Hillsborough: Collapse of Trials

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make a statement on the collapse of trials relating to the Hillsborough disaster and subsequent developments.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in paying tribute to the immense courage, determination and patience of the families of the 96 people who died in the Hillsborough disaster, and of those injured who, 32 years on, continue to grieve about the events of that truly terrible day.

The collapse of the case concerning two former police officers and a solicitor who are charged with perverting the course of justice for allegedly having altered statements to be provided to the 1990 Taylor inquiry was the final opportunity for the families seeking justice for what happened at Hillsborough. As the House will have seen, the trial judge in that case ruled that the offence of perverting the course of justice could not have been committed because the inquiry was carrying out an administrative function for the Home Secretary and was not a process of public justice. As such, the prosecution was not able to establish a key element of the offence of perverting the course of justice and the case was unable to proceed any further. Of course, as Lord Chancellor, it is my duty to respect that decision.

Since the Taylor inquiry, the Inquiries Act 2005 was introduced, which allows inquiries to take evidence on oath and to compel witnesses to give evidence and to produce documentary evidence. Section 35 of that Act also makes it an offence to commit acts that intend to have the effect of distorting, altering or preventing evidence from being given to the statutory inquiry. It is also an offence intentionally to suppress or to conceal a relevant document or to destroy such a document.

Members will be rightly concerned as to what, if any, effect this may have on current public inquiries, such as the Grenfell inquiry, the undercover policing inquiry and the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.

Each of those are statutory inquiries and each has been set up under the aegis of the 2005 Act, which means that, should someone seek to distort, destroy, conceal or suppress evidence in any of those inquiries, that Act provides that those actions will constitute a specific criminal offence. Indeed, the common law offence of perverting the course of justice may also be an appropriate offence to charge if the elements of that offence are made out.

We recognise the need for those in public office to act responsibly and to discharge their duties with both honesty and integrity. As we continue to consider the judgment in the latest Hillsborough trial and its implications, we will of course always consider opportunities to review the law and how it operates. I want the families to know that there will be no exception in this case. We are carefully considering the points made by the former Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, in his 2017 report on the experiences of the Hillsborough families, including in relation to the proposed duty of candour. Our focus now, after the trial’s conclusion, will be on publishing the Government’s overarching response to that report, after having further consulted all the families.

Irrespective of the outcome of this case, the Government continue to be committed to engaging with the survivors and the bereaved families. It is critical that the lessons of the Hillsborough tragedy—the Hillsborough disaster—are not only learned but consistently applied so that something similar can never be allowed to happen again. The Government are absolutely determined to do just that.

[Mr Speaker]

This is a very important urgent question and I wanted to make sure that it was debated, quite rightly, today. The Lord Chancellor took longer than I expected, so if Members feel they need to take longer, will they please bear in mind that I want to make sure that everybody gets a fair chance to have their say about this very important matter?

[Maria Eagle]

I thank Lord Chancellor for his careful and thoughtful words.

It is 32 years since the 96 people were unlawfully killed having gone to watch a football match, primarily through the gross negligence of the South Yorkshire police who should have been protecting them. Five years since the inquest verdicts, after six men were charged with 14 offences, only two charges were even put to the jury. Twelve charges were thrown out or withdrawn and just one conviction was secured, for a health and safety breach, resulting in a £6,500 fine. Yet since 2016, the families and survivors have been silenced to prevent any prejudice to the criminal proceedings, necessitating the cancellation of all public memorial services, including the 30th anniversary, and preventing them from correcting the record when the Hillsborough slurs about fans causing the disaster have been repeated—and they have been repeated in court and outside court.

Does the Lord Chancellor agree that it is a catastrophic failure of our criminal justice system that nobody has been held accountable for these killings and that it has taken 32 years for things to fail so badly? Does he think that the Crown Prosecution Service has any questions to answer about the charges laid, the vigour with which they were fought, and the CPS’s failure to challenge the reintroduction of the Hillsborough slurs when the families themselves could not because they were silenced? Does he accept that the utter failure, over 32 years, of our criminal justice system to do justice for these people requires changes of the law to make sure that families who are bereaved in public disasters never again have to endure this extended ordeal, after so many years trying to get truth and justice?

The Lord Chancellor seemed to say that he wants to learn lessons, and I welcome that, so will he consider enacting measures in the Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill, which is designed to stop things going wrong in the first place—that is the key to stopping things going wrong in respect of public disasters—and in the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill? Will he work with those of us in this House who have been campaigning on this issue to get it right for the future?

Since the collapse of the trials, two defence barristers have repeated the Hillsborough slurs in public. This matters so much to the families—the cover-up has been denied—so does the Lord Chancellor agree that it now has to stop? Will he make it clear that it must stop and that the apology that the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave in this House matters now as much as it did then and sets the record straight? Does he agree that the idea that it is lawful for a public authority to withhold information from an inquiry established to identify why 96 people died at a football event and to learn lessons, and for a solicitor to advise such a step, cannot be right and must be changed?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I pay tribute to her for the consistent work that she continues to do in this area. She has asked a number of questions, and she will perhaps forgive me if I cannot answer them with absolute specificity, but I will do my very best. I will start by reiterating the apology that David Cameron made. That is the Government’s position—no ifs, no buts.

With regard to the prosecution, clearly, it was right for the case to be brought and, as I have said, as Lord Chancellor, I have to respect the process. However, that has had quite a consequence for the families.

The important work that now needs to be done by colleagues in the Home Office—I have taken the trouble to speak to Home Office officials this morning—is to focus on Bishop James Jones’s 2017 report and work with the families to ensure that those recommendations are carried out. The focus has to be unrelenting, and I want this to take months, not years. Obviously, the families need to be at the heart of it—“nothing about them without them” clearly has to be the watchword—and I am confident, in the light of the work done by David Cameron, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and now by the Home Office, that that approach will very much be taken.

In regard to the work that the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and others, including Lord Wills, have been doing on the independent public advocate, I want to assure the hon. Lady that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that bereaved people are supported and given a proper voice throughout the process. A Government consultation was conducted in 2018, and the responses to it were rather varied. I propose to do some more work on that process more swiftly, and to bottom-out what the options might be in ensuring that any service is independent, has the confidence of those who use it and makes a difference, particularly in major public inquiries where many lives have been lost. I know that that has been the focus. I will work with the hon. Lady to ensure that the consultation will look at what the threshold might look like and at the overall impact. I do not think we need to create some huge public body; I know that that is not the hon. Lady’s intention. I now want to give this careful and close attention, and I am sure she will work with me on that.

It is good to note that a lot of work has already been done with regard to legal aid eligibility. We have, in effect, ended any means test on legal aid for legal help and, indeed, representation by the use of the exceptional cases funding category of legal aid. That was an important and welcome initiative. We must also bear in mind the work done by Mr Nick Hurd, a former Member of this House, as the Prime Minister’s adviser and envoy on the Grenfell inquiry. I want to make sure that the correlation of that type of role is fully understood in the concept of a potential independent public advocate. I am sure that the hon. Lady and I will have further exchanges, and I am sure she will forgive me if I have not answered every specific question that she has asked. I am profoundly grateful to her for her urgent question today.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has acknowledged that the collapse of this trial has been the final blow to the Hillsborough families in their desperate search for justice over so many years. He has referenced the independent public advocate. In 2017, I pledged:

“To ensure that the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families…is not repeated, we will introduce an independent public advocate who will act for bereaved families after a public disaster and support them at public inquests.”

We are now four years on, so can I urge him to act swiftly in this matter? We have established our former colleague here in this House, Nick Hurd, as a ministerial representative working with the Grenfell families after that tragedy, but I would say to the Lord Chancellor that I see that role as quite different from the role of an independent public advocate. The independence of the public advocate is incredibly important. The Lord Chancellor wants to get it right, but please get it right quickly.

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to her for the approach that she took not only as Prime Minister but as Home Secretary throughout those years, particularly after the first report by Bishop James Jones in 2012. I well remember being a Back Bencher in this House and raising the issue of potential criminal charges, and now here we are, nearly 10 years later. I take the point about time, but I know that she will appreciate that I want to get this absolutely right. I want to make sure that anything that we do chimes with the aspirations and needs of those who might use such independent advocates. Our work will be fruitless if it does not achieve those aims.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Secretary of State, David Lammy.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who has been at these issues in this House for 24 years on behalf of her constituents and others.

The Secretary of State will know that inquests have since found that 96 victims were unlawfully killed by the negligence of others. The authorities who were supposed to protect the 96 that day instead failed them. More than five years ago, the South Yorkshire police commander in charge on the day of the Hillsborough disaster admitted not only that he had inadequate experience to oversee the safety of the 54,000 people, not only that he accepted responsibility for the deaths, but that he lied, telling the then secretary of the Football Association that Liverpool fans should be blamed for getting entry through a large exit gate when, in fact, he ordered the gate to be opened himself. These lies—these pernicious, ugly mistruths—have caused incredible pain to the families of the 96, who were already in despair and obviously experiencing grief.

The collapse of the most recent case at the end of last month is yet another kick in the gut for the families of all those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough. It is nothing less than a national scandal that not one person responsible has been punished or held to account in the criminal justice system for these deadly failures. The lack of justice in this case is undermining the very concept of a public inquiry. After a tragedy like this, the system only works where there is good faith. There is clearly bad faith in respect of the Hillsborough tragedy, and we must legislate so that this can never happen again.

The travesty of Hillsborough is not a one-off. We can see parallels in the experience that the Grenfell families are going through at this time. Do the Government now accept that they need to change the law? Another tragedy, another 32 years of injustice—we clearly need to do something. This does not have to be a partisan issue. The former Prime Minister, as we have heard, yesterday expressed the need for legislative change after the most recent trial collapsed because, although it was accepted that police evidence had been altered, it did not constitute perversion of the course of justice as it was evidenced to a public inquiry. Authorities must be held to account and victims must be given the support that they need. The proposals to ensure that this takes place—the Public Advocate Bill and the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill—are ready to go. We cannot have more cover-ups, more lies and more pain for bereaved families. Truth and justice matter. Will the Secretary of State today commit to working cross-party to change the law not only to secure justice for the families of the 96, but to ensure that this does not and cannot ever happen again?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and, of course, I reiterate the commitment that I made to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) to work across the House. Those are not just words; that is backed up by the consistent work that this Government have done both in the incarnation of the previous Prime Minister and, indeed, when David Cameron was in office.

The right hon. Gentleman refers to changes in the law. I have already alluded to my intention with regard to the additional work to be done on how an independent public advocate service might work. I am also mindful of work that the Law Commission has done on potential changes to the offences of misconduct in public office, which are clearly tied in with these matters. On the matter of perverting the course of justice, I have made it clear that inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 could indeed be covered by that common law offence, which is a significant difference from the Taylor inquiry, which was, if you like, an administrative inquiry ordered by the Home Office, which formed the basis of learned trial judges’ decisions. I am confident that the current inquiries under the 2005 Act—indeed the future covid inquiry—would be covered, subject to the evidential tests being met by the common law offence of perverting the course of justice as well as the section 35 offences that I referred to in my initial statement.

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

Nothing can take away from the grief and heartache that the Hillsborough families have suffered. The system, for various reasons, has prolonged that suffering, and this has been rightly brought to our attention by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). She is a fellow member of the Justice Committee, and all Committee members would want to extend their deepest condolences to the families at what must be a very trying time.

Will the Lord Chancellor recognise that we have to be cautious in moving to legislative change in relation to the specific facts of this case? This is a case in which a legal decision—a point of law—was argued by very experienced counsel on both sides in front of a very experienced High Court judge. Conclusions may have to be made, as he has set out, as to what should come from that, but legislative change may not be appropriate where we are dealing with a very fact-specific set of circumstances and the particular legal status of the Taylor inquiry.

Will the Lord Chancellor also recognise that he has received from the Justice Committee a report that highlights the way in which, in a number of important areas, the coronial inquest system fails, regrettably, to protect and support bereaved families both in large cases of great public attention such as this and in smaller ones too? The report makes a specific recommendation that legal representation should, as a matter of course, be available to families in cases where there has been a disaster that has significant public consequences or where state agencies such as a police authority are themselves legally represented, so that the families can get their concerns aired and their desire to challenge and scrutinise the evidence heard by their own representatives at the inquest stage earlier in the proceedings?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Justice Committee. I think I should correct the record; it was, of course, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) who asked the urgent question. I know that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) is similarly supportive, and I am sure that she is more than grateful to be referred to, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, who is in the Chamber.

My hon. Friend is right to talk about the excellent report that his Committee has done. We will respond to it by the end of July, and my officials are working on that response. His question draws out some important points that we should all remember when it comes to inquests. Inquests are processes that are designed to uncover the facts. They are not trials; they cannot be trials. This brings us back to the essential point for the families. The families have put their faith in the criminal trial process as a way of responsibility—people being held to account. However comprehensive the inquest process was—and the inquest chaired by Sir John Goldring was, indeed, a very comprehensive and thorough piece of work that all of us can reflect upon and understand—it was never going to be a trial.

The point I seek to make is that we must ensure that, when we talk about equality of arms, which is a very important point that underpins the hon. Lady’s campaign, we do not turn to some sort of adversarial blame game. That would be wrong. It would be a disservice, frankly, to bereaved families, and it would be a misunderstanding of the coroner’s function. Article 2 widens the provisions of the inquest to allow for wider consideration to be given, but it is important that all of us focus upon the function of an inquest and the fact that any changes to be made should not detract from its essential quality.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]]

The Hillsborough disaster was a fatal human tragedy at a football match at Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield on 15 April 1989. I pay tribute to those who lost their lives and the families who have spent decades in pursuit of justice.

In 2016, the inquiry findings concluded that 96 victims were unlawfully killed due to gross negligence. Police errors in planning, defects at the stadium and delays in the emergency response all contributed to the disaster. The behaviour of fans was not to blame. The 32-year battle for justice by the families shows that the English legal system is in dire need of reform. It has failed to provide any real accountability for these unlawful deaths and a cover-up that extended from the police lying and omitting crucial details to the media narrative shifting, blaming fans for their deaths, and a long, hard fight for the truth. The collapse of the latest trial means that no one will be held criminally responsible. Margaret Aspinall, who lost her 18-year-old son in the disaster and is the former chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, has called this outcome a

“cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up”,

saying that families have been

“put through a 32-year legal nightmare looking for the truth and accountability.”

Given the collapse of the trial, how does the Minister plan to promote confidence in accountability for public servants and in the idea that fair justice is ensured in the English legal system? The ruling that the Government inquiries are not a course of public justice and that in effect public servants cannot be held legally to account for evidence provided to them is incorrect and risks creating a dangerous precedent for those who wish to withhold or amend evidence for future inquiries. What action will the Minister take to ensure that the system of inquiries is not compromised by this ruling?

This is the end of the legal line for the Hillsborough campaigners. The reviews, inquiries, inquests and criminal trials have allowed the record to be set straight and established that fans were not to blame for the disaster. However, no convictions have been made and many still feel that justice has not been served. What assurances can the Government give to the victims and their families that the lessons of Hillsborough have been learned and that justice and accountability remain unequivocally guaranteed in the English legal system?

No one should go to a football match and not return home afterwards. It is right that the matter is considered carefully and sensitively, but after 32 years the campaign for justice for the 96 rightly deserved justice.

[Robert Buckland]

In the hon. Lady’s sensitive and appropriate invocation of the memories of the 96, it is right to pause to remember that 50 years ago the Ibrox disaster happened in Glasgow, a major disaster costing many, many lives.

[Mr Speaker]

And the one with Bolton Wanderers, too.

[Robert Buckland]

Indeed, Mr Speaker; you are quite right to add that to the record.

What brings those two tragedies together, although they are separated by time, is the fundamental approach that was taken to safety then. It seems that public order trumped safety, and the attitude of the then authorities was about the containment of potential unruly behaviour rather than the fundamental issues of safety. That lazy thinking, which seems astounding now in 2021, underpins many of the ways in which disasters such as this happened—or near disasters, which on many occasions were averted only by mere good luck or circumstance. That is an important point to reflect on. We cannot go back to those days. The care and safety of fans at matches have to be paramount and at the centre of any considerations by police and other agencies responsible for safety on these important occasions.

I have in my previous answers dealt with many of the proper points that the hon. Lady raises. I will reflect in this way: with regard to the inquest process, I think she will appreciate the important need for me to balance the imperative of ensuring that those who have been voiceless have a voice while at the same time making sure that we do not do anything inadvertent to close down opportunities for frankness. Although the Inquiries Act has done a very important job in making clear what is covered not just by statute but by the common law offence of perverting the course of justice, just because an inquiry might not be held under its aegis does not mean that there should be some retreat from principles of honesty, openness and integrity. That should not be the case. It should not just be about the letter of the law being there; it should be about the spirit of behaviour by everybody. That is what I want to see, and I know that it is what hon. and right hon. Members want to see too.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

It is hard to disagree with the reported comments of Deanna Matthews that it is “ludicrous” for the search for justice to have ended in this way, particularly when the community in Liverpool have had to fight so hard for so long to uncover the truth. What does my right hon. and learned Friend consider is the key lesson for the Department he leads to prevent things like this from ever happening again?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend encapsulates very well the task that is before me and the Government. The task is to make sure, first, that we have finally moved away from the public order mindset that I referred to, but secondly, that in response to any tragedy or disaster that might happen, there is a spirit of openness and a willingness and an understanding that the needs of bereaved families must be at the heart of processes. In everything that we do with regard to future investigations, inquiries and criminal investigations, people must not hide behind process and use that as a shield, because that has been the impression and the perception, which is why the families feel today that deep damage has been done to the process.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Bishop James Jones set out in his report that one of the problems with the initial inquest was that there was no public funding for the families to get the representation and advice they needed. The Government have said that providing legal aid for inquests is too expensive. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s earlier response about that: an inquest is not like criminal proceedings or court proceedings. But clearly some legal advice is important for families in these cases. Whatever he wants to call it, will he listen to those families and prevent further injustices in future by providing legal aid for inquests?

[Robert Buckland]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady heard my observations about what has already been done with regard to legal aid and legal eligibility. The effective removal of the upper means test threshold with regard to exceptional case funding for legal help and legal representation in circumstances just such as this is a very important development. I take the point that she makes. That is why I have already undertaken not just to present the response to the 2018 consultation but to develop it further so that any potential change that can be made will be done with the fullest, most careful and earliest consideration.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, as this is the first time I am speaking on this topic, I hope you will allow me to pay tribute to the four victims from Warrington who lost their lives at Hillsborough—in particular, to David Benson from Penketh in my constituency, who was just 22 when he died. Having read some of the comments from Brian, David’s father, it is clear to me that he feels that the system has failed him at every single level. With that in mind, will the Lord Chancellor clarify what steps he is taking following the collapse of the most recent trial in relation to the offence of perverting the course of justice and common law offences that touch on those who hold public office?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend puts in very heartfelt, genuine terms the real sense of loss and frustration, to say the least, that his constituents and their families feel. I have already outlined the steps that I want to take with regard to looking at the public advocate role. In line with that, I and my officials are considering very carefully the work of Law Commission on the offences of misconduct in public office published right at the end of last year. I aim to issue a response as soon as possible with regard to any next steps. There is a joint protocol that we have agreed between my Department—the Government—and the Law Commission. I want to make sure that any potential changes are done in the round so that we are not inadvertently missing out any particular issues that clearly need to be addressed.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) [V]]

May I pay my own tribute to the families and survivors? It took 27 years to get to the truth that 96 people were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, yet 32 years on, justice remains out of reach. The decades-long fight of the bereaved families and survivors is all the evidence we need that the legal system is broken, and the collapse of the recent trial risks setting a precedent that tips the scales of justice even further away from victims. Can I ask the Lord Chancellor to say how he will engage with the families and survivors about their experiences? Will he quickly set out a timetable for reviewing and changing the law, to learn lessons from the horrific experiences that the families and survivors have had of the British legal and judicial system?

[Robert Buckland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I can assure him that when it comes to ramifications, we must remember that this was a decision of first instance that turned on its particular facts. I have clearly set out the position with regard to the existing Inquiries Act 2005 and the section 35 offences applying to that and, indeed, the common law offence of perverting the course of justice.

In terms of the other important points the hon. Gentleman makes, colleagues at the Home Office will now be working closely with the families with regard to the 2017 Bishop James Jones report. They can get on with that work now that the trial has come to a conclusion. As I said earlier, “nothing about them without them” has to be at the heart of the work that is done with the families, so that what emerges will be a positive set of changes informed by the excellent work of Bishop James Jones.

Secondly, I have already outlined what my intentions are with potential legislative change, and I absolutely get the hon. Gentleman’s point about the need, after all this time, for work to be done as speedily as possible.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

The Hillsborough tragedy is one of those events where anyone who was alive at the time will remember where they were when these terrible events were unfolding. All our sympathy must be with the families of the victims and those recovering. Will my right hon and learned Friend set out what plans he has to review the existing position so that legal support is provided to the families of victims not only of the Hillsborough tragedy, but of other tragedies that may sadly happen? There will need to be legal support for families undergoing this. We need to learn the lessons and ensure that the failure to provide proper legal support for these families during the entire process is not repeated.

[Robert Buckland]

I think it goes further than that; it starts right at the beginning of the process, and I think the families would say that they were shut out from day one. The rot sets in much earlier than the investigative, inquisitorial and adversarial process. That is something that none of us can accept or wants to see happen. What we are left with is the aftermath. The work that Government have been doing and will continue to do in the spirit of cross-party co-operation is designed to try to create a higher degree of accountability and involvement, but I emphasise something that I have not yet properly emphasised, which is that the justice system cannot do this alone. It is only as good as the product of the evidence, information and intelligence it receives, and that requires all arms of the state to act in a way that is responsible, open, accountable and honest.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) [V]]

Those of us who were at Hillsborough that April in 1989 will never forget the scenes that we witnessed that day, made all the worse by the deliberate attempt by South Yorkshire police to blame Liverpool fans. It made the trauma of the families 10 times worse. It is worth putting on the record again that what has been found is that the police lost control, the stadium was unfit for a match of that importance and that size of crowd, and other agencies such as the ambulance service failed on the day.

What is important now is that we take the lessons forward. This has been a terrible time again for the families. I hear what the Secretary of State says, but over the years as an MP on constituency cases I have had some good and bad experiences with the coronial service. I dealt with a case recently that also raises questions about whether sensitivity and openness to families is really there throughout the coronial service. I hope that we will look at that again.

[Robert Buckland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman who, as a Merseyside MP as well as a football fan, has lived this experience, along with all of us who have followed this tragedy over the years. I am, of course, more than happy to look at the case that he raises. In the past I have always been happy to see him on particular issues, and this occasion will be no exception.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

I am sure that the whole House has immense sympathy with the families affected by the tragic events of Hillsborough, and their tireless pursuit of justice is to be praised. Has my right hon. and learned Friend made an assessment of the adequacy of the financial package of support available to bereaved families after such a tragic event?

[Robert Buckland]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. As I outlined in previous answers, it is important, certainly from my position with regard to the justice process, that we act as swiftly as possible to make legal aid eligibility easier. We have done that, but clearly, in the light of the responses to our consultation, more work needs to be done to achieve the level of justice-related support that families deserve.

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]]

The recent collapse of the Hillsborough trial was a devastating development for many people living in my constituency and across Merseyside who have suffered so much in their decades’ long quest for justice. The pain that it has caused the families of the 96 Liverpool fans who lost their lives, along with the trauma still haunting so many of the survivors, needs to be urgently addressed by this House. Do the Government accept that the payment of compensation by the police to 601 people affected by the disaster is inconsistent with the court’s failure to find anybody responsible for the tragedy, and that that failure needs to be addressed by legislation to protect victims in the future?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman asks a proper question about compensation; indeed, it echoes that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton). I undertake to write to them both about that aspect. I do not want to say anything that would in any way be misconstrued or misunderstood. Frankly, this is a very sensitive matter that needs more careful consideration. I am alive to the fact that things are said and done purportedly on behalf of the families when in fact the families have not been involved. We have to act in a way that is consistent with our words, and that is what I am doing on this occasion.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]]

I pay tribute to the families and survivors at Hillsborough. Liverpool is a proud and resilient city, and I am a proud Scouser. Contrary to the Prime Minister’s description, we are not a city that wallows in victim status; we have a long history of fighting social injustice, and Hillsborough is the worst kind of injustice. On 15 April 1989, 96 Liverpool fans left to watch a football match and died as a result of corporate failures. Can the Lord Chancellor tell the House, and the families of the 96, what he intends to do for justice to be served?

[Robert Buckland]

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the great city of Liverpool. I am a proud Welshman, but Liverpool is very close to my homeland and to my heart. It is a great city—a wonderful place, full of amazing people. I want to put that on the record. I am sure that she listened very carefully to the points that I made about my intentions, and the Government’s, with regard to achieving as high a degree of justice as possible. Sometimes the word “justice” is bandied about a bit too much and we are perhaps a little careless with the way we use it. Bearing in mind everything that has happened, and the huge setbacks and reversals that the families have experienced, I will try to achieve as high a degree of justice as possible in these terrible difficult and deeply sad circumstances.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]]

Thirty-two years after the Hillsborough tragedy, the families of the 96 football fans unlawfully killed that day have not seen justice done. Three of my Warrington North constituents—19-year-old Ian “Ronnie” Whelan, 19-year-old Colin Ashcroft and 42-year-old Eric Hughes—were among the 96 innocent victims killed that day. May their memories forever be a blessing. Many more of my constituents have been traumatised by the events of that day.

The fact that there has been no individual responsible held to account by the justice system is a national scandal, as are the years of smears about fans that the families and survivors have endured, blaming them for the disaster. Will the Government therefore consider implementing the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill of the former Member for Leigh to set a requirement on public institutions, public servants and officials, and on those carrying out functions on their behalf, to act in the public interest and with candour and frankness, so that other families bereaved in public disasters cannot be treated as disgracefully as the Hillsborough families have been?

[Robert Buckland]

I think the hon. Lady is right to remind us again about the victims of the disaster from Warrington North and how in fact the diaspora—I suppose that is the best word to use—was a wide one, bearing in mind the wide fan base of Liverpool football club. That means that what happened was a national disaster, and was not confined to the great city of Liverpool, though the great city of Liverpool felt the brunt of it. This was something I think all of us felt was a national loss and a national disaster, and therefore we have a national responsibility to address it and to rectify wrongs that have been committed.

I listened very carefully to the hon. Lady’s point about the Bill that fell back prior to the general election of 2017. I am of course, as I have already indicated, looking carefully at aspects relating to that Bill, and indeed at wider work to make sure that we fully reflect the wrongs that were committed and the culture change that I think is such an important part of rectifying the ills of the past.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Ninety-six people were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. Police statements were altered, yet nobody has been held to account. What are the Government going to do about it?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and she will forgive me if I do not go through all the important points I have made in response to other hon. Members. I will simply say this to her: she rightly raises the issue and she wants accountability—so do I, and so do the Government. That is why the work will continue in the months ahead, particularly the important work that the Home Office has conducted with the families directly, as a result of Bishop James Jones’s second report—the 2017 report.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

Can I thank the Lord Chancellor for his answers so far?

On 15 April 1989, I witnessed 96 women, men and children unlawfully killed at a football match in Hillsborough, Sheffield. On 26 May 2021 in Salford, we shamefully witnessed a trial collapse on a technicality. After 32 years, not a single person has been held accountable for the deaths, and justice has been denied to families and survivors.

“Our loved ones went to a football match and were killed, then they and the survivors were branded hooligans,”

said Margaret Aspinall:

“We’ve been put through a 32-year legal nightmare looking for the truth and accountability.”

Mary Corrigan, whose 17-year-old son Keith—he was a great friend of mine—died, said she was “so angry”:

“It’s the lies, the lies that they’ve come out with,”

she said:

“It’s unbelievable.”

We now have families of the dead, survivors and indeed a city—broken by the events of 32 years—believing our justice system is corrupt and damaged beyond repair.

Does the Lord Chancellor accept that there need to be legislative changes to avoid families affected by future disasters facing the same mistreatment and injustice as the Hillsborough families and survivors have suffered? Will the Lord Chancellor commit to working with families, survivors and Members across this House to implement the Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), which will help to ensure this injustice is never repeated?

[Robert Buckland]

I am profoundly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and I listened very carefully to what he said. He was a witness to what happened and, no doubt, he has to live with that. All of us in this House would understand and share with him that huge sense of loss to which I referred and that sense of an ongoing injustice. I hope he appreciates that, in the answers I have given, I have set out the steps the Government wish to take on the important work that is being done on many fronts: potential legislative change; the work of Bishop James Jones’s inquiry; and, importantly, the work that quietly but effectively goes on between the Home Office and families directly. I say again that we have to act in accordance with our words, and doing things for, to or about the families is meaningless unless we do it with them—it has to be with them that we will make things better.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]]

In asking my question today, I am thinking of all those who lost a loved one and all those who were affected in any way by the Hillsborough disaster, and all that they have been through.

I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for their incredible work on this, and I will support them every step of the way as they create a legal legacy for all those affected in the most terrible way by the Hillsborough disaster. Both of them accurately captured the effective silencing in recent years of those who know the truth of Hillsborough during the recent proceedings, which is why I want to ask about the Hillsborough archive, which is crucial to making sure that history correctly records the truth of Hillsborough. Will the Lord Chancellor and appropriate Ministers meet me to discuss the future for that archive?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes an important point about the archive. There is a general point to be made here which goes back to the initial question. The ongoing criminal procedure meant that a lot of material, for example, material on existing websites, had to be taken down. Obviously, I want that to change—I want it all to go back. Indeed, more work needs to be done to ensure that documents and material are in the public domain. So my answer is: yes, I absolutely will undertake to work with her, because I think it is important that everybody has access to the truth, so that the full story is known by generations yet to come.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It represents a complete failure of the state, does it not, that 96 people were unlawfully killed and then there was a cover-up, for which no one has been held to account because of what amounts to a technicality 32 years later on? So does the Lord Chancellor agree that, to the families of the bereaved, the idea about statements submitted by the police to an inquiry headed by a Lord Justice that was not in the “course of public justice” is a cruel absurdity, on top of all the other injustices that they have suffered? Does he consider that anything could have been done to close this loophole long before we got to this point?

[Robert Buckland]

I listened carefully to the careful question from the hon. Gentleman. He appreciates that with regard to criminal procedure the law applicable at the time is the law that is then used with regard to the evidence and whether individuals might be guilty or not guilty of allegations. I have made it very clear that the Inquiries Act 2005, which of course was passed many years after the Taylor inquiry, covers the major public inquiries that we are all very familiar with, the ongoing ones that we have and indeed the future covid inquiry. I have also made it clear that that common law offence of perverting the course of justice would cover those types of inquiries, but clearly as part of the work we are doing, we will look carefully to make sure that there are not any inadvertent loopholes, while remembering the important point that there will be certain procedures that must be conducted in a spirit of openness and honesty which will benefit from being less adversarial and more fact-finding, and that of course includes the essence of the inquest process itself. We must be very mindful of getting that balance right when we look at these things.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]]

The collapse of the trial last month was devastating for the families who lost loved ones at Hillsborough. In 2016, an inquest jury ruled that the 96 who tragically lost their lives were unlawfully killed, yet no successful criminal charges have been brought against any individual. The whole House will be in agreement that this is a massive failing of the criminal justice system.

I have heard the Lord Chancellor’s responses today, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) says, the Public Advocate Bill and the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill are ready to go. Will the Government now commit to introducing that legislation without delay, so that no families bereaved by public disasters have to go through what the families who lost loved ones at Hillsborough have had to endure?

[Robert Buckland]

Without repeating the points I made in earlier answers, I reiterate my commitment to carefully considering the 2018 consultation and the responses that have been given, which were quite varied and included varied views about the merits of the proposal. I will always look to achieve that essential element of independence and to ensure that a voice is provided to those who, prior to this, have been voiceless.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]]

Ninety-six people died at Hillsborough, including 18 people from the borough of Sefton. That included Kevin Williams, one of the youngest victims, whose mum, Anne, campaigned so hard to achieve the new inquest. Despite the coroner’s verdict, no one was held accountable of unlawful killing at that new inquest. Instead, the loved ones of the bereaved families continue to be smeared to this day. The Justice Secretary said that he was committed to changing the law, so I ask him: how quickly will he introduce the Hillsborough law? Will it deliver parity of legal funding for bereaved families? Will it include a duty of candour on public officials? In short, will it ensure that no one is ever denied justice in such a cruel way ever again?

[Robert Buckland]

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all those from the borough of Sefton who lost their lives and to their families, to whom he quite rightly refers. Those campaigners, in particular in his constituency, worked so hard for the inquest. I remember the people he talks about very well, as I think do most of us who followed events closely; I remember them with gratitude and honour.

I will not reiterate the points I have made, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers that I gave a moment ago. I simply say this: I want to get it right and to ensure that things are done as quickly as possible, but I do not want to rush this and get it wrong in a way that, frankly, the families would, once again, be let down by.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for her assiduous work over many years on behalf of her constituents and many others on this important issue. It is important to remember that the families have suffered injustice at every stage, and have had to fight to overturn lies and decisions that have gone against them. They have had to relive the tragedy and listen to all the details of what their family members went through on that day.

To then come to the final stage, with a court case falling on the technicality that it is not unlawful to give false statements in an inquest—we cannot imagine the pain and anguish that that must cause. I ask the Lord Chancellor to expedite the changes in law that he has said he is willing to do, but will he also tell us whether he thinks the Crown Prosecution Service has anything to answer for here? Should it be looking at itself and the way it has conducted itself during this case?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman encapsulates the feelings very well indeed. I refer him to the answers I gave a moment ago.

With regard to the CPS, I have to say that I am not the accountable Minister. The Attorney General is responsible for the superintendence of the independent Crown Prosecution Service. As Lord Chancellor, my clear role is to acknowledge and respect process, and I think perhaps it would not be right for me to make comments about an individual case, not having been close to the facts. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are mechanisms by which further questions can be asked, primarily via the Attorney General’s Office.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]]

As other hon. Members have done today, I pay tribute to the families and survivors of Hillsborough for their dignity and tenacity in the pursuit of truth and justice, and of course I pay tribute to my wider city of Liverpool. Hillsborough and the subsequent fight for justice show the great lengths to which state actors are willing to go to avoid accountability and truth—to act in their own self-interest, not that of the public, the survivors or the families.

The fact remains that 96 innocent men, women and children were unlawfully killed, and yet nobody has been held accountable and justice still awaits. Will the Secretary of State condemn Jonathan Goldberg’s recent comments about the behaviour of Liverpool fans that day? A member of the Queen’s Counsel should know better and, quite frankly, his empty apology just does not cut it.

[Robert Buckland]

I can absolutely understand the strong feelings that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) has articulated. She is right to remind us that every time comments are made in public, by people who should think very carefully, real hurt can be caused. The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) is right to mention the reliving of events. The intense sensitivity of these matters cannot be overestimated, so my sage advice to everybody in public life, and anybody who wishes to pass comment about the dreadful events of 1989, is this. Remember that there are human people behind this, who are still living with it. Show some respect.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) [V]]

I pay tribute to the families, survivors and victims. The Lord Chancellor referred to loopholes. I understand that the expert witness Sir Robert Francis QC, who has led or been involved in inquiries into the Liverpool Alder Hey Children’s Hospital scandal and others, and who is a champion of openness and transparency, told the jury—with regret, I expect—that there was no legal duty of candour for police at a public inquiry. Can I be absolutely clear? Is the Lord Chancellor absolutely satisfied that the current legal provisions, which he referred to earlier, cover all administrative inquiries in relation to breach of candour? I thank him today for his candour.

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very important question. Indeed, he touches on detail that my officials and I need to consider regarding not just the ruling, but the evidence that was given in the trial. As he knows, it would not be right for me to comment on the detail of that evidence. It is clear that that work needs to be carried out as part of a wider process of making sure that well-intentioned decisions to get on with important and expeditious work to uncover the truth do not end up, further down the line, in loopholes that can cause real misery to those who seek justice. He knows that my door is always open to him, and I am sure that we will carry on having an active dialogue on these important matters.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:

Finance Act 2021.

I now suspend the House for two minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Protecting the Public and Justice for Victims

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for conveying the seriousness of this. A young woman who has been subject to a rape is frightened, lonely, and confused, and feels all sorts of things, and we have to look into our hearts and really ask: have we arrived at that place where that young woman is supported? This debate, in part, is to say that there is more to do. That ought not to be a terribly partisan statement. It is a statement that we have to do better as a nation by those young women.

Some 89% of women and 76% of men say that tougher sentencing for sexual harassment, sexual assault and domestic violence would also make women feel safer. Frankly, while the Government dither—and we have been surprised on the Labour Benches by the dither—Labour has had to step in. Today, we ask Members of Parliament from all parties to back our plans to do a few things: to make misogyny a hate crime; to increase sentences for rapists and stalkers; to create new specific offences for street sexual harassment and sex for rent; to reverse this Government’s record low conviction rates for rape, with a package of policies to improve victims’ experiences in the courts, including by fast-tracking rape and sexual violence cases, offering legal help for victims and better training for professionals; to remove legal barriers that prevent victims of domestic abuse getting the help they need through legal aid; to bring in new custodial sentences for those who name victims of rape and sexual assault; to train teachers to help identify and respond to the support child victims of domestic abuse need; to repeal the rape clause for social security claims; and to introduce binding national indicators to hold the Government to account.

The Opposition’s plea to the Government is to work cross-party on this initiative. I say to the Secretary of State again, and I have said it across the Floor of the House, that although the Secretary of State and I have a good relationship, I am worried that he sees this more as partisan in nature rather than us being able to work in a bipartisan way on an issue of such importance. His whole posture this afternoon—hands across his chest, looking away—does not convey what we typically understand of the status of his office.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misinterpret any of my body language, but the reason for it is that he and his party had a chance to work cross-party by voting for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and he did not do that. All I see from him, with the greatest of respect, is dither and irresolution.

[Mr Lammy]

I do not want to put the women I am talking about in any kind of political posture, but the Secretary of State knows that nothing in his Bill increases the sentence length for rape. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is able to get to his feet if I am wrong.

[Robert Buckland]

I am happy to explain again why the Bill makes it absolutely clear that those sentenced for serious offences including rape will serve longer in custody. For those serving sentences of four years or more the automatic release date will now be two thirds—it will no longer be half, which was of course the policy of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government—and that builds on the change we made last year to make sure that sentences of seven years or more for serious crimes including rape also met with the same term of imprisonment, namely automatic release after two thirds as opposed to half. That is a longer term of imprisonment.

[Mr Lammy]

I said in terms, in Hansard, that nothing in the Bill increases the sentences for rape, and the Secretary of State gets to his feet and talks about time served, not what my party is proposing, which is increasing sentences for rape. My suggestion is that nothing in his Bill increases the sentence length for rape, for sexual assault, for harassment or for stalking; just as the Secretary of State is legally qualified, so am I, and he has confirmed in terms that while his Bill deals with time served, it does not increase the sentences for rape.

[Robert Buckland]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Lammy]

The Secretary of State is shaking his head; he can come to the Dispatch Box once more to make his case.

[Robert Buckland]

I am absolutely delighted to come to the Dispatch Box at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. Let me remind him that in the past 10 years the average sentence for rape has increased dramatically, up to about 10 years, and the maximum is life in prison. I thought that he and I were interested in making sure that more and more perpetrators—[Interruption.] I can do without a running commentary from the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). The way in which we encourage people to come forward and make sure that their cases are heard is to encourage more and more people to plead guilty. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me how any of these back-of-a-cigarette-packet measures that he proposes actually amount to anything when it comes to the effective prosecution and detection of people who commit rape.

[Mr Lammy]

Nothing in the Bill is specific on crimes that disproportionately affect women; in 296 pages the Bill does not even mention women once. We need an increase in the minimum tariff for those who commit rape and stalking. The Labour party is clear on that. I wish the Secretary of State would get beyond the hot wind—stop talking about time served and talk about minimum sentences. He has been a barrister for long enough; he must know the difference between time served and a minimum sentence. It is surprising, frankly, that I have to re-educate him on what a minimum sentence served is.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I thank the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), for at least some of his remarks. I welcome today’s debate, which is an important opportunity for us to properly reflect on some of the serious issues that he quite properly raises. I can say at the outset that we absolutely agree with him when he talks about the ordeal of victims. The fact that this is nothing new is a matter of reproach for all of us. Can we do better? Yes, we can. Will we do better? Yes, we will. Are we taking action? Yes, we are—and it is there that, with the greatest respect, I take the gravest issue with his remarks.

To characterise my work or the work of this Government as somehow whistling or fiddling while Rome burns is a complete misrepresentation of the situation. Calm reflection and a look at the work that the Government have continued to do, well before the covid pandemic, will bear that out. I think of the actions that this Conservative Government took to address important issues of violence against women and girls. Many Members from the right hon. Gentleman’s party and other parties in this Chamber were involved as well—I readily and happily accept that —but it is a record of action.

Outlawing coercive control within an intimate relationship, an offence that we are now going further to expand; outlawing upskirting; creating a criminal offence of stalking, which I and other parliamentarians were involved with; outlawing revenge porn and now the threat of revenge porn; outlawing the so-called rough sex defence; dealing with the appalling offence of non-fatal strangulation—those are all achievements by this Conservative Government. Let us not hedge or make any qualification of that. It is a Conservative Government who have driven forward important action on violence against women and girls.

The right hon. Gentleman is right, however, that there is no monopoly on ownership of these issues. I do not want for one minute to convey the impression that somehow we hold the monopoly of wisdom on all things. I think it is right to gently, firmly and consistently point out that there have been many opportunities for us to work in a joint way. There have been times when that has been done; I particularly single out the approach that the right hon. Gentleman took on the counter-terror measures that the Government have introduced in the past year. That was an example in which we worked constructively and maturely together, but I hope he will forgive me for saying—well, I am sure that he will not, but I will say it none the less—that there was an opportunity to do that again on Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, but the Labour party did not take it. Frankly, it makes it rather difficult for me to take seriously the words that come out of his mouth about working together when such an important opportunity to work together was missed.

[Catherine West]

What does the Lord Chancellor say to the 44% of victims of rape who walk away before the trial, fed up because the defendant got their legal advice when they reported it but they have had zero? They may have had a very nice police officer have a little chat and ring them once a month, but they have had zero, because victims are waiting months for the independent sexual violence advisers and months for their court date. They are fed up—44%. What does he say? Will he apologise?

[Robert Buckland]

Having met and talked, in a professional and now a political capacity, to many of the victims that the hon. Lady describes, I say this: an apology is due, and I give that, but action is due as well, and that is happening.

The hon. Lady talks about independent sexual violence advisers. From day one of taking office, I made the case consistently that the expansion of their important role was a vital part of my policy, and we have done that. In 2019, I put an extra £5 million into investing in ISVAs. We have now expanded that; the total that we are investing in increasing ISVAs as we speak is £27 million. That means hundreds more ISVAs who will be available to support victims of crime from the get-go. She is right: the evidence is clear that, where an ISVA is involved, the rate of dropped cases falls dramatically—by about 50%, in fact.

I take up the hon. Lady’s challenge and exhortation, and I say that this is work in progress but we are getting on with it—yet another example of the action that I and this Government are taking to deal with the heart of the matter. Of course, that is going to be followed up very soon by the important end-to-end rape review, which we will publish. That piece of work has, quite properly I think, considered and reflected on a very important judicial review launched against the Crown Prosecution Service that was dealt with earlier this year, and indeed on the representations of many groups in the sector, reflecting the important views of thousands of victims of the most heinous crime of rape. That review will be published imminently, and I can assure her that it will be a full and proper reflection not only of the problems that we have encountered but of what can be done and what will be done to help to remedy the situation.

I am not going to hedge or qualify; I am going to be absolutely frank about the fact that the current rates and numbers of cases being brought to court are inadequate. They do not reflect the reality of what has been happening to thousands of women and girls in our country, and we are determined to do everything we can to change that. That involves a change from end to end—police, prosecution and the court system itself. That is what we need to encapsulate and get right, and I can assure the hon. Lady that, when that document is published, it will be the fullest proper reflection of the important points that she is properly so passionate about.

[Richard Graham]

My understanding from the judge of our Crown court is that there are ways to speed up the handling of the rape cases to which the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) so correctly referred. One of them, for example, is making the Crown court available for certain sittings at certain times as a magistrates court, so that a case can be heard in the magistrates court and immediately moved into the Crown court. That is a way of speeding up the whole process. Does my right hon. and learned Friend, who knows far more about these things than I do, agree that there are practical ways in which courts can work with the Crown Prosecution Service to speed things up so that these cases get heard faster?

[Robert Buckland]

I have the happy advantage of having spoken, I think, to that very same judge myself last week when I visited our Nightingale court at Cirencester. Indeed, my hon. Friend is right in several respects to highlight the important work being done in the western region to deal with the heavy case load. The proactive work that is being done by dedicated judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and all court staff to come together to resolve cases that are capable of proper resolution and to identify and list those cases that absolutely need a trial has been a shining example of how to do it. Similar success has been achieved in Wales in eliminating and dealing with the so-called backlog, and we see that in other parts of the country too.

That is no reproach to those parts of the country that are facing a particular challenge. There is no doubt—the right hon. Member for Tottenham knows this from his constituency experience—that there is a particular pressure in London and the south-east, where there are still a great number of cases yet to be resolved. However, it is right to say that, in the good work that is being done, supported by investment from Government, we are seeing the sorts of results that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) talked about. He mentioned potential ways in which—

[Sir Robert Neill]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Buckland]

I just need to finish the point, and then I will give way to the Chair of the Justice Committee. With regard to how the magistrates court and the Crown court can work together, the short answer is yes, there will be some further potential primary legislation changes. One or two visa matters are already dealt with in the current Bill before Parliament, but I am sure that the sort of uncontroversial change that ensures that the interests of justice are served and which allows magistrates to work more in synthesis with the Crown court will be one that the right hon. Member for Tottenham and Labour would wish to look at carefully and possibly support. I imagine that it would command his support, but I will not prejudge the position, obviously.

[Sir Robert Neill]

Returning to the matter of rape and serious sexual offences, does the Secretary of State agree that one key issue is that the best determinant of a successful conviction will be not what happens once it comes into the justice end of the system, but the quality of the evidence file that the Crown Prosecution Service has in deciding to bring proceedings, and ensuring, to avoid delay, that it is full and complete at the point at which it arrives in the Crown court? That is what needs to be tackled. Evidence to our Committee shows that much of the problem is delay at the investigation stage, failures in disclosure, failures to pursue proper leads and, sometimes, the failure to deal with victims, complainants and other witnesses sensitively. Is not that perhaps the area that we really need to concentrate on in a genuinely joined-up approach, as has been said?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the important early stages of an investigation and the particular problem, frankly, of disclosure. Disclosure is a vital part of our system—it ensures fairness—but for many, particularly young women, who are faced with having to give up their mobile phone, in which their lives are stored, it is a very difficult choice. It is almost Hobson’s choice: give up your phone. What substitute do you have? Suddenly it is gone for months. Your life is on your phone. They are these sorts of choices. Women should not be put in that position—it is just wrong—and we are going to do something about that. I will not open up all the details with regard to the rape review, but the House can see my concern about the early stages of an investigation.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham and other Members on both sides of the House rightly talk about the length of time that it takes from a complaint to the outcome of a trial. There is no doubt that while the court process is a part of it, it is by no means the whole part and, very often, the wait has been for many months—and sometimes years—prior to the bringing of the case into court. If a suspect is remanded in custody, of course, the courts continue to work very hard to get those cases dealt with. There are custody time limits. There was a temporary increase to those time limits that I, through the consent of this House, ordered last year, which has now come to an end. It related to the pandemic and, rightly, I ended that, as it is such a serious measure when it comes to deprivation of liberty. However, I assure right hon. and hon. Members that, in cases where custody time limits apply, the courts have been getting on with the cases in a timely and proper way.

The issue has been those complex cases that perhaps involve many defendants—perhaps defendants on bail—which have had to take their place behind custody cases and which I accept have been taking too long to come to court. I watch the numbers, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—I share some information with him, of course, on a proper basis—and I take into particular consideration the length of time that it takes. I truly will not be satisfied until I see a significant drop in the length of time that cases take from arraignment and charge, when they come into the justice system, to final outcomes. But it is right to say that, certainly in recent weeks, there have been some encouraging signs.

[Mr Perkins]

I wish the Secretary of State well with reducing wait times. That is what we all desperately want to see and that is why I am so pleased that we are having this debate. Will he therefore tell us what he considers will be a success in reducing those wait times and when he expects that we will see them come to an acceptable level?

[Robert Buckland]

I will judge success—never “mission accomplished”, but certainly success—when I see the number of cases that take six months or longer dropping to well below 20% of all cases. That is my personal benchmark. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date when that will be achieved; what I can say is that there is now a sustained pattern in which the number of cases being dealt with in both Crown and magistrates courts is larger than the number of cases coming in. That, obviously, means one thing—a decline in the overall number.

The Courts Service’s latest published plan is to see the overall number of cases in the magistrates courts reduce back to pre-covid levels by the end of the year. Every sign that I have been seeing over the past few months suggests that that progress is sustained and sustainable. We should pay tribute to the magistrates, judges and all the court staff who are working so hard to make that real.

The pressures that we are under are all familiar to us in the House. I look around in this place and see so few people, and that reminds me of the challenge in courts. Imagine the difficulty of running a busy court where people are coming back and forth and covid coming into the middle of it all. The work done to make our courts safe, in accordance with guidelines from Public Health England and Public Health Wales, has been immense. We invested about £113 million in safety measures —from perspex screens right through to social distancing measures, plus the Nightingale courts programme, which is allowing us to create the sort of capacity needed to deal with the case load. Plus there is the commitment I made, to which the right hon. Member for Tottenham alluded, that there should be no upper limit on the number of sitting days that can be used by the Crown court.

In other words, the Government and I have clearly signalled to all involved in the system that all systems are go and only the inevitable constraints of the current covid pandemic and social distancing rules would hold back the sort of full-throttle progress that I would love to see. If we continue with the common endeavour of the vaccination programme—that race that it is so important to win—and continue to make progress, I am convinced that will be reflected in improved figures at our courts.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Lord Chancellor is absolutely right to pay tribute to court staff, magistrates and judges. As he knows, I sit as a magistrate and have seen the work that has continued right the way through the pandemic. What he has missed, though, is the investment that the Government have made in technology. I have been able to sit here, in the House of Commons, and undertake justice procedures for Merseyside so that we can keep the process and the wheels of justice moving forward. That investment has made a significant difference, too.

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to be prompted by my hon. Friend, who anticipates what I was just about to say about the next limb of our investment, which is in technology. At the beginning of the pandemic, about 500 cases or so were being dealt with by way of telephone or remote technology across the whole of England and Wales. Last week, the number reached 20,000—just under half all the cases heard every week in our various jurisdictions.

That has not happened by accident; it has happened as a result of significant Government investment in the hardware and software so that the technology works as well as possible for all court users. We continue, through the £1 billion court reform programme launched in 2017, to evolve, refine and improve the technology. All the measures that we have invested in are supported by the biggest single increase in court maintenance in nearly 20 years—the £142 million that I announced last summer. That is further evidence of the concerted action that I and the Government have taken since the outset of the crisis.

Plans were outlined for recovery in the criminal courts in September last year—most notably, our commitment to create 290 courts that could be used for jury trials. But we did better than that: we now have over 300 courts that can be safely used for jury trials—and they are happening day after day. We published our plans for other court recovery, relating to other jurisdictions, in November. I can remember a time at the beginning of this crisis when there was a serious question as to whether the wheels of justice could carry on rolling at all, but at no time did we stop. Again, that is as a result of the application and dedication of everybody involved. The most difficult and troubling moment for all of us concerned in the system was the decision to stop jury trials at the end of March 2020. There was a two-month hiatus, but it did mean that in late May of that year we were among the first jurisdictions in the world to start jury trials again. That was a remarkable achievement and a testament to everybody who got involved in that endeavour. Clearly, that has had a consequence and an impact, and I do not seek to shy away from the reality of that. However, I can sincerely say to the House that our robust action—the investment we made, the multi-layered approach we are taking—is yielding the sort of results that all right hon. and hon. Members would welcome: the sort of outcomes for witnesses and victims that we all want to see. Can we do more? Yes, we can, and we are going to do more, not just in the ongoing work to recover from covid, but on the legislative framework, which I think we all agree needs to be enhanced.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

One area of crime that has seen a significant increase during the pandemic is pet theft, with the number of dogs being stolen in Suffolk alone having doubled. I very much welcome the Lord Chancellor’s taskforce on pet theft. Does he expect that it will lead to legislation in the current Session?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important issue. Clearly, the abduction and theft of much-loved pets has caused real distress to too many people. During the lockdown, we have seen the rise in pet ownership, because of the comfort and company that much-loved pets bring, yet there is no doubt that there is an insidious market in the underhand sale of animals. Clearly, there is a wider issue here that needs to be looked at, which is why I was delighted to help bring together my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Environment Secretary to form the taskforce. We are looking at legislative measures, whether they relate to enhancing cruelty laws, on which we have already taken important action, increasing the maximum to five years, or to looking at stamping out the trade itself, in a way that we did several years ago with regard to scrap metal, where there were a spate of thefts and real misery for many people. We are looking at this in great depth and we aim to come back in a short while with a report. If that means we need to legislate, of course we will do so.

I wanted to talk about victims. The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) is not in his place, but I wanted to pay a bit of a tribute to him for the work he did when he was in the shadow team with the right hon. Member for Tottenham. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent on these issues and I respect that, and I listened carefully to what he said. My proposed way forward of having, first, a proper and full consultation to make sure that this legislation is future-proofed and fit for purpose, together with the draft Bill approach, will give everybody the chance to really bring a cross-party flavour to what our deliberations should be, to make sure that any product is going to be the result of mature and careful deliberation, so that we are not just paying lip service to these issues and not just enshrining the victims’ code into law, important though that is, but we are looking carefully at how people, organisations and agencies are held accountable. That is the big question we all need to ask ourselves. Here is the challenge for the right hon. Gentleman and others in this House: we have to balance the important principles of independence of prosecutorial authorities and other agencies within the criminal justice system, with the clear and present need for victims of crime to feel that if something has gone wrong, not only can they go and complain to somebody, but there is an outcome they can be satisfied with—there is accountability for any failure or dislocation in the system. That is what we all need to put our shoulders to the wheel on. I am sure that, in the spirit of the exhortation from the right hon. Gentleman, he will take that away and consider the offer that I make for how we can create a truly transformative victims law.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that undertaking, and of course I will work with him on that. I am grateful that he paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). I just remind him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) gave us the first victims Bill and also takes this very seriously, so—how can I put this?—if my boss takes it seriously, I take it seriously, and I am happy to work with the Secretary of State to deliver that victims Bill. We all know that we can do more for victims.

[Robert Buckland]

To add to the number, the Prime Minister, too, takes this very seriously. It is his absolute wish to see the quality of support given to victims to be the best in the world, and that is my ambition. I know that it is the ambition shared by Labour too, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

On the need for changes, I am absolutely focused not just on legislation but on culture. The way in which we approach violence against women and girls has to improve. I have mentioned the important action we have already taken. The new strategies to be published this year on violence against women and girls and domestic abuse will help all agencies to drive the step change that we need. The independent review that I will undertake with regard to the sentencing of domestic homicide cases is a vital part of that, so that we can better understand sentencing practice and consider the need for change. In the context of some of the proposals from the right hon. Gentleman, that review will be very important when it comes to the overall impact of any changes, however well intentioned they might be. I talked in some of my interventions about the important changes that I would commend to the House with regard to the Bill that is currently in Committee. I have also mentioned the end- to-end rape review.

As the new super-courtrooms are brought into service, one at Manchester and one at Loughborough, that will further enhance the ability of the system to deal with some of the larger, gang-related offences and multi-handed defendant cases that have been a real concern to all of us who want to see justice being done. As we future-proof legislation to allow more easy use of virtual hearings throughout the process, this is an example, again, of the Government putting those who use the service first—the victims and the witnesses of criminal offences. Remember that a system is worth nothing if it does not genuinely serve the British public and create a sense of confidence that when people come forward with serious complaints, they will be dealt with properly, professionally and expeditiously. Those are the aims that I have. It is all about recovery, rebuilding and restoring our justice system.

While I absolutely take on board the proper observations made by Labour Members, I say this to them: everything I seek to do is in the spirit of genuine collaboration and co-operation. Justice is too important for us to just leave it to mere party politics. I hope that as the weeks and months go forward, we can move away from a spirit of confrontation and remember that the work that continues to be done by this Government in order to combat crime and to deal with an effective criminal justice system is never finished. I can assure this House that, with regard to my commitment, and the commitment of my ministerial team and everybody at the Ministry of Justice, we are working daily and tirelessly to achieve the goals that all of us would wish to see. Justice is beyond measure. It has been part of my entire adult life. I am privileged to be able, in my term of office, to work to achieve the goals that I think all of us would want to see reached.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you; I was rather optimistic about the time limit. The House has to understand that we have had two lawyers battling it out here. They are normally paid by the hour and so it is understandable. In all seriousness, I would have curtailed the debate, but both right hon. Gentlemen took a significant number of interventions, so it has been a full debate. We start with a time limit of five minutes. I call Ruth Cadbury.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to reform sentencing.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

On 9 March we introduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which has been carried forward into the new Session. This legislation will deliver on our manifesto commitments to make punishments tougher for the most serious offenders and to introduce more effective community sentences, and work is also under way on the non-legislative reforms set out in my White Paper last year, which aim to tackle the underlying causes of criminal behaviour and improve the rehabilitation of offenders in the community.

[Rob Butler]

It is essential that the public have confidence in the sentencing decisions reached in our courts. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that an important element in that confidence can come from judges and magistrates explaining clearly the aims their sentences are designed to achieve, recognising that they are about not just punishment but rehabilitation in order to reduce reoffending and then create far fewer victims of crime in the future?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend speaks from experience about these matters, and he will know that by law the court must explain the effect of a sentence and its reasons for deciding on it in clear, ordinary language. The pre-sentence report pilot that I announced in the sentencing White Paper also aims to increase sentencers’ confidence that their determinations will indeed improve outcomes for offenders and reduce reoffending.

[Mr Speaker]

Members should ask only one question.

[Robert Buckland]

I understand, Mr Speaker, but my hon. Friend had to cover a lot there because the question of offending by young people and children raises complex issues. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the way in which we describe this behaviour, and indeed I made that very point in my maiden speech to the House. We should label that criminality as “criminality”, and it will sometimes be in the public interest to prosecute, because we have flexible community orders for children to address their offending behaviour, involving parents and carers in that process, too. But there are alternatives, and it is important to commend restorative action and early interventions to prevent children from getting into the criminal justice process in the first place.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Government’s 2019 manifesto promised to do “right by victims” and

“to fight crime against women and girls”,

but I have to say to the Secretary of State that nothing seems further from the truth. Women do not need rhetoric; they need legislation, but he appears more interested in silencing protests than giving a voice to victims of sexual crimes—more interested in defending statues than women and girls. Will the Secretary of State show that he cares by working cross-party to implement Labour’s Bill on ending violence against women and girls?

[Robert Buckland]

That was not a question; it was a soundbite, which bears no reality to what this Government have been doing. We have passed landmark domestic abuse legislation, we work tirelessly in the fight against violence against women and girls, and we continue to do that in our new Bill, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which presents a golden opportunity for Labour to work together with us. But what did they do? They voted against it on Second Reading; they voted the whole thing down. I will not believe Labour until they truly match their rhetoric with their deeds; so far their record has been dismal and weak.

[Mr Lammy]

In 2019 Philip Leece viciously raped a woman on her way home from a night out; she was 26 and soon to be married. Adding insult to injury, he published the name of his victim online and ridiculed her as being too fat and disgusting to rape. For that, he received a pathetic fine of £120. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not commit to implementing Labour’s whole Bill on ending violence against women, will he at least agree to implement Labour’s proposals for tougher sentences for those who name and shame victims of sexual offences?

[Robert Buckland]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that distressing case, and he can rest assured that over the years in which I have dealt with the unlawful and criminal naming of victims in that way I have not hesitated to take action as a Law Officer. Indeed we are already making preparations to see what can be done to improve and strengthen the law in this area, because, make no mistake, the naming of victims of sexual abuse—and other types of offending as well where anonymity is an essential part of the process—is not just wrong, it is criminal and we will do whatever it takes to help stamp it out.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to tackle legal advice deserts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of reforming the Supreme Court.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I know that my right hon. Friend has taken a long and keen interest in the Supreme Court. It is entirely legitimate to look, in the wider context of constitutional reform, at the Act that underpinned the creation of that court to see whether it can be improved and updated. I will be open and consultative as that work is carried out, and I will say more at a later date about which aspects of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 I intend to consider.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

For 600 years, the House of Lords and, latterly, its Appellate Committee did a superb job of being our Supreme Court. Nobody has ever given a proper cost-benefit analysis of what has been gained by abolishing it, apart from spending so much more extra public money. I doubt that the Government, or any Government, have the guts to abolish this wasteful institution, but will the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor make it clear that we do not have a written constitution? We are not America. The Queen in Parliament —in other words, this House of Commons—is supreme, not the Supreme Court. That is particularly important if the Scottish National party should ever carry out its threat of a unilateral referendum against the wishes of this House of Commons in an Act of Parliament. Will the Secretary of State—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sir Edward, you should know that it is not supposed to be a speech; it is a question. You have been here so long you should know that.

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to decry the rationalist approach that was taken by the then Labour Government to our unwritten constitution. He is absolutely right to warn us against a descent into a United States-style constitutional court, which will do no one, least of all the judiciary, any good. I pay tribute to the members of that august body, but it is right that in the wider context of constitutional reform, we look at all aspects of our constitution to make sure that we get the balance right and to emphasise the point that Parliament is supreme.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]]

The Leader of the House described a Supreme Court ruling on his Government’s plans as a “constitutional coup”, yet we now see the UK Government using the same court to prevent the Scottish Government from implementing human rights legislation. Is the message to judges from the UK Government that they should just stay out of Downing Street’s business, but stand by if needed to prevent the devolved nations from implementing democratically agreed policy? How does the Secretary of State think that that will protect the Union?

[Robert Buckland]

Tempted as I am to talk about the particular issue that the hon. Lady raises, there is an ongoing Supreme Court reference. That is a normal use of our constitutional devices to make sure that all parts of the kingdom, including the devolved Administrations, legislate in a way that is consistent with the powers that they have. That is what is happening; it is a very good example of a mature democracy in operation.

With regard to the hon. Lady’s underlying political point about the Scottish Government’s decision to legislate in that way, this country is among the leaders in the world in child safeguarding. No amount of virtue signalling about the incorporation of international conventions that will make no difference to the quality of safeguarding of children in our country will get away from that fact.

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

Is not one of the key features of our unwritten constitution respect for the independence, integrity and quality of our judiciary? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that we have no intention of going down the American route with any political interference in the appointment of our judges?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely on the nail, as ever. He knows that I have long valued the principle of comity, which is that we as parliamentarians respect the independence and role of the judiciary, and that in their work the judiciary likewise respect the position of Parliament. That is what comity is all about, that is what I believe in, and that is what we will embody in our policies as we develop them.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to reduce crime in prisons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

What assessment he has made of the potential merits of increasing the maximum sentence for pet theft.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I recognise the deep distress that the theft of a much-loved pet can cause, which is why laws are already in place to deal with offenders who commit such abhorrent crimes, but more can be done. The Environment Secretary, the Home Secretary and I have had discussions to consider further action, and I have set up a taskforce to investigate and tackle this issue from end to end, looking at prevention, reporting, enforcement and prosecution.

[Mr Harper]

I welcome the setting up of the taskforce, because what is important is not just the sentencing but the deterrent effect, so that we see fewer pets—dogs, particularly—being stolen. The Secretary of State’s answer will be very welcome, but can he say what more can be done? I ask him this on behalf of my two rescue labradors, Sophie and Chase, but also on behalf of the newly elected police and crime commissioner in Gloucestershire, the Conservative Chris Nelson, who made stopping pet theft one of his key election priorities.

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I declare an interest, as an owner of a cat. Let us not forget that this applies to a number of much-loved animals, who have, particularly in lockdown, proved an invaluable source of solace and comfort to many millions of people. He is right to talk about the wider issue. Those who minimise pet theft forget that it is often the thin end of a wedge and it might even involve organised crime. We need to take a zero tolerance approach here in order to deal with wider criminality, so we will be looking at the nature of the black market that exists and the rises we have seen with regard to the value of individual animals. All that is very much on the table.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

What steps he is taking to reduce the length of time taken to grant probate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

In the Gracious Speech last week, the Queen outlined this Government’s plans to recover from the covid-19 pandemic and to build back a better country for our future. The justice system has a vital part to play in that—to cut crime, to protect victims, and to guarantee fairness in our society. My ministerial team and I look forward to steering a number of new Bills through Parliament during this Session. As I said earlier, I am pleased that our new pet theft taskforce will now look at how we can better protect people from the awful crime of pet theft and ensure that action is taken against those who perpetrate it and those who organise it.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will the Secretary of State advise on what is being done to ensure that prisons reopen for family visits as soon as possible? The guidance on the Government website has not been updated since 29 March. Although I am told that prisons can reopen once they reach stage 3 of the national framework, I certainly know of some that have reached that stage but still are not open, which is very upsetting for the families involved, so will he give us an update?

[Robert Buckland]

Of course, Her Majesty’s Prison Bristol will be near to or in the hon. Lady’s constituency. I am glad to tell her that the majority of prisons have now reached stage 3 in accordance with the plan that I published last year. The individual decision making is very much up to governors and regional group directors, but I can assure her that Ministers and senior officials are driving forward progress on reopening, allowing visits, and indeed considering moving to the next stage, stage 2, which would further open up the prison environment —consistent of course with public health guidance and the needs and the safety of prisoners.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

  How are the Government using technology in innovative ways to reduce crime?

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]]

In reply to my earlier question, did the Secretary of State really say that the incorporation of international conventions—we were talking about the UNCRC—will make no difference to the quality of safeguarding of children in our country? I was so taken aback that I have changed my second question. I have to ask: does he actually believe that, and is it just this international convention or are they all as impotent as he appears to think that one is?

[Robert Buckland]

In a word, yes.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

As the ban on evictions starts to lift, what preparations has my right hon. and learned Friend made to ensure that the courts can cope with the surge of applications?

[Robert Buckland]

Volumes of possession actions remain significantly low as a result of measures that we took in response to the pandemic. Indeed, although the ban in England on bailiff-enforced evictions will end on 31 May, the requirement for landlords to give extended notice periods to seek possession orders in all but the most egregious cases has really struck the right balance. We intend to taper down these notice periods to pre-covid levels by October, which will help to manage demand in the courts. I pay tribute to senior judiciary for working at pace to develop a case management approach to possession cases.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

  According to the Government’s own research, 60% of people in the north-east have no up-to-date photo ID and 44% say they are unlikely to apply for local authority ID in order to vote. Will the Justice Secretary update the House on the most recent data on investigation and prosecutions for in-person voter fraud, because without evidence of significant abuse, the Government’s sledgehammer to crack a nut risks undermining rather than protecting the integrity of our elections by unjustifiably preventing many people from voting?

[Robert Buckland]

With respect to the hon. Lady, I think that her concerns are wholly misplaced; I would be kind enough to say that. Some of the objection to this is, frankly, synthetic. The last Labour Government introduced it in Northern Ireland in 2003 without any concomitant reduction in turnout. Countries such as France and Canada and other mature democracies have long had this system in place. We will provide free identification for the tiny minority of people who do not have it. Frankly, the people of this country are wondering why on earth this has not been done before and are bewildered by the Opposition’s confected objections.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]]

  I met with TSB last week to discuss fraud and was surprised to find out that there has been a big increase in young people being subject to fraud. TSB’s internal research showed that over 50% of these scams and frauds directly involved social media. What does my hon. Friend believe should be done about that, and what conversations are taking place with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to develop ways to clamp down on this in the light of the online harms Bill?

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]]

Far too many women are sentenced by our courts to short or very short prison sentences. The overwhelming evidence is that non-custodial sentences, with properly resourced and properly structured alternatives to prison, work better in preventing reoffending. What are the Government doing to ensure that we invest in these non-custodial options for the courts to use?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with a lot of experience, not just as a Member of this House but as a former police and crime commissioner. He will be reassured to know that the female offender strategy continues. In particular, with regard to the work that we are doing on pre-sentence reports, we will help courts and decision makers come to conclusions based upon community sentence treatment requirements, whether that is support for addiction or for mental health problems, which are a constructive direct alternative to those short terms of imprisonment that he rightly criticises.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure my constituents of the steps his Department is taking to improve judicial and public confidence in sentencing?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to hold the Government to account on these issues. He will recall that the White Paper I issued last year set out our plans for a framework that will do just that, by targeting the most serious violent and sexual offenders, ensuring that they serve longer proportions of their sentences of imprisonment in custody, therefore reflecting more appropriately the severity of their crimes and protecting the public, and ensuring that we introduce robust and effective community options for those who commit less serious offences.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

  There are no black, Asian and minority ethnic Supreme Court judges. Can the Secretary of State explain what decisive action the Government are taking to ensure greater representation of people of colour across our judiciary?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She will be encouraged to know that the Judicial Appointments Commission, senior judiciary and I work together on that very issue, to ensure that the professions are doing all they can to encourage and support applicants from a black and minority ethnic background. In particular, I pay tribute to CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, for driving forward that important diversity. There is much more work to be done, and progress for all of us is frustratingly slow, but I will continue to put my shoulder to the wheel to ensure that we see sooner rather than later someone of a black and minority ethnic background sitting in the Supreme Court.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), the Treasury Committee has been hearing about the explosion in online financial fraud. Could my right hon. and learned Friend explain how the victims Bill will help so many of our constituents who are being preyed upon by these financial fraudsters?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise an issue that affects many people. One issue is the embarrassment and shame of people who fall victim to such fraud that they could have been tricked in the first place. Not only is supporting victims to overcome that stigma very much part of the victims code that we introduced in the past month or so, working with the sector, but as we develop the consultation into our new law, there will be opportunities fully to reflect the pernicious nature of online criminality. By helping to design out fraud, the financial services sector can make its greatest contribution to the reduction of such heinous crime.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

To return to the questions asked earlier by my hon. Friends the Members for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and for West Ham (Ms Brown) about the loss of prison officer experience due to experienced prison officers leaving the service, will the Secretary of State confirm whether it was the Chancellor himself who vetoed the fair pay rise for frontline prison officers that was recommended by his own experts?

[Robert Buckland]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the context of those recommendations, prison officers received rises of between 2.5% and 7.5%. It is right to say that in one specific instance the recommendations of the body were not accepted—we are mindful of our overall duties with regard to the public purse—but I assure the hon. Gentleman that in terms of the recruitment, support and promotion of the vital role of prison officers, the Government will not stint in their unwavering support and encouragement.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Festus Akinbusoye, the inspirational police and crime commissioner for Bedfordshire, has championed the use of addiction recovery programmes for low-risk offenders. Will the Minister tell the House what encouragement he is likely to give to police and crime commissioners to expand the role of such programmes? In particular, what encouragement will he give to Festus for his campaigns?

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Involvement in the criminal justice system can be especially upsetting for children, so will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the Scottish Government’s proposal for a Bairn’s Hoose? The idea is that families and children would all be under one roof and looked after in a way that could be beneficial to families who come out of the criminal justice system. Are the UK Government willing to look at the idea as well?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion and would be interested to know more about the specific approach being taken. I assure him that south of the border the concept of supported accommodation and a supported approach is very much at the heart of what we are seeking to do, particularly with regard to young offenders. The development of the use of smaller units and diversionary work has been very much at the heart of what we have done over the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman will see that the number of children now incarcerated has fallen from 3,000 to just over 500 or so in the past year. That is a dramatic improvement, but I am certainly interested to know more about the Scottish Government’s initiative.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does not the collapse of the Serco fraud trial and the fact that the Serious Fraud Office was prosecuting only mid-level managers rather than the people responsible for defrauding the taxpayer, which they admitted, high- light the need to bring forward a “failure to prevent economic crime” offence at corporate level, and to make it a criminal offence?

[Robert Buckland]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his assiduous campaigning on this important issue. He knows that I have always placed heavy emphasis on the need to examine the law carefully in this area, because I accept that there are loopholes. I asked the Law Commission to undertake an in-depth review of economic crime law and, if necessary, to make recommendations on options for reform. It began its work last November and is aiming to publish an options paper later this year. We will work with the Law Commission to implement any next steps.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The Government’s own review warns that any changes to judicial review should be made only after the most careful consideration, so will the Government listen to themselves and will the Secretary of State rethink his plans to limit individuals’ powers to challenge Government through the courts?

[Robert Buckland]

We commissioned an independent review, which was published after public involvement, and we have now conducted a consultation process, again with full involvement from civil society. We will have plenty of opportunities, in this House and in the other place, to debate and scrutinise any legislation that comes forward. There are ample opportunities for all of us to take part in this important process, and I am sure that the product of those deliberations will indeed be one of quality that enhances the balance between the judiciary, Parliament and the Executive.

Whiplash Reform Programme

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

On 26 April 2021, my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, QC) made the following written statement.

The Government remain firmly committed to the implementation on 31 May 2021 of the necessary and proportionate measures to control the number and cost of claims for whiplash, as set out in part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2018. It also intends to implement on 31 May the associated increase, from £1,000 to £5,000 to the small claims track limit for road traffic accident (RTA) related personal injury claims.

The Government had previously considered an increase, from £1,000 to £2,000, to the small claims track limit for all other types of personal injury claims, including employers and public liability claims. However, having considered the views of a number of stakeholders, including from a wide range of representatives from across the insurance industry and the personal injury and trade union sectors, the Government have decided to both limit the proposed increase in the small claims limit for all other personal injury claims to £1,500 instead of £2,000 and to defer the implementation of this measure until April 2022.

Delivering this reform remains a key Government priority but we believe that a more modest increase in the small claims track limit for non-RTA related claims is justified. Pausing its implementation for 12 months will enable greater focus to be placed on the commencement of the whiplash reforms and the launch of the new official injury claim service for claimants on 31 May 2021. This decision will also provide affected stakeholders additional time to prepare for the increase in April next year.

[HCWS943]

Independent Review of Administrative Law

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to the independent review of administrative law.

In our democracy, judicial review plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law: it acts as one of the checks on the power of the Executive. Importantly, as the noble and learned Baroness Hale put it in her submission to the review panel,

“In the vast majority of cases, Judicial Review is the servant of Parliament”.

Through judicial review, the courts ensure that the powers that Parliament grants are not used in ways that exceed the limits imposed on those powers, and are not used in ways that are contrary to Parliament’s intentions. The purpose of judicial review is not to question the merits of any decisions made under those powers; rather, it is to ensure that the decision was made lawfully. The jurisdiction of the courts is therefore meant to be supervisory only.

Last year, I launched an independent review of administrative law to examine trends in judicial review. I am sure the House will want to join me in thanking the panel, chaired by the noble and learned Lord Faulks, for its diligence in producing such an excellent report, copies of which I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It was quite an undertaking, conducted in this time of covid. The panel ran a call for evidence, which elicited many valuable contributions from a diverse range of interested parties.

The report’s finding—that there is a growing willingness to accept an expansion of the remit of judicial review, whether in terms of more decisions being considered justiciable, or the way in which the courts review an exercise of power and the remedies given—is worrying. I am sure that the House will agree with me that the recommendations in the panel’s report about how we can restore a more sensible balance of responsibilities between Parliament and the courts are clear, practical and achievable.

The Government are consulting on a range of policy proposals, but there are two recommendations in particular from the report that we are keen to take forward as soon as possible. First, we will follow the review’s recommendation to legislate to remove a type of judicial review known as the Cart judicial review, after the Supreme Court case of that name.

The issue is that, even though decisions of the upper tribunal are supposed to be of the same status as those of the High Court, the Cart judicial review route allows someone to challenge certain upper tribunal decisions by applying to the High Court for permission for judicial review of the upper tribunal’s decision, and potentially onward to the Court of Appeal should the High Court refuse permission, as in fact it does in the vast majority of cases.

In such an appeal, the Court of Appeal is essentially asked whether it thinks that the proposed appeal against the High Court’s refusal to grant permission to judicially review the upper tribunal’s refusal to grant permission to appeal the first tier tribunal’s decision should be allowed. That—eloquently, perhaps—outlines the essence of the problem: we say that there are simply too many layers and too many otiose proceedings that do not serve the interests of justice.

The review analysis found that out of 5,502 Cart judicial reviews brought between 2012 and 2019, only 0.22% were successful. That is an astonishingly low rate. Given that each and every one of those cases required detailed consideration by judges, I agree with the panel that a huge amount of judicial resource is being used to rectify a vanishingly small number of errors. The proposed reform will place the decisions of the upper tribunal and the High Court on an equal footing, and we will bolster the current array of remedies available to the courts so that issues can be resolved in a collaborative way.

I agree with the panel that the courts should have the ability to suspend quashing orders and to mandate a time by which any administrative oversight should be corrected. I will accept that recommendation and would like to consider how it should be implemented and whether suspended quashing orders should be presumed to apply or mandatory.

The steps recommended by the panel are an excellent starting point for rebalancing our system, but the Government would like to go further to protect the judiciary from unwanted political entanglements and restore trust in the judicial review process. As the House will see, the report contains a detailed analysis of judicial review and how it operates in practice, and we are at the right juncture to take a closer look. Today, I want to open up a public debate on the role of judicial review within our wider constitutional arrangements by launching a consultation on further proposals to examine the use of ouster clauses, the remedies available in judicial review proceedings, and further procedural reform.

It is self-evidently open to Parliament to delineate the role of the courts in controlling any particular power because, of course, Parliament is sovereign. Parliament can do this by passing an ouster clause—a considered choice that certain subjects are not appropriate for judicial control. For example, in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, Parliament provided that reports of the Boundary Commission are not subject to judicial review. Unfortunately, the current practice on ouster clauses—not giving them effect—arguably goes against the intention of Parliament, so we are considering putting in place a set of rules that clearly delineate which issues are a matter for the courts to adjudicate through judicial review and which are not. For that reason, the Government want to consider the workings of ouster clauses and find a way for them to be used more effectively and in the way intended by Parliament.

The consultation proposes the introduction of prospective-only remedies, which would limit the retrospective effect of any quashed decision or action. That would complement the use of suspended quashing orders and could result in more considered resolutions. Instead of the sledgehammer of remedies that demand immediate resolution and lead to rushed policy, I want to create a system that encourages solutions to be found through political will rather than legal dispute, so that policy making as an exercise can be much more collaborative and better informed.

The consultation will therefore consider three things: first, whether to give judges discretion in providing for prospective-only remedies; secondly, whether prospective-only remedies should be presumed to apply in all challenges against statutory instruments; and finally, whether all remedies granted when challenging statutory instruments must be prospective-only unless it is a matter of exceptional public interest for them not to be.

As part of this work, to make such remedies effective I am bringing forward proposals for reforms to the doctrine on nullity. The consultation will also consider whether to recommend to the civil procedure rule committee that it considers a range of procedural reforms to improve the efficiency of the administration of judicial review claims.

As Lord Chancellor, my role is to uphold the rule of law and defend the judiciary. The Government want to seize the opportunity to do just that by restoring a proper balance between the institutions that have been so integral to our success as a nation in protecting the rights of individuals and our vital national security, and effective government itself. We are determined to ensure that judicial review—this vital check on Executive power—is maintained for future generations and that the process is finely tuned within our constitutional arrangements, to enable it to be a true conduit for fairness in our society. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

May I begin by thanking the panel for their work? We will study the proposals carefully and note the announcement of further consultation. We would like to see all submissions to the consultations published; can the Secretary of State confirm whether he will do that? I also note that, as feared, the Government are considering making certain decisions of Parliament beyond the reach of judicial review. I note that the independent review of administrative law considered that it would be a serious disadvantage to enable Parliament to oust JR by altering the statutory code. Can he confirm whether that is in fact his intention, and if so, why he has taken the step of ignoring the concerns of his own review?

The Government should exercise extreme caution in expanding the use of ouster clauses to prevent the Executive from being challenged in the courts. That is a fundamental right, and this is particularly worrying, given the Government’s disdain for parliamentary scrutiny and No. 10’s history of hoarding powers.

In my 20 years in this House I have never encountered a Government more disdainful of our rights, freedoms and rule of law than this one. One of the Prime Minister’s first actions was to unlawfully prorogue the House; after he was re-elected, he sent his Secretary of State for Northern Ireland out to boast about how the Government would break international law in a specific and limited way; and on Tuesday we saw the Government launch an unprecedented attack on the British public’s freedom to protest. At each of these moments the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has chosen to stay silent, ignoring his special duty to uphold the rule of law.

Judicial review is the only mechanism by which members of the public can challenge the Government and public bodies when they break the law. In recent months, we have seen how important that is. It was a judicial review that uncovered the truth about the Health Secretary’s unlawful failure to publish multimillion-pound covid contracts within the 30-day period required by the law. In a Government who have been turned rotten by cronyism—we are having the Health Secretary on WhatsApp pouring a pint to land a deal—accountability matters a lot, and it is not only crony contracts that the Government may be trying to hide.

The Government have made countless mistakes, which may or may not have been unlawful during the coronavirus pandemic. These may help explain why the UK has one of the highest death tolls in the world. Mistakes include failing to provide health and care workers with adequate personal protective equipment, as well as sending hospital patients back to care homes without testing them. Members of the public are rightly using judicial review to challenge the Government on mistakes like that. If the Government weaken judicial review, they may avoid responsibility for other potentially unlawful acts during the pandemic. Will the Lord Chancellor guarantee to me that no judicial review focused on the Government’s mistakes during the pandemic will be affected by the changes that he now proposes?

On the surface, the review has looked at technical aspects of judicial review. The formal scope focuses on potential codification of grounds, the parameters of judicial authority and the procedural changes, but its political purpose is sweeping and dangerous. The person appointed to lead it was highly vocal in his criticism of the judiciary in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment on Prorogation. There has been briefing from Johnson’s Downing Street of the intention

“to get the judges sorted”,

and there can be little doubt that the review is part of an attempt to hoard more power in No. 10.

Can the Secretary of State tell the House where the idea to attack judicial review came from—was it him, the Prime Minister or Dominic Cummings? If the Lord Chancellor still refuses to publish all the submissions to the review—it is extraordinary that he will not publish those submissions—will he at least commit to publishing the submission that came from the Home Office?

A responsible Government would seek to consolidate and protect the democratic legal right of judicial review, not constrain and undermine it. Just as we condemn foreign Governments for attacking the rule of law, as in Poland and Hungary, Members must also condemn our own Government for doing the same. Members from all political traditions should be just as outraged that the Government decided in the middle of a pandemic to use their precious time to launch an attack on judicial review. Madam Deputy Speaker, be in no doubt: this cynical, misguided and politically motivated move is from the same authoritarian playbook. Judicial review is the only way the public can challenge the Government when they act unlawfully. Labour will defend it, so that we can hold this incompetent and untrustworthy Government to account.

[Robert Buckland]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I think I can deal very shortly with the rather hyperbolic diatribe about the position of this Government and the rule of law. There is absolutely no doubt about our adherence to rule of law principles, as with all Governments who have preceded us and indeed Governments to come. I take issue with his suggestion that somehow I am staying silent on these matters. I certainly have not hesitated at important moments, for example, during the Prorogation issue, to defend the judiciary robustly in public, as is consistent with my oath.

Let me answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, particularly those on publication. First, those contributions to the review call for evidence that are quoted in the report have been published today. The other public responses to the consultation will be published next week. We are making sure that they are all consistent with our general data protection regulation obligations, but I give him that undertaking that they will all be published. The Government submissions to the consultation will be summarised and published within the next 10 days or so, which will give everybody a clear view of submissions to the call for evidence, but in a way that is consistent with collective Cabinet responsibility. I give him absolutely that undertaking that the next stage—the consultation process—will follow the same course as other public consultation processes. I encourage him and all interested parties to take a full role in this.

The right hon. Gentleman made a point about ouster clauses, which deserves some scrutiny. Such clauses are not completely unknown to this House. Indeed, when one looks at the Parliament Act and the particular function that the Speaker has with regard to processes between this House and the other place, one sees that it contains ouster clauses. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 had an ouster clause. The question is about the particular purpose and the way in which such clauses are used. There have been times when broad ouster clauses have been introduced, which have naturally caused great concern. The right hon. Gentleman might well remember one such example, because the asylum Bill that he shepherded through this House back in 2003 contained an ouster clause that was described as “without precedent” in its extent. I sympathise with the position he is in, because Governments will often want to create a high degree of legal certainty, to make sure that the processes are clear and that the parties involved and everybody else knows with certainty what is to happen; I can understand why he wanted to pursue that course then. So it is wise of everybody concerned with this issue to take a long view, consider the matter carefully and come up with considered submissions and suggestions, rather than, I am afraid, descending to rhetoric that does not meet the reality of the situation we are dealing with.

These proposals are sensible, incremental reforms that are very much within the tradition of the development of our law. They are the result of much consideration, not just by Lord Faulks, but by a very diverse panel of different opinions and different perspectives, which can hardly be described as a sort of panel that was designed to reach a conclusion before the document had been written. It was genuinely independent and I value it very highly for that.

In summary, these proposals, together with what we want to consult upon, are a mature, reflective look at a process that plays an important part in our society and our constitution, but which, like all other parts of our democracy—this place, local government and all the agencies of accountability—merits careful and close scrutiny. Frankly, it is our duty, as a Government and as a Parliament, from time to time to make sure that that delicate constitutional balance is being maintained. That is what we seek to do, and I make no apology for the initiative that we have taken.

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

I thank both the Lord Chancellor for the tone of his statement and the members of the panel for their work. The Lord Chancellor was very clear in his commitment to the importance and the fundamental nature of judicial review in our constitutional arrangements. Does he agree therefore that, as these proposals are progressed to further consultation, it is important that the conclusions are adequately considered by Government, that there should not be any undue pressure of time to bring proposals forward, that it is better to move carefully and incrementally, and that this House will have ample time to consider any proposals once the Government have formulated them? A guiding principle that we could perhaps bear in mind are the words of the late Lord Bingham in his book “The Rule of Law” when he said that, in judicial review, the role of the judges was to be the “auditors of legality: no more, but no less.” We should not have confusion about how the audit works, but neither should we do anything that impedes the ability of the auditors to do their job.

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee. His reference to the late Lord Bingham and the description of the audit role is an invaluable intervention. That is precisely what the Government seek to do here. It is all about protecting the role of the judiciary as well. I am a fierce defender of their role and I want to make sure that they are not inadvertently drawn into matters of policy, which are matters for this place, the Government, and democratic institutions, and not drawn into merits-based assessments as opposed to assessing the legality or otherwise of Executive action or omission.

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

I thank the Justice Secretary for his statement and the panel for its work. We will, of course, scrutinise the report carefully and constructively, but we will do so from the starting point that there is very little about this vital democratic safeguard that needs to be fixed. We absolutely do not share the Justice Secretary’s concerns about perceived expansion of judicial review. Our concern is that successive Conservative Governments have sought to constrain anything that gets in the way of their agenda: a gagging Bill on charities; restrictive trade union laws; cuts to legal aid; and, this week, the egregious attacks on the right to protest. We would be utterly failing as an Opposition if we did not approach this whole project with a healthy and significant degree of scepticism and concern. Talk of ouster clauses and restricting remedies is indeed especially alarming, and leads us to question again—is not this more about the Prime Minister’s anger at judgments such as the article 50 Miller case or the Prorogation case led by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).

Par for the course, this announcement was trailed this week in the context of migration litigation, but, in that context, if the Government were really interested in reducing reliance on judicial review, why do they not restore the statutory appeal rights that they have slashed and burned over the past decade or invest properly in decision making, so that it is faster and more decisions are right first time? In short, it is better to fix the failing Home Office instead of meddling with one of the only systems that people have left to protect themselves from its incompetence. That is true right across Government. More reviews about asylum seekers have been talked about this week. Tomorrow, it will be people’s housing or social security cases.

Finally, the Justice Secretary has been reminded repeatedly from these Benches that the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session to review Acts of Government is protected by the Act of Union and the Treaty of Union. Will he confirm that anything that impinges on that jurisdiction is not for this Westminster Parliament or Government to decide?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. May I answer his last question first? I can give him that assurance. With regard to the Cart jurisdiction, that clearly relates to a reserved matter concerning immigration issues, which does, of course, apply to the Scottish jurisdiction as well. In respecting separate jurisdictions, as I always do, these proposals relate to England and Wales matters and have been carefully delineated in that way.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s other assertions, I will simply say this: to conflate issues relating to public order with this Government’s approach to the rule of law and their steadfast belief in democratic institutions is, once again, to stretch reality too far. Without repeating the arguments that we had earlier this week, I cannot equate the adoption of recommendations by the independent Law Commission about the law of public nuisance with the sort of reactionary, authoritarian acts of France of the 1790s. It beggars belief that such comparisons are being made. They do not stand close scrutiny, and I am sure that in the weeks and months ahead, the intellectual poverty of these arguments will be exposed.

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

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. From my recent practice at the Bar, I know that the judicial review system is sometimes abused, and some unscrupulous lawyers will use it when they should not. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Opposition Members would be hypocritical to oppose this review, given that they—including the shadow Justice Secretary—proposed a complete abolition of judicial review in immigration and asylum matters?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend, who is an experienced family practitioner of many years’ standing, will know from her professional experience that, while the proper use of legal process to make legitimate claims is at the heart of our rule of law, it should sadden all of us if we see attempts being made to delay and frustrate that process by the use of procedures that, frankly, are otiose and do not add to the fairness or justice of proceedings but rather detract from the overall outcome and the fairness of it.

My hon. Friend is right to make the point that successive Governments, including the one in which the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) served, have argued, sometimes very passionately, in favour of quite wide-ranging ouster clauses in order to achieve a higher degree of legal certainty. That was what happened back in 2003, when the right hon. Gentleman was in government. What we need to do now is avoid having those arguments in future, with overly wide ouster clauses, and find a proper modus vivendi, whereby they can be used proportionately in a way that will not offend the courts.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]]

I thank the panel for the work it has been doing. There is no justification for the proposals to restrict people’s access to court. The current judicial review system works well, allowing people directly to hold Governments of any colour to account and enforce their rights through the courts. Instead of this assault on the rule of law, will the Ministry of Justice instead focus on the shockingly low conviction rates for crimes committed against women and girls and publish plans for how to ensure that offenders of violence against women and girls are properly prosecuted and convicted?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady is, frankly, wrong to describe these proposals as a curtailment of judicial review. I will give her an example of an area where the use of a suspended quashing order could have helped campaigners. There was a case about tuition fees in which the Secretary of State was challenged for breaching the public sector equality duty. The court could only, at that stage, give a declaration of unlawfulness because a quashing of the decision would have caused administrative chaos. If a suspended quashing order had existed as an option, that would have had more teeth for those who were campaigning against tuition fees, which the hon. Lady’s party supported back in 2010.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]]

From personal experience in local government, I know that judicial reviews can bring significant uncertainty to decisions that have been made by democratically elected and publicly accountable bodies. Will my right hon. and learned Friend outline the benefits he anticipates from this review in respect of local authorities and their decisions?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience as a deputy leader of a major London borough and a long-standing member of the Local Government Association. He will see that there will be many advantages as a result of the proposals. For example, as I have mentioned, the ability to suspend quashing orders is a very pragmatic and sensible step. It means that minor administrative errors will not result in the entire policy being struck down, leading to great uncertainty and often administrative headaches for local authorities and others. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his background in local government, will look at the consultation document and come up with further sensible suggestions.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]]

The amount of time and resources spent by successive Conservative Governments on restricting judicial review is extraordinary. It is one slender means that the individual has to challenge the power of Government when they act unlawfully. Rather than saying, “There’s nothing to see here,” does the Lord Chancellor want his legacy to be one of undermining judicial discretion, the common law and the rights of the citizen in order to make the Executive safe from challenge and scrutiny?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

My legacy, I hope, if these proposals are, after consultation, taken forward in the form of legislation, will have been to enhance the options available to the judiciary. If we look at the remedy proposals, we will see that creating extra powers such as suspending quashing orders, and other types of discretionary remedies, will allow the courts to take a more surgeon’s scalpel-like approach to some of these issues, rather than the sometimes rather blunt sledgehammer of quashing a particular decision, making it a nullity, or, at the other end, making a declaration of unlawfulness. I hope that my legacy, whenever it comes, will have been to increase the discretion of the courts and to rebalance their position within our unwritten constitution.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

It seems to me that we need to find the right balance between protecting the rights of individuals to rightfully challenge Executive power and ensuring that government can proceed effectively without vexatious legal claims. How will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that we get the right balance?

[Robert Buckland]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s characterisation. The use of the word “balance” is very much at the essence of what I as a Conservative and Lord Chancellor believe in. I can give an example. We can see from the Cart judicial review process, which I have mentioned, how such a process can be used to press claims that, frankly, have no merit and result in delay, which frustrates lawful action. By streamlining those procedures, by ensuring that the existing, reliable and sufficient routes of appeal are there, we can ensure that claims are dealt with quickly, fairly and in the proper place.

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

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement, but on 13 March The Daily Telegraph reported that the Government were planning to limit how a judicial review could be used in asylum cases by stopping

“the automatic referral of judicial review cases to senior judges.”

Will the Lord Chancellor be doing that? If so, is anti-immigrant sentiment the motivation behind this Government’s attack on judicial review?

[Robert Buckland]

May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is certainly no base motive behind these proposals, and certainly no attack on people who make proper applications, whether they are seeking asylum or, indeed, clarifying their immigration status in the United Kingdom? What we seek to do is create a system that will work in their better interests. As he will know, one of the big problems is the delay and the anxiety it can cause to many applicants who have to wait for an undue period of time. I want to ensure that we maintain those appeal processes that need to exist in order to satisfy all those rule of law principles that he and I believe in, but to also strip away the unnecessary processes that just prolong the agony for everybody concerned, not least the applicants.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Judicial reviews are a vital part of the justice system. They are a way for people to test the lawfulness of decisions by public bodies. However, as a mechanism, they are often expensive and their costly nature prohibits poorly made decisions from being held to account. I am thinking of the Environment Agency’s recent decision to award an environmental permit for an incinerator in Keighley. Could the Lord Chancellor comment on how the judicial review process can be made more accessible and affordable so that public bodies can be properly held to account?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend makes a very proper point, and one of the important functions of judicial review is for the courts not just to opine on the legality or otherwise of the decision, but to help local and national Government understand better how to make those decisions in the first place. I readily take the point that there are still far too many outcomes that result from flawed decision making, which is why judicial review is such an important principle. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, be particularly interested in the proposals in the consultation about procedural reform, which are designed to try to streamline, simplify and make judicial review more accessible for organisations and individuals who seek it. But in the first instance my aim is to try to ensure that these disputes are resolved before the need for litigation.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]]

When this review was announced I corresponded with the Lord Chancellor, reminding him that our independent system of civil justice in Scotland is protected by article 19 of the treaty of Union and devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so I welcome the assurance he has given today that his proposals going forward will apply to England and Wales only. As it is my birthday, will he indulge me by joining me in celebrating another victory for Scotland’s independent legal system, which of course in 2019 led the way in ruling that the Prime Minister’s Prorogation of Parliament was unlawful?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Happy birthday.

[Robert Buckland]

I am more than happy to wish the hon. and learned Lady a very happy birthday. I absolutely accept that she and I corresponded on these matters, and she pressed me when serving on the SNP Front Bench, but at no time was there any intention by the Government to trespass on to issues that are the province of the separate Scottish legal system. In this particular instance we have the Cart process, which applies to reserved matters and which of course would apply to Scottish courts, but I can assure the hon. and learned Lady that, if anything, we will be learning from the Scottish jurisdiction, because I note in particular section 108 of the Scotland Act 1998 and its provisions with regard to a certain type of remedy. So once again the great jurisdictions of England, Wales and Scotland are learning from each other as part of our even greater United Kingdom.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]]

The time limit to bring a judicial review claim is extremely short in comparison with other types of such claim. There is already a requirement for a claim to be brought promptly and within three months of the decision which is being challenged; any further restrictions would only make it harder for individuals to access justice. Will the Lord Chancellor guarantee that he will not make time limits for judicial review stricter than they already are?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Before I call the Lord Chancellor, I do want to remind hon. and right hon. Members of the dress code, which is the same for those contributing by video link and is that we should wear jackets.

[Robert Buckland]

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

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

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

[Robert Buckland]

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

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

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

This week of all weeks, when the Government are using the law to clamp down on justice seekers protesting on the streets, they are now using the law to clamp down on justice seekers prosecuting their cases in the courts. They are taking our rights, as they run roughshod over the human rights of others, further exposing the hostile, authoritarian environment festering at the heart of Government. Will the Secretary of State publish all the submissions, including that of the Home Office, to his further consultation and an equality impact assessment on narrowing the scope of judicial reviews?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I can forgive the hon. Lady for reading a stock question as she has not had a chance to see the document. I will repeat the answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) with regard to publication. With respect, I must, however, take grave issue with her characterisation of the Government. I am sorry, but the public order reforms are in no way comparable to the extreme rhetoric she used. This is a codification of the law; an application of well-established legal practice with regard to mobile demonstrations to those that might be static. This is about balancing the right of freedom of expression with the rights of the rest of society to go about their lawful business.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

Can we quash this hyperbolic nonsense spouted forth in the Chamber this morning? The incidents on Saturday were because of poor enforcement of badly drafted covid regulations, and nothing more than that. Will the Lord Chancellor take this opportunity to provide an update on the constitution, democracy and rights commission? He will recall with fondness his appearance before my Committee, I am sure, and he might have ample opportunity now to expound further.

[Robert Buckland]

I thank the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I do indeed remember my appearance before it. As I explained to the Committee then, the review was one distinct part of a process that I am already undertaking. In January, I announced the creation of an independent review to consider the operation of the Human Rights Act, chaired by Sir Peter Gross, a former Lord Justice of Appeal, with a diverse panel—in terms of geography and, indeed, opinion—across the United Kingdom and Ireland. That is part of an overall process that will result not in a commission trying to deal with all aspects but will demonstrate and reveal the Government’s approach to rebalancing our constitution in the finest traditions of what we do and what we represent in this country.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]]

The Faculty of Advocates, in its evidence submission to the review, stated:

“There is no case for substantive statutory intervention in the judicial review process. Such an intervention risks artificially stymying the development of the law of judicial review”,

and

“judicial review does not suffer from a lack of clarity, and any attempt to codify it is likely to undermine the very flexibility that renders it effective.”

Will the Lord Chancellor advise the faculty and the House why this astute advice has been disregarded by his Department?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that in fact the advice has not been disregarded by the Department, because we are not advocating a wholesale codification of the law in this area. That was a particular issue that the review looked at very carefully. It took into account the evidence of the faculty, as it did the other evidence, and did not come to that conclusion. I will forgive her for making an incorrect assertion because she is yet to have a chance to read in depth the report, which has just been published. When we discuss these matters on another occasion, I am sure that she will accept the point that I have made and focus on the legitimate issues of debate that might still exist between us.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

Will the Lord Chancellor set out for the benefit of the House the advantages of these measures?

[Robert Buckland]

For my hon. Friend and her constituents in Hyndburn, there will be many advantages. The options with regard to remedy actually enhance the rights of individuals. Where courts in the past have had to make a declaration of unlawfulness without any consequences, the option of having a suspended quashing order could allow that middle way to be achieved, where the authority concerned has an opportunity to correct its behaviour in a way that will give a higher degree of justice to the applicants. If these options are adopted, I can see a whole range of different approaches being taken that will enhance the public’s experience of judicial review applications.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the consultation process will be a truly interactive one that engages with interested parties in the public discourse about these proposals and ensures that not only all regions, but all nations, can truly take part in this process?

[Robert Buckland]

I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that both he and his constituents in Bury South will have the opportunity to take part in further consultations. I suspect that most of the people and organisations who responded so helpfully to the review panel’s call for evidence last autumn will indeed engage again in this consultation. I look forward to a full and lively debate in the weeks ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. I am suspending the House for two minutes to allow the arrangements to be made for the next business.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

What steps the Government are taking to reform the Mental Health Act 2007.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

We are determined to work across Government to modernise the Mental Health Act 2007 so that it ensures that patients receive the right care in the right setting at the right time. Prison should be a place for rehabilitation, not a convenient holding pen for those people for whom mental health is the primary driver of their offending.

[Suzanne Webb]

What is the timetable for the Mental Health Act consultation and how can interested parties participate?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her continuing interest in this important process. We are consulting widely on these proposed reforms, including service users, carers and professionals, to ensure that we get this once-in-a-generation opportunity right. The consultation is now available on the gov.UK website, and will close on 21 April.

[Dr Davies [V]]

Will the Secretary of State explain how reforms of the Mental Health Act will strengthen the role that the justice system plays in protecting society’s most vulnerable, both in north Wales and across the country?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend who, from his professional experience, has a great deal of expertise and knowledge in this area. Among other reforms, we want, in particular, to increase patient access to the Mental Health Tribunal, which provides vital independent scrutiny of detention orders. We wish to expand its powers so that it plays a greater safeguarding role. Health policy is devolved to Wales, so it will be for the Welsh Government to decide whether they wish to join the UK Government on many of our reforms in the White Paper, and we will continue to work closely with them in order to secure that partnership.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

What support his Department is providing to the legal aid sector during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

With regard to the legal aid sector during this crisis, we have expanded the scope of and relaxed the evidence requirements for hardship payments in Crown court cases, including reducing the threshold for work done; we have increased opportunities to claim payment on account in civil legal aid cases, as well as increasing the amounts; we have halted the pursuit of outstanding debts owed by providers of legal aid to the Legal Aid Agency; and we have suspended sanctions in relation to mixed deadlines. That is in addition to the range of measures that we have taken in order to support the sector through this crisis.

[Sarah Olney [V]]

The latest Ministry of Justice figures show that there are 56,544 outstanding Crown court cases at the end of January. Given that defence lawyers are paid for litigation when a case finishes, can the Secretary of State confirm what steps have been taken to assist legal aid lawyers with their cash flow at this time?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady will be glad to know that, as I referred to in my initial reply, we have already relaxed the evidence requirements for hardship payments and, importantly, reduced the threshold for work done by criminal lawyers to £450 from the current £5,000. It is absolutely essential that we maintain throughput, and as we move on through this year with the road map out of lockdown, I am confident that the court system will be able to list even more proactively, making sure that there is plenty of work for dedicated criminal legal aid lawyers.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]]

The independent criminal legal aid review is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to fix a vital element of our criminal justice system. There are more than 400 fewer criminal legal aid firms today than in 2015. That means that more than one in four has left the system. When these firms fold, legal aid family law departments often go with them, leaving domestic abuse victims without representation. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government cannot simply wait for the recommendations of CLAR before taking action and that we must make sure that the number of unrepresented domestic abuse victims does not increase yet further.

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the need for representation for domestic abuse victims. He knows, of course, that in criminal scenarios the Crown Prosecution Service will act with regard to the prosecution of offences. He will also note that, in phase 1 of the CLAR process, up to £51 million a year has already been injected into criminal legal aid fees. That is the most significant increase in investment in legal aid for a quarter of a century. We are working on the existing body of evidence with the new chair of the criminal legal aid review, Sir Christopher Bellamy QC, who is already engaging with the professions. I am confident that his work will deal not only with the situation with regard to fees in court, but, as he says, the “sustainability” of those criminal legal aid firms that are the lifeblood of representation in that sector.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

What progress he has made on tackling the backlog of cases in HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to tackle legal aid advice deserts.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

The Legal Aid Agency is currently acting to fill any gaps in the market, and it frequently renews capacity, to ensure adequate provision. We are currently considering civil legal aid market sustainability, and I have provided £5.4 million in emergency funding for not-for-profit legal advice providers during covid-19.

[Imran Hussain [V]]

Bradford’s community advice centres that provide legal support have been devastated by the Government’s funding cuts and preference for bigger providers. As a result, some of our excellent, hard-working, local grassroot community advice centres have been run into the ground, creating legal aid and advice deserts in some of our most vulnerable communities that need the greatest support. Will the Justice Secretary commit to a “local first” policy, to ensure that community advice centres get the funding they need to help some of society’s most vulnerable people, who cannot afford help elsewhere? Will he commit to ensuring an increase in the number of grassroot community advice centres in Bradford?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the importance of community provision. Indeed, among those sectors that were helped by the £5.4 million funding during covid was the Law Centres Network, which plays an invaluable role. He will be glad to know that the Legal Aid Agency has launched a procurement process to identify new providers in the areas of housing and debt, where there is currently little or no provision, to help citizens get that advice. It will shortly announce a positive outcome to that process.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on the justice system.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

At the beginning of the pandemic, we were guided by public health advice, and we took immediate and decisive action across prison, probation, youth justice and courts services, to implement a range of measures to respond. Our protection of those in prisons, through compartmentalisation, testing, the use of exceptional delivery models and probation services and the creation of Nightingale courts, alongside physical changes to courtrooms and increased video technology, helped to mitigate the severe impact of the pandemic.

[Ruth Jones [V]]

I am grateful for the Lord Chancellor’s response. We all know the impact that the pandemic has had on life in our country, and I have seen for myself its impact on many communities who live, learn and work across Newport West. What discussions has he had with the Welsh Government about ensuring that those who need justice are able to get it in a timely manner?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady will be glad to know that I regularly engage with the Welsh Government, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service in Wales to ensure that the prison estate is safe, and the probation service is delivering. We have heard about the sobriety tags that have been piloted in Wales, and our courts are working well. I am glad that in Wales the management of cases has demonstrated that, now that there is no backlog. In particular, Newport Crown court was home to a multi-handed murder trial, which was dealt with successfully in recent weeks. A lot of good work is going on in Wales. Wales is leading the way, and I am proud of that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

What funding his Department has provided for technology to support prison education programmes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

What progress his Department has made on the proposals in its September 2020 White Paper, “A Smarter Approach to Sentencing”. [R]

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

Last week, we introduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. This landmark piece of legislation will deliver on the commitments that I made in the White Paper to make punishments tougher for the most serious offenders and those who commit crimes against women and girls, and to introduce more effective community sentences. We are working on those non-legislative reforms in the White Paper that aim to tackle the underlying causes of criminal behaviour and to improve the rehabilitation of offenders in our community.

[Rob Butler [V]]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for that answer. Over the years that I have been involved in the criminal justice system, I have often been struck by the potential for technology to play a greater role in keeping the public safe, punishing criminals and helping to reduce reoffending. I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend can tell the House how measures in the White Paper will enable the courts, prisons and probation services to exploit new technology.

[Robert Buckland]

As ever, I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s continued commitment to this issue. We are expanding the use of electronic monitoring to support robust and responsive community supervision. Following its well-received launch in Wales, as I mentioned, courts in England will shortly be able to impose the alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement—the sobriety tag—to help tackle offending. We will shortly lay legislation to impose GPS tracking on offenders released from custody who have committed burglary and theft offences. The Bill will extend the maximum length of a curfew from 12 months to two years, making the use of those powers more flexible, and we will use those powers to test the house detention order concept outlined in the White Paper to see how that can contribute to reducing reoffending.

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]]

The Secretary of State’s own strategy says that short prison sentences for women do not work because they fail to tackle the reasons women are there, which is often due to the abuse and trauma caused by the men in their lives. His own strategy says that. When the Government’s neglect of crimes against women is under the spotlight, why is he still insisting on spending another £150 million on ineffective prison places when that money could be spent on action to break the cycle of abuse and reoffending?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to refer to the female offender strategy, which is at the heart of our approach to women offenders—the trauma-informed approach that she knows is so important. I can reassure her that the prison places that we are building will improve and enhance the existing female estate, some of which, frankly, is not fit for purpose. This will replace and revivify the estate and allow women to be in a secure environment where they can do purposeful activity, support each other and, indeed, benefit—[Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Front Benchers think it is so funny, Mr Speaker. I have certainly supported the female offender strategy, and I will repeat the point that what we are doing is improving and enhancing the custodial experience while delivering the strategy and, of course, residential centres such as the one in Wales that will be opening very shortly indeed. [Interruption.] I really fail to see why women offenders are so funny, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just reassure you, Secretary of State, that they were not laughing at you? I think it was the expressions of the shadow Minister that they were laughing at—and people might think that those on the Government side were, too. I just want to reassure you that nobody was laughing at that situation.

--- Later in debate ---

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

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

The entire country has been shocked and appalled by the disappearance of Sarah Everard and the discovery of her body last week, and I know the thoughts of the whole House are with Sarah’s family and friends. Our minds are also on our constituents—the women who have shared their own stories of harassment and harm over the last week. After a quarter of a century of working with victims as a criminal practitioner and sitting as a part-time judge, and as someone who has worked with Members of all parties to successfully include stalking offences in our criminal law, and having taken groundbreaking legislation through this House on coercive control, these stories were all too depressingly familiar to me. Our country today should be a place where no woman has to live in fear of men, and I will continue to work tirelessly to build a criminal justice system that is better able to protect women and girls and that, most notably through our landmark Domestic Abuse Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, delivers more protection. The Government will work across this House to achieve that end.

[Stuart C. McDonald [V]]

I thank the Justice Secretary and echo the sentiments that he expressed.

It was the Justice Secretary who made the required statutory statement that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is compatible with convention rights, but given the many voices expressing grave concerns about the impact of that Bill on our human rights —especially rights relating to protest—did he have second thoughts about making that statement and, most importantly, will he listen to those concerns and act on them?

[Robert Buckland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but no, I do not have any second thoughts. The particular provisions on protests are a reflection of the Law Commission’s 2015 report and of the common law in England and Wales on public nuisance, which refers to, among other things, “annoyance”, “serious annoyance” and other terms that are well known to law. The maximum penalty in common law for public nuisance was life imprisonment. That is being reduced to 10 years. Frankly, I really do not see what the fuss is about. I rather think it is a confection designed to assist an Opposition in difficulty.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us go to Sir Robert Neill, the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

I, and I am sure all the members of the Justice Committee, will also want to associate ourselves with the Secretary of State’s comments. Does he agree that protection of the public is served not only by deterrent sentencing where necessary, but by a much a broader and more nuanced suite of alternatives for less serious offenders? Can he help us, in particular, on the timescale for the roll out of problem-solving courts, which have been called for by the Select Committee and by many other commentators over a number of years, but which, until now, have perhaps not always had the ministerial or governmental impetus behind them that is required to make them succeed as part of that smarter sentencing package?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee for raising the important issue of problem-solving courts. This will be an opportunity to bring together not just the courts system but other agencies around the issue in order to deal with the particular challenge being faced by a family or by somebody who has been accused of a criminal offence. The work on this is ongoing, and I want to launch the pilots later this year. This is very much at the heart of the sentencing White Paper that I published last September. It is all about getting smart on sentencing and making sure that we reflect the reality of the challenges that are often faced by our courts.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

A study by UN Women UK has shown that 97% of young adult women in the UK have experienced sexual harassment in public places. One in five women will suffer sexual assault in their lifetime. Under the Lord Chancellor’s watch, rape convictions have fallen to an all-time low of just 1.4%. What does he have to say to the 96% of abuse victims who feel it is no longer worth making a complaint? What does he have to say to the 45% who said complaining would make no difference? What does he have to say to all women who have suffered abuse and who have given up hope of this Government’s ability to deliver justice?

[Robert Buckland]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the worrying statistics about the gap that exists between the system and the confidence of women, in particular, who feel that the system does not work for them. I would remind him that this Government have pioneered important legislation in areas such as coercive control, stalking reform, and the changes in the Domestic Abuse Bill that I know he and his party support and that have been further refined in their lordships’ House to include offences such as non-fatal strangulation, an extension to coercive control, and threats to inflict revenge porn. We are able, in the Bill that we are debating today, to go even further and impose longer sentences for those who commit crimes predominantly against women and girls. He and his party have an opportunity tonight to help the very women that he talks about, but they choose to vote against the Bill and not to support the Government in their fight against crime and in their support for victims such as women and girls.

[Mr Lammy]

The Secretary of State has got to watch it, because I think he is getting annoyed, and he has made that something that you can go to prison for in the Bill that we are voting on a bit later.

Some 80% in prison of women are there for non-violent offences, serving short sentences that the Government know do not work. Most are themselves victims of crime—often much more serious crimes than those they have been convicted of. Separated from their families, they lose their children, their jobs and their hope. They make up 5% of the prison population, but they account for almost 20% of the self-harm, which has gone up under the Secretary of State’s watch. While he works to save statues and gag protesters, more and more women become victims. When will he admit that his Government just do not care?

[Robert Buckland]

I think I am entitled to be more than a little annoyed by the refusal of the Opposition to come together to work to achieve a better society for women and girls—[Interruption.] No, they have chosen the path of party politicking, and in an attempt to cover the deep divisions that exist on their side, they are politicising an issue that should rise above politics. I am deeply disappointed and, yes, I am annoyed on behalf of the thousands of women and girls who see this as an opportunity for change. The right hon. Gentleman is rejecting that, he is voting against tougher sentences, and he will have to answer to his constituents and the country.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) [V]]

Nightingale courts have played a pivotal role in keeping our justice system going throughout the pandemic. May I ask the Minister for an update on when a Nightingale court will be established in Kent? This will be vital to speeding up access to justice for my constituents and helping with the cases at the highest risk of attrition, such as those of sexual violence.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]]

Will the Cabinet Secretary or a Minister welcome the announcement from the Scottish National party Government that while the UK Government seem intent on rolling back human rights in the UK, Scotland will aim to strengthen them in a truly groundbreaking human rights Bill? That Bill will incorporate four United Nations treaties, to further enhance the rights of women, people with disabilities, older people and minority ethnic communities. Does the Minister agree that independence is the only way for the people of Scotland to truly safeguard their fundamental human rights?

[Robert Buckland]

If the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is separation, it is entirely misconceived. The jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be standing shoulder to shoulder in that fine tradition of the rule of law and respect for human rights. She correctly refers to the Holyrood Parliament’s decisions, and of course we respect that, but across the UK we have world-leading, world-beating laws and provisions relating to the rights of vulnerable people, which she talks about. The job is to make sure that that becomes more of a reality for more and more people, and that is what we should all be working together to achieve.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) [V]]

What progress has been made on the independent review of administrative law?

[Robert Buckland]

I will be making announcements on the independent review and the next steps very shortly. Judicial review plays a vital review in upholding the rule of law, and the reason we established the review was that we wanted to look carefully at whether it was running as it needs to or whether changes will be needed. I will make announcements to this House very shortly.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

T8. More than 230 people have now been prosecuted under the Coronavirus Act 2020, but according to the Crown Prosecution Service every single one was incorrectly charged. Does the Secretary of State agree that this amount of confusion and mistakes brings the law into disrepute? Will he therefore accept that the Act should not be renewed in full this month and that instead we should look at the replacement “protect everyone Bill” proposed by Liberty and others?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that question. The primary responsibility for the superintendence of the CPS rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, but the hon. Lady does make an important point about the reputation of the rule of law, and I know that these matters are being looked at carefully. I commend the existing coronavirus legislation to her; it has been carefully sunsetted with review provisions, and I assure her that Ministers, including me, take that responsibility very seriously and will not hesitate to remove provisions that either have not been used or are just not proportionate to deal with the problems we face.

[Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) [V]]

Covid-19 has had a significant impact on victims, witnesses and defendants involved in court proceedings in the past year. This is similar to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), but the backlog of cases in Nottinghamshire stands at 1,200 in the Crown court and 8,000 in the magistrates court. To ensure the timely administration of justice, has my right hon. and learned Friend considered a Nightingale court in Nottinghamshire, so that cases can be heard as quickly as possible? If not, will he agree to meet me to discuss what steps his Department is taking to make sufficient inroads into the backlog of cases in Nottinghamshire?

[Robert Buckland]

I am delighted to let me hon. Friend know that, as a result of the campaigning that he and other Nottinghamshire colleagues have undertaken, we will be opening a Nightingale court in Nottingham before the end of this month. I agree that adding additional capacity through opening up Nightingales is the key to tackling the higher level of outstanding cases caused by the pandemic. We have now opened Nightingales in every Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service region, and we are on track to have a total of 60 additional courtrooms by the end of March.

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

After the post-war recovery, legal aid was celebrated as being one of the great pillars of the welfare state, but thanks to a decade of Tory cuts many of my constituents and vulnerable people across our country no longer have access to justice. So what exactly is the Secretary of State doing to halt the terminal decline in the number of legal aid firms and solicitors?

[Robert Buckland]

I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman, and I am more than happy to have a longer discussion with him in real time about the evolution of the legal aid system, which evolved under Governments of both colours. Civil legal aid was slashed considerably by the Labour Government in 1999. This Government still spend £1.7 billion on legal aid. We are already dealing with criminal legal aid, and have a big review into it. With regard to civil legal aid providers, I have already answered questions about the way we are seeking to procure more housing and debt advice. I assure him that the challenges are great, but my personal commitment to legal aid, having been a practitioner in legal aid in my professional career, is real, sincere and will yield proper results.

[Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)]

As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, the Atlantic hotel in Porthcawl and the Sunnyside Wellness Village in Bridgend are two of the five sites that have been shortlisted for a women’s residential centre in south Wales. I thank my hon. and right hon. Friends for the engagement that I have had so far on this issue, through which I have conveyed strong feelings of opposition to both sites. Will he reiterate to the constituents of Bridgend and Porthcawl that he will consider the feelings of local residents and stakeholders before a decision is made?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is a doughty representative of his constituency. Rightly, he has consistently raised those issues with me on behalf of concerned local residents. The Department has already written to residents living near the proposed locations in the options listed. We have advised them of the proposal, and are seeking their views. We also want the views of Senedd Members, local Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend, and councillors before any final decision is made.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

  When I introduced the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 in 2008 as a private Member’s Bill, with great support from the Minister, I was always anxious that just passing the law would not be enough; we would have to do lots of other things to ensure that we really were cracking down on assaults on emergency workers. One problem is that it is all very well doubling the sentence, as my Bill did and as the Government intend to do later today, but magistrates courts can only issue a sentence of up to six months, so it has next to no effect unless the Government implement section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. When will they do that?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman—I nearly said my hon. Friend—makes a very important point. I am looking very carefully at those provisions. It is important to remember that the magistrates have the power to commit for sentence to the Crown court where they consider their powers to be inadequate. I urge that they do that with regard to particular—[Interruption.] Well, I am listening to him, and I do not want to get into a debate with him, but it is important that that point is strongly made in the guidance issued to legal advisers in magistrates courts. I will look into that point to ensure that the maximum sentence that should be imposed, consistent with the facts in a case, is imposed to meet the justice that this House wanted to achieve for blue light emergency workers.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am suspending the House for three minutes in order for the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 2
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

As the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said, it is an honour to close this debate and to follow other right hon. and hon. Members. This two-day debate has been an opportunity, first of all, for all of us to pay tribute to the memory of Sarah Everard, her loved ones and the wider community, who have expressed their shock, revulsion and anger at what has happened and at the wider issues, too.

When we talk about safety, each and every one of us has a responsibility. When women all too often feel unsafe, it is the wrong response to say to them, “Stay indoors. Don’t go out alone.” Instead of questioning the victim, we have to deal with the perpetrator. When I think about how far we have come, I sharply remind myself of how far we still have to go. I look around this House and think of colleagues from all parties—some of whom are no longer here—with whom I have had the honour to work on a cross-party basis on issues such as stalking, child abuse and coercive control. I am proud of that work, and I know that they are, too. The Domestic Abuse Bill, which is coming to the end of its progress through both Houses, has in many ways been Parliament at its very best.

The events of last week have no doubt acted as a catalyst. Society is speaking. The response to the reopened call for evidence on the Home Office’s violence against women and girls strategy has now received more than 120,000 submissions in just three days. Society is speaking, and it is for all of us to be up to the level of events.

The Bill, on which I have worked for many months—from well before the sentencing White Paper that I published in September last year—is not just the fulfilment of a manifesto commitment, important though that is; it lies at the very heart of the mission of this Government. It is another milestone along the road to creating a higher degree of public protection for victims of crime—and that very much includes women and girls. I had hoped—in fact, I believed—that we were going to be able to work with Members across this House not on the principle of the Bill but perhaps on the detail. Imagine my disappointment to hear that the Labour party has decided to oppose the Bill on Second Reading.

Let us remind ourselves of what Second Reading is all about: it is not about the detail of the Bill—whether it can be amended, improved, honed, polished or added to, as we have seen with the Domestic Abuse Bill—but about the principle. With the greatest of respect to Opposition Members, what beggars belief is that they think that now is the time to turn unity into bitterness and partnership into strife—[Interruption.] I can tell the right hon. Member for Tottenham that I am afraid that is what I have been hearing across the House. It is as if, somehow, we have descended into two nations once again, speaking past each other and not engaging in the way that we did on the Domestic Abuse Bill. To say that I am perplexed and disappointed is an understatement.

But then I read today’s Order Paper, and sadly all seems to be revealed, because we have not one reasoned amendment—we will vote on the one moved by the right hon. Member for Tottenham—but two from the Labour party. The Front-Bench amendment, which has a few names attached to it, makes a brief reference to the law on protest but, on analysis, does not really offer any solid reasons that are differences in principle in respect of Second Reading. The other reasoned amendment, which has been signed by 42 Labour party Members, offers much more direct resistance. It is clear that in principle those signatories are very much opposed to the Bill. There, frankly, lies the heart of the dilemma for the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party: they are trapped between parts of their party that oppose, in principle, sensible, reasoned, proportionate measures that develop the law in a mature way, and the vast majority of the public, who want us to work together in the national interest. I am afraid that it looks as if party interests are being put before the national interest. It gives me no pleasure at all to say that, but I am afraid that that is what it looks like—not just to those on the Government side of the House, but to the country.

Let us look at what we did on the Domestic Abuse Bill. By working together, we moved mountains.

[Mr Lammy]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Buckland]

No, I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think I can do justice to the number of inaccuracies, generalisations and false assertions—inadvertent assertions, I will concede—that were made by him and, I am afraid, by other Opposition Members. They are concocting—

[Mr Lammy]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Buckland]

No, I will not give way.

Opposition Members are concocting synthetic arguments in objection that just do not stand the closest scrutiny. They are inadvertently—I will say “inadvertently”, because I will give them, of course, that courtesy—misstating some of the key provisions of this Bill.

Let us start with the juxtaposition pf sentencing for rape and criminal damage. The starting point for the lowest category of the offence of rape, as set out by the Independent Sentencing Council, is five years. With aggravating factors and different categories of offending, rape offenders will receive, and very often do receive, substantially longer sentences, leading up to those for campaigns of rape, where sentences of in excess of 20 years, or even life sentences, will be imposed, because the maximum penalty for rape is life imprisonment.

[Mr Lammy]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Buckland]

No, I will not give way.

In this Bill, we are making sure that those who commit offences such as rape spend more of their time in prison. We are ending Labour’s automatic halfway release provisions for people who receive sentences of over four years for offences such as rape and section 18 grievous bodily harm, and we are making sure that they serve two thirds of their term of imprisonment.

Turning to criminal damage, the relevant Act is now 50 years old, and for those 50 years the statutory maximum has been 10 years where the value of the damage is over £5,000. The changes in relation to criminal damage of memorials simply remove the previous restriction on the mode of trial and allow the full range of those powers to be used up to that maximum. We are simply giving the courts greater discretion as to how they sentence such offenders, taking into account the emotional and community impact of those offences.

We had, I thought, cross-party support on these measures. Indeed, back in the summer, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) publicly backed our proposals. He said that he would work to support such efforts in Parliament. Now he is opposed. Why? Why the change? What is going on here? I will tell Members what is going on.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Buckland]

No, I will not give way. I will explain what is going on, and then I will let the right hon. Gentleman in.

I would suggest that what has happened here is the result of a conflation with the covid regulations and their interaction with the right to protest, which the Labour party did not oppose—it voted in favour of those on occasions or did not oppose them. They have conflated those arguments with measures in the Bill that long predate what happened on the weekend—those regrettable scenes that we all saw and were upset and appalled by. They are now conflating those issues with the issues relating to this Bill. There is no relation between the two, and I would love to hear an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Last year, the Government spoke about additional protection for war memorials. We all understand the value of war memorials. What we did not agree to, and I have never agreed to, is locking up people for 10 years for damaging all memorials, including those of slave traders. That just sums up everything that is wrong with the Government’s approach. They could have worked with us. They did not. They have created division.

[Robert Buckland]

It is a very nice try from the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the utmost respect, but it does not cut the ice. We know what has happened here. It is a party in panic that is weaving, twisting and wobbling because its internal management problems are far more important than the public interest. That is the truth. Here we are, at the end of a two-day debate, with the Labour party, which I concede has a proud record in supporting the police and maintaining law and order, now voting against measures to strengthen sentencing for rapists, burglars, drug dealers, sex abusers, killer drivers. All of that is being opposed by the Labour party. Let me tell Labour Members the price of that for their party.

[Peter Kyle]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Buckland]

No, I am not going to give way.

Much has been said about the excellent campaigns run by Labour Members. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), with whom I have worked very well over the years on issues relating to child abuse. Imagine the impossible position that those doughty campaigners have been put in by their Front Benchers. They are now having to vote against the very measures that they campaigned for so assiduously. That is a terrible predicament for them to be put in. It is a disgrace, and the Labour Front Benchers should hang their heads in shame.

There have been in this debate many constructive and important contributions, and I want to in the minutes that I have left—

[Wes Streeting]

Unlike yours.

[Robert Buckland]

They don’t like it when the truth is explained to them. They think that they have the moral high ground on all these issues. Well, I can tell you that there is no monopoly on morality in this place.

Before I deal with the excellent contributions from Members across the House, may I deal with the canard about “annoyance”? Much has been made about the somehow strange use of a word that is seen as a massive infringement on the civil liberties of men and women across this country, yet a brief perusal of the Law Commission’s report of 2015 tells us that the law has developed for centuries with phrases like “annoyance”. It is a part of the common law on public nuisance. The members of the Law Commission—they were all very good members; there was Lord Justice Lloyd Jones as he then was, and Professor David Ormerod, who is well known as an excellent academic in these fields—recommended that the law needed to be codified. The law had been restated with reference to the use of the word “annoyance” by none other than the late and noble Lord Bingham when he was in the House of Lords. He set out the law very clearly. Clause 59 amounts to no more than a reiteration of the excellent work of the Law Commission. To say anything else is, frankly, once again a confection, a concoction and a twisting of the reality.

I want to deal with the question of abuse in a position of trust. I pay particular tribute—I think all hon. Members will agree with me—to the outstanding work of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). It has been a pleasure to see her back here. She spoke earlier. I think she has now gone home, but we all wish her well. She has, with great tenacity, campaigned to make sure that we make these provisions a reality.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). He asked a particular question about driving instructors. He will see in the Bill that there will be provision, by way of statutory instrument, to allow an amendment of the law to extend to further categories of occupation. It is important that there is a clear evidence base. We are dealing with young people who are transitioning to adulthood—they are 16 and 17 years of age—and it is quite clear that the evidence on sports coaches and religious leaders, sadly, did point to a need to change the law. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends and to my noble Friend Baroness Grey-Thompson for their excellent work.

On causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) deserves our thanks and praise for pressing her Bill. I know she has welcomed the provisions. In the context of memorials, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for pressing their case with extreme prejudice and alacrity and for succeeding on the provision.

The Home Office parts of the Bill were outlined very well by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary yesterday. In summary, I would say that important public health duties are being extended in relation to serious violence. I have long held the view that it is only by bringing together the local agencies that we truly get ahead of the trends in serious violence and in prevention, which is of course nine tenths of what we need to be doing.

The Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), made a weighty contribution to the debate, rightly pointing to the extra investment in alternatives to custody. At the heart of the approach I am taking as Lord Chancellor is enhancing and improving community sentencing. It has long been clear to me that we need to make sure that sentencers have a proper choice of robust community alternatives.

[Wes Streeting]

I asked whether the Lord Chancellor could explain to my community why someone who was in a position of trust—deputy manager of a care home—who peddled kids to deal drugs across the country got a prison sentence of only four years. What is he going to do about that?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman knows that matters dealt with in court are matters for the independent judiciary, but I will look at the case, because it is vital that we make sure that those who are involved in organised crime and abuse—that is what that case sounds like to me—are properly dealt with, and that the wider issues are addressed. I share his concern.

[Peter Kyle]

Will the Lord Chancellor give way?

[Robert Buckland]

Not at the moment.

I am particularly pleased to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), who represented the family of Ellie Gould, the murder victim of whose case I think everyone in this House is fully aware. It is important to take on board the points he made about domestic homicide. I have spoken elsewhere about the importance of getting the balance right when it comes to the categories of murder. I committed to a review—I did that last week—and I will bring before the House further information on the content of that important review.

In the minutes left, I am pleased to commend to the House a radical new approach to the way in which we deal with young people—children—who are incarcerated in the secure estate. The days of locking them up and forgetting about them absolutely have to end; we all agree on that. That is why the measures to clarify the legal framework surrounding new secure schools will allow a complete change in the way in which we deal with, support, rehabilitate and educate children in our care. Schools with security will have education, wellbeing and purposeful activity at their very heart. As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) for his constructive suggestions and his work as a member of the Justice Committee.

Let me outline on the record the important provisions in the Bill relating to unauthorised encampments. Many right hon. and hon. Members have raised the issue. It is a real concern for many of our constituents.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

The pages of the Bucks Free Press attest to the sheer scale of the costs to our green spaces and our communities of unauthorised encampments. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that on this issue and on protests, the Opposition are refusing to engage with legitimate limits on both freedoms?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend puts it very well. This is all about balancing the rights of Traveller communities to use authorised encampments and to enjoy the lifestyle that they have chosen, and the rights of householders not to have their local communities despoiled. That is what we are seeking to do. The Bill, in my strong submission, allows that balance to be maintained and enhanced.

The Bill is part of our wider approach to making the criminal justice system smarter, and to keeping our streets safe from the worst criminals, while giving offenders opportunities to turn their life around. We can rebalance the justice system. We can restore faith in it, which has sadly been in decline for too long. The Bill is a welcome step forward, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We require social distancing in the Chamber at all times, please.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

This Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to make our country safer. This means toughening sentences for the worst crimes and bringing offenders to justice swiftly through an efficient court system.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, introduced today, will do this by: introducing tougher sentencing for the worst offenders and ending automatic halfway release from prison for serious crimes; creating robust and effective community sentences; enabling the trialling of secure schools; increasing the use of technology in courts; and improving employment opportunities for ex-offenders. This joint Bill also contains a number of Home Office-led measures, set out in a written statement by the Home Secretary.

The Ministry of Justice-led measures in the Bill will:

Deliver on commitments made in the Sentencing White Paper, “A Smarter Approach to Sentencing”, announced to the House on 16 September 2020, which will reform the sentencing and release framework, so that we have a system that takes account of the true nature of crimes and protects the public from harm.

Ensure serious criminals spend longer in custody, including: ending the automatic halfway release point from prison for an additional cohort of serious sexual and violent offenders; making a whole life order the starting point for the premeditated murder of a child; instead of a life sentence with the possibility of Parole Board release after the minimum term is served; and preventing the automatic early release of prisoners who become of significant public protection concern while in custody.

Make community sentences more effective so that they offer an appropriate level of punishment and address the underlying drivers of offending, including: piloting a problem-solving court approach for certain community and suspended sentence orders; improving national consistency for adult out of court disposals; and extending the use of electronic monitoring.

Reduce the time periods after which some criminal sentences become spent, aiding rehabilitation by helping offenders to move on with their lives.

Deliver on the Government’s longstanding commitment to increase the maximum penalties for causing death by dangerous driving and for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drinks or drugs. It will also introduce a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving.

Double the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years to ensure that the courts have the necessary powers to deal effectively with offenders who use violence against emergency workers.

Strengthen alternatives to custody for children who have offended which promote rehabilitation, and raise the threshold for custodial remand, while at the same time ensuring that children who commit serious offences and pose a risk to the public receive sentences that reflect the seriousness of their offending.

Empower future providers of secure schools, which represent our vision for the future of youth custody—schools with security, rather than prisons with education: with education, healthcare and purposeful activity at their heart.

Enable prisoner escort and custody service officers to manage video remand hearings in police stations to continue to make the best use of technology and improve future efficiency.

Replace the current emergency provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which extend the use of video and audio hearings to enable more participants to attend criminal hearings remotely. We will always ensure a full hearing in court will be available when needed in the interests of justice.

Introduce measures to facilitate the remote observation of proceedings across the courts and tribunals using video and audio links underpinning the principle of open justice. These measures will also provide the necessary safeguards against the recording or broadcasting of proceedings by participants and observers.

Enable British sign language interpreters to be present in the jury deliberation room, meaning that profoundly deaf individuals are not prevented from participating in jury service.

Extend the scope of positions of trust legislation, which currently covers a number of statutory roles such as teachers and social workers, to include those who knowingly carry out certain activities within religious and sports settings, such as faith leaders or sports coaches.

Toughen the law where criminal damage of less than £5,000 is caused to a memorial by increasing the maximum sentence from three months to 10-years imprisonment. This brings it in line with criminal damage of £5,000 or more and ensures our courts have sufficient sentencing powers to punish the emotional harm caused by this type of offending even when the financial impact may be low.

To support the parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill, we are publishing on gov.uk the following documents:

Impact assessments covering sentencing, courts and criminal law;

Delegated Powers memorandum;

ECHR memorandum; and

Fact sheets.

[HCWS836]

Judicial Mandatory Retirement Age

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

Following my recent announcement of the Government responses on reforms to the judicial pension scheme and on proposals to address the unlawful age discrimination identified in the McCloud litigation, I am today publishing the Government response to the Judicial Mandatory Retirement Age consultation.



Running from 16 July to 16 October 2020, the consultation sought views on proposals to increase the mandatory retirement age for judicial office holders to 72 or 75, alongside a proposal to allow public interest-based extension of magistrates’ appointments beyond their existing mandatory retirement age of 70, as is currently available to other parts of the judiciary. The consultation attracted considerable interest with over one thousand responses received from across of the magistracy, the judiciary, the legal profession, and other key stakeholder groups.



It has been over 25 years since the mandatory retirement age for most judges was set at 70. A mandatory retirement age remains an important requirement of judicial office which protects judicial independence, preserves public confidence in the judiciary, and promotes opportunities within the judiciary for those who wish to apply and to progress. I believe, however, along with the majority of respondents, that it is now time the MRA is amended to reflect improvements in life expectancy and the changing demands on our courts and tribunals.



Following careful consideration, I have therefore decided to raise the mandatory retirement age to 75 to enable us to retain for longer the valuable expertise of experienced judicial office holders and to attract a wider range of applicants. I believe the new retirement age could also have a positive impact on diversity by attracting and promoting opportunities for individuals considering a judicial career later in life, such as those who may have had non-linear careers or taken career breaks to balance professional and family responsibilities. I will legislate for this change as soon as parliamentary time allows.



Magistrates currently are unable to sit beyond the existing mandatory retirement age unlike many judges who can apply to have their appointments extended or to sit in retirement on an ad hoc basis. To further boost capacity in the magistrates courts, I will include a transitional provision as part of the legislative change to allow recently retired magistrates who are below the age of 75 when the new MRA comes into force to be able to apply to return to the bench, where there is a business need.



As Lord Chancellor, it is my duty to ensure the courts and tribunals have the required resources to continue dispensing justice. I am grateful for the commitment and resilience of judges, magistrates and coroners across the country who have worked tirelessly throughout this challenging period. I know the changes I am announcing today will not immediately alleviate pressure on our justice system. However, this once in a generation change to the mandatory retirement age, alongside the important reforms we are making to the judicial pension scheme, will help to support and promote judicial recruitment and retention, ensuring we are able to continue resourcing our world-class judiciary for the future.

[HCWS828]

Judicial Pensions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I am today publishing the Government response to two consultation documents on judicial pensions which my Department launched, and which I presented to this House, on 16 July 2020:

(i) in “Judicial pensions: proposed response to McCloud” we outlined our proposals for addressing the unlawful age discrimination identified in the McCloud litigation in respect of the 2015 reforms of the judicial pension scheme; and

(ii) in “Proposals for a reformed judicial pension scheme” we set out our plans for reforming the judicial pension scheme with the aim of addressing the serious problems of judicial recruitment and retention that had been identified by the Senior Salaries Review Body.

Both consultations closed to responses on 16 October 2020, and we have taken the time to give very careful thought to the responses we received. We are currently finalising our response to a further consultation on the judicial mandatory retirement age, which we will be publishing in due course.

Addressing the discrimination identified in the McCloud litigation

In our consultation on the McCloud litigation, we sought views on both the scope and shape of our proposals for addressing the discrimination identified in the case, in which it was held that the 2015 judicial pension reforms unlawfully discriminated against younger judges.

In the light of the responses we received, the Government response to the consultation confirms that, subject to parliamentary time and approval of the necessary legislation, the Ministry of Justice will run an options exercise in 2022 for non-claimant judges in scope of McCloud. This will enable eligible judges to choose, retrospectively, whether to have accrued benefits in the 2015 pension scheme or the legacy scheme from 1 April 2015. Membership of the chosen scheme will end when the reformed judicial pension scheme comes into effect, following which all judges will join the new pension scheme.

The response document is available online at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-proposed-response-to-mccloud

Reforming the judicial pension scheme

The majority of responses we received to “Proposals for a reformed judicial pension scheme” were positive and acknowledged that our proposed reforms would make a significant contribution to resolving recruitment and retention issues.

In response to some concerns that were raised about our proposal to introduce a uniform member contribution rate, we have decided to give judges the temporary option of reducing their contributions to the scheme in return for a commensurate reduction in the accrual rate.

Save for the addition of this new feature, we will implement the reformed scheme in line with the proposals set out in the consultation document we published last July, subject to the necessary parliamentary approval.

The response document is available online at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-a-reformed-judicial-pension-scheme

Reform of the judicial pension scheme has been a personal priority of mine as Lord Chancellor, and I am pleased that we are in a position to progress a reform package that will resolve the serious recruitment and retention problems facing the judiciary. It is vital that we continue to attract and retain high-calibre judges, thereby securing the proper functioning of our justice system and supporting the UK’s wider prosperity.

The aim, subject to parliamentary time allowing the necessary legislation to be passed, is to implement the reformed scheme in April 2022.

The two consultation response documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

[HCWS805]