’s safety is taken seriously, and that they are guaranteed single-sex spaces in prisons, and other settings, free from biological males who identify as women?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Safe spaces for women are crucial and a No. 1 priority in everything we do.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Minister refers to keeping under review the question of placing biological men in women’s prisons. Will he speak to the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and ensure that she reviews that policy? Only last week she was defending the very policy that puts women at risk from biological men who are claiming the right to be retained in women’s prisons.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

That is a devolved matter, though clearly we are happy to speak to the devolved Government about any issues.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

5. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the lessons learned following the Southport attack.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

20. What steps her Department is taking to increase prison capacity.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

We took immediate action to prevent the collapse of the prison system by implementing SDS40. We are building 14,000 new prison places and have published our 10-year capacity strategy. We have launched an independent sentencing review, so that we never run out of prison places again.

[Luke Myer]

I welcome the Government’s action to increase prison capacity, but I am worried about youth custody. My local police force is particularly concerned that there is simply not enough space in the secure custodial estate. Many vulnerable young people are at risk of being exploited by organised criminal gangs. That is less to do with young offenders institutions and more to do with the lack of capacity in secure children’s homes; that capacity has fallen since 2010. The number of Ministry of Justice contracted spaces is now around only 100 for the entire country, which is appalling. How will the Minister work with Department for Education to increase capacity, and protect vulnerable young people and our residents?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We certainly do not wish to reduce capacity. I can confirm that we contract with local authorities’ secure children’s homes, and place children there. In 2010 we contracted for 191 beds, and currently we contract for 103. That correlates with a decrease in the number of young people in custody, mostly over the period when the Conservatives were in government. We do not currently intend to reduce overall capacity in the youth custody service estate, which comprises young offender institutions, secure training centres, secure school and SCH beds. However, we are recommissioning secure children’s home places, and cannot predetermine the outcome of that exercise, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will not run out of space.

[Mark Sewards]

December’s annual report on prison capacity stated that of the 88,400 prison places available, 97% are occupied, and it estimated that by 2032 we will have a prison capacity of around 99,000, but the central estimate of the number of prisoners stands at 104,100. What will this Government do to ensure that everyone who commits a crime worthy of prison is sent to prison?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I assure my hon. Friend that that will be the case. People who commit a crime worthy of prison will be sent to prison. As we have assured the House, we have plans to build 14,000 new prison places, as set out in our 10-year capacity strategy. In six months we have added 500 prison places. It took 14 years for the Conservatives to do that. We have also launched an independent sentencing review, so that we never run out of places again. Taken together, these measures will ensure that the country does not have more prisoners than we have space for in our prisons.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On building capacity, armed forces veterans concern me and many in this Chamber. They often live with post-traumatic stress disorder and have emotional memories and nightmares of what they have done in uniform for this country. What extra can be done to better look after our veterans in prison? They fight with demons every day. We have to look after them.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The armed forces covenant affects us all. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service ensures that veterans’ issues are properly addressed with the individuals concerned, to give them the proper support that they need.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

9. What steps she is taking to support survivors of domestic abuse and violence against women through the criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

11. What steps she is taking to improve prison conditions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

The right hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. We inherited historic under-investment in maintenance and a rising prison population. That is why we have already published our 10-year prison capacity strategy and have plans to invest £220 million in prison and probation service maintenance in ’24-25, and up to £300 million in ’25-26.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I rise as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. The emergency extra money to tackle the squalid state of our prisons is welcome, but given the £2 billion maintenance backlog, the reality is that the extra money will not touch the sides. This shows exactly why the privatisation of prison maintenance is a failed model. Private contractors may win contracts on low bids, but billions come in as extra cost later. Does the Minister seriously think that current prison maintenance providers offer good service and value for money to the taxpayer?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The right hon. Lady is right. We inherited contracts that were already well progressed; for best value and to move things forward quickly, we decided it was important to keep going with that process. However, I can assure the House that we have an open mind regarding private and public sector contracts in the future. The important thing is to get best value for money and get the job done.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Katie Allan was a beautiful and bright young woman, and would have been a constituent of mine but for the fact that, aged 21, she found herself, after a youthful stupid mistake, in Polmont young offenders institution, where she died from suicide. The fatal incident inquiry recently published into her death and the death of William Brown found that they both might be alive today were it not for a catalogue of errors by the Scottish Prison Service. The families of those who have lost children in such circumstances are campaigning for Crown immunity to be removed from prisons across Britain, so that there is proper accountability and more young lives are not lost. Will the Minister meet the families to discuss that proposal?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He draws attention to a deeply disturbing case. I am very happy to meet him and the families concerned.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

14. What steps she is taking to increase public confidence in the justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

16. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the youth justice system in preventing reoffending.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

The number of children in custody has fallen significantly over the last decade, but those who are detained are now a more complex and violent cohort. Our turnaround programme provides funds that enable youth offending teams to intervene early to address child offending. Only 5% of children who completed such interventions received convictions in the first year of the programme, but we are continuing to take stock of what more can be done.

[Alex Ballinger]

Last week, tragically, 12-year-old Leo Ross was stabbed to death in Birmingham as he was returning home from school. His 14-year-old killer had been arrested several times for violent offences in the months running up to the killing. Can the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to reform the youth justice system to address and prevent the knife crime among our young people that is resulting in terrible tragedies like the one we saw last week?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am deeply saddened by this tragic crime, and my thoughts and, I am sure, those of everyone else go to the family of Leo Ross. Such horrific events underline just how important it is to deliver our manifesto commitment to ensure that every young person caught in possession of a knife is referred to a youth offending team and that appropriate action is taken. We are also piloting a new, more robust form of community punishment for children, involving mandatory GPS monitoring and intensive supervision.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

17. What steps she is taking to reduce processing times for deputyship applications by the Court of Protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

T2.   What support has the Ministry of Justice put in place for those serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, especially where they have additional needs?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

It is right that IPP sentences were abolished. Last week, I hosted a roundtable for MPs to discuss their concerns about IPP sentences and share the work the Department is doing. The Prisons Minister in the other place hosted a similar roundtable for peers. We are determined to make further progress towards a safe and sustainable release for those serving IPP sentences, while recognising that at all times public protection is paramount.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Drones: High-security Prisons

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

(Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on the national security risk of drones being used to deliver weapons to high-security prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

This is not a new issue. Effective prison security is fundamental to the rehabilitative nature of prisons and ensuring public confidence in the criminal justice system. The availability of illicit items in our jails, including drugs and mobile phones, undermines prison officers’ ability to do their jobs. Drone sightings around prisons in England and Wales are a matter of great concern and pose a major threat to prison security.

The Government inherited a prison system in crisis, with violence and drug use on the rise. We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones. It is not possible to talk in detail of the tactics we use to disrupt drones, given the obvious security implications. What I can say is that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service invests in targeted countermeasures such as improvements to windows, netting and grilles to stop drones from successfully delivering cargo such as drugs and weapons. In January 2024, restricted fly zones were introduced around all closed prisons and young offender institutions, supporting police and prison staff to disrupt illegal drone use.

Ultimately, it is crucial that we tackle demand. Almost half of people entering prisons have a drug problem, so we must get them into the right treatment to tackle the drug misuse that is so often a driver of their reoffending. Contraband supply and the illicit economy drive violence, self-harm and instability, and prevent offenders from engaging in rehabilitative activity. We are working to crack down on the levels of violence and drugs in our prisons.

The illicit economy is unfortunately highly profitable, with prices for drugs and other commodities between 10 and 100 times their street values—an A4 sheet of paper laced with drugs can be worth £1,000—so we must tackle the organised crime gangs behind it. That is why we have invested in a dedicated serious and organised crime unit who will work with law enforcement agencies to disrupt these sophisticated criminal networks. We will continue to take a multifaceted approach to drones and the disruption that they cause to our prison system.

[Robert Jenrick]

Given that this is a question of national security, I find it astonishing that the Lord Chancellor cannot be bothered to turn up to the House today. Yesterday—[Interruption.]

[Robert Jenrick]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Yesterday, the chief inspector of prisons warned that the police and prisons service have “ceded the airspace” above two high-security prisons to organised crime groups. The result is that organised crime gangs can deliver drugs, phones and weapons such as zombie knives to inmates with impunity due to the absence of basic security measures such as functional CCTV, protective netting and window repairs. Across two visits in September and October, he described a damning picture of thriving illicit economies that jeopardise the safety of dedicated prison staff.

In HMP Manchester, almost four in 10 prisoners have tested positive in mandatory drug tests, and in HMP Long Lartin the figure was nearly three in 10. Those two prisons hold some of the most dangerous men in our country, including murderers and terrorists. If organised crime gangs can deliver phones and drugs to inmates’ cells, they could be delivering serious weapons and explosives as well.

The chief inspector said that the potential for escapes or hostage taking is of enormous concern. This could not be more serious. The situation has become, in his words,

“a threat to national security.”

I do not pretend that these problems are entirely new, but they have deteriorated and they need urgent action. Will the Minister provide the timeframes for fixing the most basic security measures? What visits has the Lord Chancellor made to HMP Manchester and HMP Long Lartin? If she has not visited, when does she intend to go? Little else could be more pressing. What discussions has she held with the prison governors? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government have confidence in the senior management to restore order? Does he agree with the chief inspector that the failure to grip the situation is a serious indictment of the Department?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Who had 14 years to grip this situation? At least this Government are taking action—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

This Government are taking action in the first six months. The right hon. Member will know that drone sightings around prisons increased by over 770% between 2019 and 2023—on his Government’s watch. Much like everything in our prisons, his Government have left it to us to fix the broken system and clean up their mess. It is a bit rich for him to come here and lecture us when he had 14 years to put this right.

We are installing new CCTV systems, netting and other countermeasures to combat drones. We have clamped down on the contraband that fuels violence behind bars. We are tackling drones through a cross-Government approach, as well as learning from our international counterparts to support our efforts. We are working with our Five Eyes partners—they face the same issues across their prison estates, because this is not a UK problem but a global problem—along with the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. We have 99 X-ray body scanners in 96 prisons, providing full coverage of the closed adult male estate, to prevent the internal smuggling of illicit contraband. We are taking action while the Opposition just spout.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Minister will no doubt be pleased that the Justice Committee has just announced an inquiry into drugs in prisons, with an emphasis on the use of drones by organised crime gangs to supply inmates. What makes it easy for drones to access prisons is the appalling state of prison maintenance. There is a £1.8 billion backlog, which did not accrue in the past six months. The shadow Secretary of State’s surprise is, in itself, surprising. What is the timetable for repairing the problems in prisons and getting to grips with that maintenance backlog?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is completely right that the prison maintenance programme that we inherited was in a state. That is why the Chancellor announced in the Budget a £500 million boost to the prison maintenance budget over the next couple of years. That is important. He is right also to say that we need to grip this, which is why the Prisons Minister in the other place has visited Manchester and is regularly updated on the situation there.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

The word that was missing from the shadow Justice Secretary’s question just now was “sorry”. A National Audit Office report said of the then Conservative Treasury’s investment in prison maintenance and security that

“capital budget allocations for prisons have been well below the level needed.”

Who was a Treasury Minister at that time? None other than the shadow Justice Secretary. Today’s report is the latest chapter in a catalogue of Tory prison failures that scuppered their mission to reduce reoffending, and therefore let down victims of crime. Will the Minister tell us about a new approach to better empower governors with the investment and the autonomy needed to properly invest in prison maintenance and security? What investment will he make in prison officer recruitment through programmes such as Unlocked Graduates, which are critical to help drive security in our prisons?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member is right about the failures missing in the shadow Minister’s question. He is also right to ask what the Government are doing to support prison officers and prison governors. We are investing in that, and we will announce a new programme for training and developing new governors very shortly.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. The Conservatives are doing another faux outrage, as they were the ones who ceded the airspace after 14 years of colossal failure in our justice system. What lessons can we learn from that failure so that we tackle the problem of drugs in prisons, which are a big driver of drone drops?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The lesson is that we need to work with prison governors and the police and invest in actions to deal with the problem. That is exactly what we are doing. We are working with everybody in the system to sort this mess out.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Apart from the serious security concerns that this activity raises, it shows that prisons bring resource pressures for local police forces. In West Suffolk, where Highpoint prison is due to grow significantly in the years ahead, the police have asked me to ask the Minister to ensure they receive additional funding to reflect that pressure. Will he do so?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member is right that it is important that local police forces work strongly with HM Prison and Probation Service on this issue. That is what is happening. He will know that funding, both locally and nationally, is dealt with in an appropriate way.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

The Prison Officers’ Association has been saying for the past five years that the threat of drones destabilises our prisons and poses a massive security risk. Let me draw the Minister’s attention to the anti-drone system at HMP Guernsey, which very effectively prevents that threat. Can we expect this new system to be implemented in all prisons in England and Wales?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Anything that works will be built upon—that is part of it. Drone technology has been accelerated through the Ukraine war. We know that we need to work very hard to keep ahead of the felons on this.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

We all appreciate the destructive impact of drugs in our prisons. In Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, we have the largest cluster of prisons in the United Kingdom, with HMP Featherstone, HMP Oakwood and Brinsford young offender institution. Prison officers do an amazing job trying to tackle this issue, but what specific measures can the Minister bring forward to support their work, to try to ensure that prisoners ultimately get on to the path of rehabilitation and kick the habit of drugs?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The right hon. Member is right that prison officers do an outstanding job. I want to take the opportunity to commend the work of prison officers up and down this country. Eighty prisons now have incentivised substance-free living units, providing a supportive environment for prisoners who commit to living drug-free, with regular drug tests and incentives. That project appears to be working.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

There has been a long-standing issue at Wandsworth prison in my constituency, which has multiple drone drops every single week. Given the lack of CCTV, no netting and high staff vacancies, little can be done to combat them. Following the announcement of a £100 million investment into the prison, will the Minister please ensure that all these issues are addressed and ameliorated?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to work hard to address these issues, but if there were a simple solution, the previous Administration would have waved that magic wand and we would not be sitting here today. It is important that the ongoing work of prison governors, supported by HMPPS across the country and by Ministers, gets to the bottom of this and sorts things out, which is what we are trying to do.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

LiveLink Aerospace in my constituency is a surveillance company that has created a technology that is being used on Royal Navy ships, in airports and on private yachts. This technology could be crucial to maintaining the no-fly zones above prisons, which were introduced in January last year. Will the Minister explore this technology? Will he come to my constituency to visit LiveLink Aerospace and see what the technology can do?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

It is important that we take advantage of what intelligence is out there. If the hon. Lady writes to me, I will be happy to follow that up appropriately with her and the business involved.

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the Conservative party left our prisons in crisis, with drug and drone use rife? Will he outline the urgent steps that his Government are taking to ensure that such colossal failure can never happen again?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We inherited a prison estate that was 99.7% full. The police and the courts were in danger of not being able to lock people up. That was an abrogation of duty by the Conservative party. We have rolled up our sleeves and tackled that, and we will tackle this problem as well.

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

I thank the Minister for a very positive recent meeting on an unrelated subject. Is the main problem here the detection of the incoming drones, or the ability to impede the deliveries once they have been detected?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the positive meeting I had recently with him, officials and the local business. The answer to his question is that both those things are issues.

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

On visiting the three prisons in the Sheppey prison cluster in my constituency, it is clear to see how the prison estate has been degraded over the past 14 years. I have talked to prison officers, who are my constituents, as well as working in the constituency, about the problems they face day in, day out. It takes more than a few signs saying “no drones” to stop those drones. What is the Minister doing to listen to prison officers and the Prison Officers Association, and to support them in tackling this? Those officers face threats and pressure from organised crime. Will he meet me to discuss this further?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend; if he could drop me a note to remind me, I will do that. This week, the Prisons Minister is meeting officials from the Prison Officers Association. Whenever I visit prisons, as I do regularly, I meet the Prison Officers Association representative in that prison. They are key partners in tackling the problems that we have inherited from the previous Government.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

High-security prisons ensure that our national security is not compromised, because they house some of the most dangerous threats to our society. In government, the Conservatives introduced legislation to make it an automatic offence to fly drones within 400 metres of any closed prison. What assurances can the Minister give this House that those who commit such offences will feel the full force of the law?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

That important action taken by the previous Government was, quite correctly, supported by Labour in opposition. When anybody is found guilty of flying a detected drone, the appropriate prosecution will follow.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

The Welsh Affairs Committee recently visited Parc Prison in Wales, where we saw the types of contraband being smuggled into prisons by drones. One of the biggest problems reported to us was multiple drones coming in at the same time; it is difficult for the security team to then bring them down, even though they are using CCTV. What is the Minister doing to outlaw the use of those drones, to keep our prisoners safe and secure?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The security and safety of prisoners and prison officers is very important. The Prisons Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), sitting to my right, recently visited Parc Prison, and are well aware of the issues. They are working with the prison authorities to address them.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Two months ago in the House, I raised concerns that HMP Garth had been likened to an airport because of the number of drones illegally flying drugs into the prison. In response, the Lord Chancellor told me that the Prisons Minister was meeting the governor and thinking

“about how to deal with those problems”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 164.]

What precise action has the Department taken since then, and what action will the Minister take today to deal with the problems at HMP Manchester?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Actions are being taken and things are being done. I have mentioned the issues around windows, and netting and bars, but frankly this is a security issue. We are up against organised crime. We will not talk publicly about the measures that we are considering, because that would not be the best way of tackling the issue.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I recognise that this issue is very much related to drugs. Having previously worked for a homeless charity, I have seen the huge amount of damage that drugs can cause to people’s lives, and to their families. What are the Government doing about the wider issue of drugs supply, both in and out of prisons?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

As I have already said, it is very important that we tackle drug dependency in prisons. The fact that we now have a little bit more space in prisons allows more work to go on there to tackle drug dependency. We know that education and employment also help to reduce reoffending, which is why we have committed to improving prisoners’ access to not only drug support programmes, but purposeful activity and employment.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The Government have said time and again that they want to smash the criminal gangs that illegally smuggle illegal migrants into the UK, yet the Government cannot even smash the gangs that smuggle drugs and phones into our prisons. How can my residents trust the Government to smash these gangs?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The residents of Broxbourne will be well aware that for 14 years, the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported failed to tackle this problem. This Government are rolling up our sleeves and getting on with it.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

This is a long-standing problem, and the previous Government did not do anywhere near enough to deal with it. What they did do, when former Prime Minister Liz Truss was Lord Chancellor, was arrange for more dogs to bark at drones around prisons, which they assured us would work. Has the Ministry of Justice done an assessment on how effective that policy was?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I think everybody agrees that that policy was barking.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers today, and for his clear commitment to making changes that will make a difference. In Northern Ireland prisons, contraband has been a difficult issue to get on top of. Given the news today that drones are being so successfully used in the UK, there is obvious cause for concern that their use may become more prevalent. How will the Minister ensure that the steps taken apply equally across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that any additional funding that is required will be allocated?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Any lessons learned need to be applied across the United Kingdom, and that will happen. We need to work with our Five Eyes partners to ensure that the very best action is taken. Northern Ireland needs to get the best of that as well.

Youth Justice Board Review

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I am pleased to announce the review of the Youth Justice Board. This review is being conducted as part of the public bodies review programme, which aims to ensure that public bodies are operating effectively, and that their functions remain useful and necessary.

An efficient and effective youth justice system is essential for preventing crime and keeping communities safe. In line with our safer streets mission, it is vital that we have robust systems in place to stop young people being drawn into crime. Equally, we must support children who do find themselves in contact with the youth justice system to ensure they do not enter a cycle of crime which continues into adulthood.

The youth justice system is a complex one, requiring collaboration between many Departments, agencies and public and voluntary services. While there is much to celebrate, including a significant reduction in the number of children in custody in the last decade, it is right that we regularly review how our structures, system and agencies operate to ensure they are as effective and efficient as possible.

The YJB was set up to play a critical role in delivering positive outcomes for children in contact with the criminal justice system, and to provide oversight, assurance and technical expertise around the operation of the youth justice system. However, much time has passed since the last Cabinet Office review of the YJB in 2013. Since then, the youth justice landscape, and YJB itself, have changed significantly.

With that in mind, this review is an opportunity to consider whether the YJB’s statutory functions remain useful and necessary, where these functions should sit, and whether the YJB’s current delivery model remains appropriate. This review will also be key to assessing how the YJB and Department should work together to deliver ministerial priorities and deliver value for money.

This review will ensure that our current arrangements actively support the essential work undertaken by youth justice services and support the effective delivery of the Department’s priorities for youth justice and reducing reoffending.

I have appointed Steve Crocker, former president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, to lead on the review. He is independent from the Ministry of Justice and will provide objective analysis of the YJB and the Department. Steve Crocker will also lead a period of stakeholder engagement across England and Wales.

I will make a further announcement on completion of the review in spring 2025. Following this, I will set out the Government’s response.

[HCWS332]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

2. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the condition of prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

The prison estate conditions survey programme is a live assessment of the condition of our estate, but there is still much to do. Approximately 4,000 cells were lost to dilapidation under the last Government. That is why we are investing £220 million in Prison and Probation Service maintenance in 2024-25, and up to £300 million in 2025-26.

[Bobby Dean]

A constituent who is now a prisoner of HMP Coldingley wrote to me recently about the appalling conditions in his prison. He spoke about the prevalence of drugs, violence, discrimination and denial of access to healthcare. In his most recent letter to me, he said that the conditions had got so bad that he made an attempt on his life. Another report on Coldingley has described the conditions as “inhumane”. Can the Minister tell me what urgent work is being done to ensure that all our prisons have humane conditions for prisoners?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

This Government are determined to ensure the best possible conditions in our prisons. We have inherited a crisis in our prisons, I am afraid, but if the hon. Member wishes to write to me about that particular issue, I will be happy to write back to him.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The condition of our Victorian prisons in particular is not conducive to rehabilitation or preparation for life on release. The Government are pressing ahead with the construction of 20,000 new prison places, which their predecessors failed to honour. What thought has been given, in the design and operation of these major new prisons, to the training, education, addiction and mental health needs of inmates, for whom prison is currently little more than a human warehouse?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

These new prisons will be built with all the things my hon. Friend mentions taken fully into account. The Government are determined to put in place 14,000 more prison places.

[Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

3. What steps her Department is taking through the criminal justice system to help tackle violence against women and girls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to help ensure that prisoners are prepared for life outside of prison before they are released.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

We are mandating careers advice in prisons and introducing a life skills curriculum. All released prisoners have access to an employment advisory board that can connect prisoners with work, and banking and ID administrators are preparing prisoners for life after prison.

[Paul Davies]

The UK faces a major labour shortage that is costing billions of pounds annually. Lacking prospects, many ex-prisoners return to a life of crime. Enhancing prisoner literacy and numeracy and providing vocational training can help equip them with skills for employment, leading to a reduction in reoffending rates. I welcome the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which will address the issue. Does the Minister agree that failing to tackle the issue will not only cause a lifelong challenge for individuals, but create a significant problem for the state, including lost opportunities and increased crime?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We know that having a job and a home are the best ways to reduce reoffending. That is why we have employment hubs in all resettlement prisons, where prisoners can access job vacancies and support with their applications.

[Bob Blackman]

The Minister will know that prison governors have a statutory duty to ensure that prisoners are prepared for life outside prison before their release. One of the main issues for released prisoners is finding a secure home, so that they can have somewhere secure to live rather than going back to the place where they were probably involved in gangs or with particular individuals. Now that prisoners are being released from their sentences early, what action is the Minister taking to ensure that they are fully prepared for life outside prison and there is no risk that they will reoffend?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We know that accommodation is key to reducing reoffending. That is why we are expanding our transitional accommodation service and working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop a long-term strategy to put us back on track to ending homelessness and ensuring this issue is tackled correctly.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

5. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of legislation on funerals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

15. What steps her Department is taking to help reduce reoffending.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

We will expand our transitional accommodation service and launch employment councils to strengthen the relationship between employers and HM Prison and Probation Service.

[Mr Sewards]

People who commit crimes should be prosecuted and put in prison as quickly as possible. It is also clear that we need to do more to reduce reoffending rates in order to keep the public safe. To keep up with the current demand for prison places, we need to build three mega-jails a year, costing the taxpayer millions. Given those facts, does the Minister agree that we need to invest in technology to bring reoffending rates down, so that we can help those people turn their lives around and, crucially, keep the public safe?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Absolutely; public safety is our No. 1 priority and new technology gives us every advantage to do things differently. That is one of the things that the independent sentencing review under David Gauke will be looking at.

[Dan Aldridge]

Providing quality education and training for offenders is one of the most effective ways of reducing reoffending. Weston College in Weston-super-Mare runs a transformational prison education programme across the south-west of England, which supports successful rehabilitation, resettlement and employment of offenders on release. Can the Minister advise what steps the Department is taking to ensure that more offenders can develop the skills they need to successfully gain employment and reintegrate into society?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I very much welcome the work that Weston College does in prisons. We are also developing our training offer for employers in areas such as rail tracks and construction, and HMPPS’s Creating future opportunities programme is working to improve the employability of offenders in both prison and the community.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I declare an interest as the founder and chairman of a prison rehabilitation charity. The Minister has helpfully set out what the Government are doing about reducing reoffending, which I welcome. Is he aware, though, of the enormous pressure put on prisoners who are approaching the end of their release, given the pressures that the prison service is under? That is partly because of early release itself, which is releasing prisoners before they finish programmes provided by charities or the prisons, but also because of the churn of prisoners being shipped around the prison system because of the pressure on that system. Is there anything he can tell us about what the Government are doing to ensure that prisoners approaching the end of their sentence have some stability in the prison they are serving in so that they can get support as they approach release?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Several of the things that I have mentioned already are designed to do exactly that, and we recognise exactly what the hon. Gentleman says. On the SDS40 scheme, prison and probation officers have done an outstanding job in supporting prisoners through that journey.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

A constituent of mine reported a rape and sexual offence case well over two years ago but, like many victims, is still waiting for her case to be processed by the Crown court, leaving her pessimistic about the criminal justice system’s ability properly to tackle violence against women and girls. What is the Ministry of Justice doing to tackle the backlog and support victims of VAWG through the criminal justice system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

17. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of insourcing all prison maintenance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

My hon. Friend is right to ask this question. Under the previous Government, a process was already under way to put in place new contracts for prison maintenance. We need to make sure that those contracts deliver good value for the public purse.

[Kim Johnson]

I thank the Minister for that response. The prison maintenance contract is set to be retendered to the private sector next year. Prisons such as Walton in my home city of Liverpool—a crumbling Victorian prison—struggle to get the smallest repairs undertaken, and there is £1.8 billion-worth of unreported repairs within the prison system. We know that privatisation leads to higher costs and increased squalor, so can the Minister or the Secretary of State call time on this failed experiment and bring prison maintenance back in-house where it belongs?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The previous Government paused work on essential maintenance, which has added to the problems we are now dealing with. My hon. Friend is right to say that all options need to be looked at in order to ensure we get the best possible value for money for the public purse from any new contracts or arrangements.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for that response. One story that has been quite prevalent in the press over the past two months has been the amount of mould growth in prisons, which will obviously lead to health issues. Will the new prison maintenance service that the Minister has referred to be able to deal with that specific issue? If it is not dealt with, it will lead to ill health among those who are in prison.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Clearly, issues such as that need to be dealt with. Staff at His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service are doing their utmost to try to tackle those issues, but we will redouble our efforts after the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

T2. Many of my constituents work at HMP Swinfen Hall in Staffordshire, although the boundary changes took it out of my constituency recently. Many of the prison officers I speak to there are concerned about retention at the start of their careers, getting into more experienced roles and ensuring that such experience is retained. Can the Minister reassure me about the steps being taken to encourage retention of experienced members of staff?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

One of the very first actions of the Government was to accept the Prison Service pay review body’s independent recommendations in full, delivering a pay increase of 5% for prison officers. In addition, we monitor exit interview data and use it to help design interventions to improve retention.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

T3. One in four people of working age in the UK has a criminal record, for a variety of reasons. Most of these people no longer pose a threat to society, but are still tied to their past by their criminal record and face a lifetime of barriers with employers. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the criminal record implications of a sentence do not impact on an individual disproportionately?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member raises an important issue, which is always under review, but that is where we are at the moment.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

T4. What are the Government doing to ensure that offenders are managed effectively in the community, and how will the Secretary of State use offender monitoring technology to improve the efficiency of the Probation Service in keeping the public safe? I particularly welcome the steps taken with technology on exclusion zones and monitoring alcohol and drugs in the human body.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

T5. Like other hon. Members from south Wales, I regularly hear from constituents with relatives in Parc Prison of their concerns about safety, the state of the facilities and the difficulty of getting medication and mental health support. I know the Victims Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—and the Prisons Minister visited on Thursday, and I thank them for being proactive, because this has been going on a long time. Can the Minister report back on what the management are doing to improve things?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I can assure the House and my hon. Friend that HMP Parc is receiving targeted support. She points to the recent visit by my hon. and noble Friends to the prison, and the Minister for Prisons in the other place is providing full evidence about this and other matters to the Welsh Affairs Committee tomorrow.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

T9. Elizabeth Fry first began her work to create sex-specific prison facilities for women in 1813, with the primary aim of protecting female prisoners from rape, and the Gaols Act 1823 put this into statute. Yet 200 years later, Fry’s legacy is being betrayed as girls and women continue to be housed with boys and men. One such example is Wetherby. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and the Women’s Rights Network that Susannah Hancock’s work on this is urgently needed, and can she give any indication of when Susannah will conclude her review?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Since the beginning of this year, 17 inmates have died at HMP Parc. It has been under the control of G4S since opening in 1997. What consideration has the Lord Chancellor made of returning the prison to the Ministry of Justice?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

As I said in answer to an earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), HMP Parc is receiving a lot of attention at the moment. The Minister for prisons in the other place, Lord Timpson, will be answering questions tomorrow in thorough detail and the hon. Member might wish to attend that meeting.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

T7. Two weeks ago I visited Currys in Farnborough Gate after its staff suffered yet another horrifying steaming attack. A gang of six men stormed into the store, destroyed and stole products and terrified customers. How will the sentencing review contribute towards cracking down on this appalling behaviour trend?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 bans prison officers from taking industrial action and limits trade unions’ ability to protect prison officers from attacks on their terms and conditions and wages. Thankfully, these fundamental trade union rights have been reinstated for prison officers in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for section 127 to change so that workers’ rights are fully restored for prison officers in the rest of the UK?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I do not think now is the time to consider that.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Avon and Somerset police is doing an excellent job at Bath Christmas market, challenging any individual seen behaving inappropriately towards a woman or young female. What more can the Ministry of Justice do to tackle street harassment?