Courts and Tribunals: Recovery and Modernisation

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2020 Written Statements

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

I am today setting out progress being made to recover the operations of our courts and tribunals in response to the pandemic. Responsibility for the courts and tribunals is shared with the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals, to whom I am very grateful for continued close collaboration in this endeavour.

Since March, the priority of the Government, working closely with the judiciary and others, has been to ensure the justice system continues to perform its vital role while keeping court and tribunal users safe in line with public health guidelines. To achieve this, HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has rapidly expanded the use of technology to allow hearings to be conducted by phone and video and temporarily closed around half of its building to focus effort and resources more effectively. The most urgent cases have been prioritised by the judiciary to ensure public safety, protect the vulnerable and safeguard children.

As a result, our courts and tribunals in England and Wales have been able to sustain more activity than many other comparable jurisdictions internationally. Huge credit must go to the judges, magistrates, HMCTS staff, legal professionals and all those involved in proceedings for their work in the face of the extraordinary challenges posed by the pandemic.

Having responded effectively to the immediate crisis, HMCTS is now fully focused on recovering its operation to increase courts and tribunal capacity to deal both with normal workloads across jurisdictions and outstanding cases. The challenges of doing so are no less great, not least because of the constraints imposed by social distancing. But doing so is essential if we are to ensure that our justice system delivers for those it is there to serve.

As part of the Prime Minister’s plan for economic recovery, he announced yesterday that HMCTS will be receiving £142 million of additional capital funding this year to speed up technological improvements and modernise courtrooms, building on the rapid progress made to keep the system running during the coronavirus pandemic. Of this £142 million, £105 million is allocated to improving the court and tribunal estate. This investment—along with £48 million already in the HMCTS budget—will see £153 million invested in improvements to court and tribunal buildings over the coming year, which is the biggest single investment in maintenance of the court estate for over 20 years.

Today, HMCTS has also published a progress update on its recovery plans for the short and medium terms. It is available at www.gov.uk/hmcts and includes the following work.

First, HMCTS is working to increase physical capacity to enable more cases to be heard. All courts and tribunal buildings are being reopened in line with wider advice on social distancing and public safety. Throughout April, over 150 of the 341 sites used for physical hearings were open to the public in response to the pandemic outbreak. As of the beginning of this week, 284 were open following detailed risk assessments and essential modifications to ensure they are safe. Nearly all locations will become operational throughout July, and a range of physical modifications are being made, such as the installation of screens where appropriate.

New criminal jury trials, which had been suspended since late March, were restarted in four Crown courts in the week beginning 18 May, following the implementation of particular measures to ensure the safety of all participants. As of this week, a total of 25 courts are holding trials again.

In addition, HMCTS is exploring options to stagger and extend the operating hours of courts and tribunals, including starting hearings at different times of day and weekend sittings, to manage the flow of people through our buildings and enable more cases to be heard safely. It is working closely with stakeholder groups in different jurisdictions to identify the areas that have the most impact in terms of increasing capacity. HMCTS is also actively locating other buildings from across England and Wales to use as court and tribunal locations or to support the expansion of existing sites. HMCTS is also actively locating other buildings, including new venues and former court buildings, to use as court and tribunal locations on a temporary basis. Ten sites have been identified across England and Wales and these will be confirmed and announced locally in due course.

Secondly, HMCTS is working to expand access to audio and video technology to support more and new types of hearings. There has been a significant increase in the use of such equipment over the last three months and, with the right IT solutions, many more hearings could take place. HMCTS has been rolling out the cloud video platform (CVP) to all criminal courts, and there are plans to provide this across other jurisdictions too. Throughout July, CVP will start to be made available to an increasing number of county courts. We will be rolling out further hardware to improve the quality of video hearings, and we will be finding new, increasingly efficient ways of organising video lists.

Thirdly, HMCTS is introducing a range of measures to make best use of judicial time, support court and tribunal staff and users and ensure the justice system is there for those that need it. It is supporting judges to list in ways that make full use of the space we can safely use and will support alternative dispute resolution for cases where it is appropriate. It is deploying laptops to staff to enhance flexible working to support case activity. In addition, HMCTS will review and implement measures to ensure all vulnerable users are supported effectively to ensure they can access services and participate fully in hearings.

These are all important measures to support the recovery of our courts and tribunals. But returning to pre-covid-19 activity will require sustained and long-term focus. Alongside these operational measures being introduced by HMCTS, the Government continue to keep under review options that will enable more hearings to take place while social distancing restrictions remain in place.

We will also make sure that we learn lessons from what has happened in our response to covid-19. The unprecedented nature of this public health emergency has required all parts of the justice system to adopt new ways of working without the preparation that would normally take place, and under conditions that have not previously been tested. While some changes will be time- limited and will stop with the end of the pandemic, others may be valuable in the longer term. We will therefore listen to feedback from judges, staff, practitioners and users to improve the way we work in the short term, and gather data and other evidence to support continuous improvement. We will also evaluate and review the measures put in place to respond to covid-19, so that we can learn lessons and make well-informed decisions about which should be adopted and/or adapted in the longer term.

Implementation of the courts and tribunals reform programme has continued throughout the pandemic response and new digital services to the public have worked normally. The lessons learned will help inform the next phases of modernisation, building on the existing principles and plans.

I will place a copy of “Covid-19: Overview of HMCTS response” in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS329]

Prisons Building Programme

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2020 Written Statements

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

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has previously made clear his focus on tackling crime and last year announced investment of up to £2.5 billion to create 10,000 additional prison places that are decent, safe and secure and support the modernisation of the prison estate.

I am officially today, jointly with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, reaffirming the Government’s commitment to building 10,000 additional prison places by announcing the funding and delivery of around 6,500 of these places through the construction of four new prisons which will provide a much-needed boost to the construction sector as it moves into a post covid-19 world.

This work starts with Full Sutton, in East Yorkshire, where we already have outline planning permission for a new 1,440-place prison. Further work is under way to identify and secure sites for a further three new prisons which we anticipate will each comprise 1,680 places, subject to geographical and planning constraints.

Together, these four prisons will create around 65% of the 10,000 additional places and will build on the design and progress that we have already made at Wellingborough and Glen Parva, as well as on the work we have done to ensure faster, cheaper and more efficient construction for public services, in particular using modern methods of construction.

This demonstrates a clear commitment from the Government to the UK construction sector and its determination to help the country and the construction market get back on its feet following the covid-19 pandemic by offering a clear pipeline of work and investment.

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I want to take this opportunity to thank constructors around the country for their commitment to keeping construction sites open and operating, and for their innovation enabling sites and associated activities to follow Public Health England (PHE) guidance and adhere to social distancing measures.

The impact of covid-19 on the construction sector has been felt both in the demand for new buildings and the ability to operate safely in line with Government guidance. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has felt this impact directly at the construction site for the new resettlement prison at Wellingborough in Northamptonshire. HMPPS has worked with suppliers throughout the covid-19 pandemic to ensure that construction has continued safely. Workers are following PHE guidance and the Construction Leadership Council’s site-operating procedures.

While no decisions have been made on who will operate these four new prisons, we maintain this Government’s commitment to a mixed market in custodial services, and it is our ambition that at least one of these new prisons will be operated by the public sector to support the modernisation of the public prison estate. We have previously announced that the operation of both our new prisons at Glen Parva and at Wellingborough will be competed for via our prison operator services framework in shorter, targeted mini-competitions. Following a successful and robust evaluation of the bids received for the Wellingborough operator competition, we have a successful bidder, which will be announced soon.

[HCWS320]

Youth Custody

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2020 Written Statements

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

Youth offending has fallen—to 38.4% in the latest youth justice statistics —thanks to successive Governments’ efforts to improve education, social care and mental health support. Clear guidance to the judiciary that custody should be an absolute last resort for children has also seen numbers fall by 78% between 2008 and 2019. There are now fewer than 700 children currently held in young offender institutions, secure training centres and secure children’s homes. This is an unprecedented low, and down from a peak of 3,200 in October 2002.

This is a success that as a society we should be incredibly proud of. These early interventions have meant that thousands of children each year avoid heading into adulthood as criminals, into a life of crime that is much harder to break once ingrained. This Government’s efforts to support children and upgrade their life chances continue at pace—whether that be the additional funding being put into our schools or the extra support now available to children’s mental health services.

But we know there is far more still to do, particularly for those who still enter custody—a much more concentrated mix of children with complex issues, over 50% of whom have convictions for serious violence. We are spending £5 million putting each prison officer who works in the youth custody estate through a specialist degree programme, giving them a greater understanding of child and adolescent development. We have also increased the number of staff in young offender institutions by a third in the last four years.

We are investing in the development of enhanced support units (ESUs) to provide specialist psychological support and services for children with the most complex needs, with ESUs now at Feltham and Wetherby YOIs. We are also working with NHS England on a new integrated approach to strengthen the provision of health care and support (“SECURE STAIRS”) which is rolling out across the youth secure estate.

But there are elements of practice in youth custody which, frankly, have not been good enough. Today I have published two reports on the use of restraint and separation in the secure youth justice estate.

Staff in the youth estate are trained to use behaviour management and de-escalation techniques and only resort to physical restraint when there is no alternative and either their safety or that of children is at further risk.

However, keen to ensure those prison officers working with children were receiving adequate training and were using such techniques appropriately, the Government commissioned Charlie Taylor, then the chair of the Youth Justice Board, to carry out an independent review into the use of pain-inducing restraint.

In his report, Charlie Taylor references a number of incidents in which he believes the use of a pain-inducing restraint potentially saved a child’s life. He is therefore clear that staff must retain the ability to intervene safely when there is a clear and imminent risk of serious harm to a child, themselves or another member of staff. However, he also found instances where it was used inappropriately and, now, I want to ensure the use of such restraint is proportionate and reasonable and only used when there is no other alternative.

That is why the Government have accepted all 15 recommendations in Charlie Taylor’s report, and the youth custody service has developed a programme of work which will implement them. Techniques that cause pain, albeit in order to prevent further serious harm, will no longer be taught alongside other methods to manage behaviour, to make it even clearer that these are a last resort designed only to protect children or staff from further injury. This will ensure that such techniques are only used when there is no alternative in order to prevent serious harm and therefore protect children and staff from trauma wherever possible. A panel will also be established to carefully scrutinise incidents in which a pain-inducing restraint has been used to ensure they are being used appropriately and that the welfare of children and staff is a key consideration.

The second report I have published today builds on our initial response to the thematic report on separation in young offender institutions, which HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) published in January.

The findings in the report made for some challenging reading at the time and I was pleased with the exceptional effort from the youth custody service in acting so swiftly to address the regime provided for separated children.

It is extremely unfortunate that at the point at which we were starting to see improvements for separated children we went into a period, that because of coronavirus, has forced us into a situation where all children in custody have unfortunately had to spend more time behind their doors than we would wish.

I accepted the overarching recommendation for a new system of separation to be implemented, which was called for by HMIP in their thematic report. As we look to restart aspects of daily life for children in custody I am determined that we do not return to the practices of old. This new, child-centred policy will draw on best practice from other establishments to ensure consistency across the youth estate.

Inappropriate use of these techniques must not happen again. Our response to these findings will help to ensure all children in custody have all the support they need to turn their lives around.

I will place a copy of both reports in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS302]

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

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

I thank hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House for their careful scrutiny of the Bill throughout its passage. I am deeply grateful to all those who have contributed to the debate in Committee today and on Second Reading last week. I acknowledge that there have been some dissenting voices on reform of the law—first, as a matter of principle—and differing opinions as to precisely how to reform it, but I am happy to make it clear that those contributions have been of no less value than those that have supported the purpose of the Bill and its approach to reform. We have been fortunate to have these debates enriched by the variety of viewpoints expressed.

During the passage of the Bill, Members have rightly raised questions about its potential impact on families, but I believe that it actually has marriage and families at its heart. It is for that reason that I believe so strongly in the measures contained within it. While no one wants marriages to break down, the proposals in the Bill are based on the very sad reality that some do. When they do, the law should seek to reduce conflict and to create the best opportunity for the parties to agree future arrangements. It is not for the law to try to keep a couple in a loveless marriage, and nor can the law in practice adjudicate on who was to blame for its breakdown. That is an intensely private and personal matter between the couple themselves.

This is a measured Bill that will bring much-needed reform. It is reform that many of its supporters believe is long overdue. It will allow parties to move forwards, not backwards, and it will deliver a legal process that reduces conflict and its impact on children while safeguarding the importance of marriage.

During its passage through both Houses, the Government have listened with interest and care to the issues raised. In the other place, there was debate concerning the law on financial provision on divorce and concerns that it, too, can drive conflict. Some Members in this place have also made that important point. My noble and learned Friend Lord Keen gave assurances that the Government would conduct a review of that area of law, which has remained unchanged for nearly 50 years. That is a substantial undertaking where we will need to be led by the evidence, which is yet to be gathered, and it is thus not a matter for this Bill.

We have also listened to concerns about the start point of the new 20-week minimum period prior to the conditional order of divorce, and we have given an undertaking that we will work with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to consider how court rules may provide for a requirement on applicants to serve notice within a specified period. We listened to concerns from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about two delegated powers in the Bill that would allow the legal minimum periods for divorce orders and dissolution orders to be amended. Those powers will now be subject to the enhanced scrutiny procedure via the affirmative mechanism.

Beyond the Bill, many detailed changes will be needed to divorce procedure, court IT systems, online information and guidance. We will take the opportunity to look at ways to improve signposting to the services that can help couples when facing the prospect of a divorce and during the subsequent legal process. We recognise the value of relationship support and mediation services, which can play a vital role in addressing relationship breakdown. The Chancellor announced £2.5 million to fund research into how best to integrate family services, including the emerging family hub model. The Department for Education will ensure that strengthening relationship support is part of that research programme, so that vital work is completed in that area.

It is important to take a moment to focus on what the Bill does not do. I believe that that is necessary because I have been concerned about certain misconceptions that have arisen about it. First, it is not a quickie divorce Bill—quite the contrary. It will, for the first time, provide a new 20-week minimum period between the start of proceedings and the conditional order. Secondly, the Bill does not undermine marriage. It is a Bill to reform the legal process for divorce once the sad stage of irretrievable breakdown has already been reached.

Thirdly, the Bill does not in any way undermine the hugely valuable and vital mediation, counselling and relationship support services that can and do assist reconciliation. Finally, the Bill definitely does not come at the wrong time. Its current stage is the culmination of a lengthy process.

[Andrew Selous]

I apologise for missing the start of my right hon. and learned Friend’s remarks. I do not know whether he had a chance to watch any of the Committee stage, but looking at what his predecessor said on the Bill, there seems to have been a slight hardening of the Government’s stance in relation to counselling provision. The previous Lord Chancellor was open to that, but it seems that my right hon. and learned Friend is not quite as keen or does not think that there are so many possibilities at that stage. Could he address that specific point?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continuing interest in, support of and commitment to issues relating to the family. They are values and views that he and I share. I take the view that this legislation is not the vehicle to deliver the sort of services and support that he and I want to see. This is very much about the end of the process, as opposed to what he and I think needs to be done well before that, to support families to help themselves, to enrich family life and to ensure that every proper assistance is given to couples who perhaps do not have the benefit of wise advice from parents or other support circles and might be dealing with the problems and challenges of every relationship alone, and who, frankly, could benefit from the wherewithal and the support that I know he believes in so passionately.

For that reason, I take what I would regard as a more direct and straightforward approach. I make no apology for that. I think it is important to be direct about these issues and not to conflate legislative process with policy progress. My commitment to my hon. Friend and to all others who are legitimately concerned about these issues is that, as a Government, we will work harder to co-ordinate, to bring together the strands of policy that sit with various Departments and to ensure that we have a family policy that is fit for the 2020s, in the way that he wants to see. I look forward to that continuing dialogue with him.

As I was saying, the Bill does not come at the wrong time, because its current stage is the culmination of a lengthy process that was delayed by a general election and a new Parliament. Its timing has nothing to do with the current covid-19 emergency. The Bill’s reforms will not come into force on Royal Assent, because time needs to be allowed for careful implementation. At this early stage, we are working towards an indicative timetable of implementation in autumn 2021. As I have said, the Bill will deliver much-needed reform in respect of which there is clear, strong and broad consensus. I again thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I commend the Bill to the House.

Probation Services

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

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

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government’s plans for the future of probation services in England and Wales. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the commitment and hard work of staff in both the national probation service and the community rehabilitation companies who have jointly risen to the challenge of covid-19 in swiftly adapting to the new restrictions, and who have continued to deliver critical frontline services during this difficult time.

Beyond the immediate changes to our ways of working, however, covid-19 also presents an ongoing challenge to the implementation of our ambitious programme of probation reform. Probation services are currently split between the NPS, supervising high-risk offenders, and private sector CRCs, supervising low and medium-risk offenders. Those changes were made as a result of a 2010 manifesto commitment to end the situation where short-term offenders received no support after their release from custody. That commitment was the right one to make and, of course, it still stands. The current CRC contracts will come to an end in June next year, and last year my predecessor announced plans in this House to replace the current CRC contracts by moving to a unified model. This will see responsibility for the supervision of all offenders transfer to the NPS, while each NPS region will have a private sector partner—a probation delivery partner—responsible for providing unpaid work placements and behavioural change programmes.

Covid-19 does not change our ambition to cut crime, to keep the public safe and to tackle reoffending so that fewer people become victims of crime. Strong and reliable probation services are essential in realising that ambition. However, given the significant operational impact that covid-19 has already had and the uncertainty it brings for the future, it is right that we should reassess our plans. Protecting the public is my and the Government’s absolute priority. For that reason, I believe it is essential that we continue to deliver changes to how offenders are supervised by June next year as planned. However, the disruption caused by covid-19 makes delivery of other parts of our plans considerably more complex, and looking ahead, it is vital for public and judicial confidence that we have the flexibility to deliver a national response to any future challenges that covid-19 presents. For these reasons, I am today setting out changes to streamline the reforms, giving priority to unifying the management of offenders under a single organisation by June next year as planned, while giving us greater flexibility to respond to an uncertain picture across the criminal justice system and beyond.

Under those revised plans, we will end the competitive process for probation delivery partners. The delivery of unpaid work and behavioural change programmes will instead be brought under the control of the NPS alongside offender supervision when the current CRC contracts end in June next year. This will give us a critical measure of control, resilience and flexibility with the services that we would not have had were they delivered under 12 contracts with a number of organisations. We can reassure the judiciary and the public that, whatever lies ahead, offenders serving community sentences will be punished and make their reparation to society, and that programmes to address their behaviour will be delivered.

In making these changes, we cannot forget the role of specialist and voluntary organisations, which are vital in providing rehabilitation and resettlement support to more vulnerable individuals, such as women being released from prison or serving community sentences. They have also shown great innovation in continuing to deliver critical services during this challenging time, for which I commend them and express my deep gratitude. I am determined to preserve a role for these types of organisations, as well as the private sector, in the delivery of probation services. In the future system, we will, therefore, retain a dynamic framework for specialist rehabilitative services, but we must take account of the pressures that the market is currently facing. We will therefore prioritise the delivery of those specialist resettlement and rehabilitative services that are most needed in order to build a solid foundation that can be delivered within this timeframe and later built upon. We will be opening the dynamic framework for eligible organisations to register their interest in the coming days, and I encourage all organisations with an interest in providing rehabilitative services to register.

The unified model for probation delivery will ensure that we make the best use of the talents and skills in the public, private and voluntary sectors. For staff currently employed by the CRCs, the arrangements will mean that they will be in scope to transfer into the national probation service or to dynamic framework providers once CRC contracts expire in June 2021, depending on the work that they do. As we adopt a whole-system approach to criminal justice reform, it is vital that we continue to work together in partnership.

The Government remain fully committed to a mixed market in delivering custodial services, including our private sector partners, who run a high number of high-performing prisons in our estate. We are currently running a competition to operate the new prison that we are building at Wellingborough, which is due to end shortly, followed by a further competition to operate another new prison at Glen Parva. Our private sector prison partners will thus continue to play an important role in the custodial services sector, including as we deliver our ambitious programme of prison reforms, investing up to £2.5 billion to transform our prison estate and to create an additional 10,000 prison places.

I am confident that the changes I have set out represent the most sustainable approach for probation to deliver justice and to cut crime in the face of an unprecedented crisis. This approach will allow us to gain a critical measure of control over their recovery from covid-19 and to ensure that we are best placed to respond to any future disruption. I believe that these changes will also support our proposals to reform the sentencing framework, as I set out to the House last October. We have already made significant progress as a Government in delivering that agenda, including longer prison sentences for serious, violent and sexual offenders, but there is much more work to do if we are even better to protect the public and restore fuller confidence in the justice system. As part of this package of reforms, I want to deliver robust community penalties that offer an appropriate level of punishment while tackling the underlying drivers of offending.

These changes to the probation structures will help us to realise that ambition by giving us greater control over the levers necessary to strengthen community sentences. My officials will work closely with current providers, stakeholders and staff to ensure a smooth transition during this challenging time, ready for the new unified model to come into effect in June next year. I commend the statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He talked about turning the clock back, and in some of his remarks I felt as if the years had fallen away and we were back in the 1980s in some sort of ideological death struggle—public good, private bad. Let me reassure him that I take no ideological view as to what works. I will follow the evidence, and when the facts change I will change my mind. I make no apology for doing that today. He will of course acknowledge that the course was set last year, when the announcement was made by my predecessor and I, as the Minister of State, very much supported that decision. This is a necessary adjustment in the way in which we are going to deliver the new service.

I am not going to dwell for too long on the rhetoric; I will deal with the substance of what the right hon. Gentleman asked, and he asked a number of questions. [Interruption.] Well, rhetoric has its place, but we are talking here about the lives of people we are under a duty to protect and to support. I can tell the Opposition that I spent the best part of 30 years working with probation officers and with the probation service, reading hundreds of pre-sentence reports and respecting the professionalism of probation officers in court, both as counsel and as a part-time judge, so I do not need noises off to tell me what I know or do not know about the probation service, with the greatest of respect.

This is a service, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that is unsung. Its work is vitally important, but often goes unnoticed, unheard and unobserved. That is something that I am doing my very best to put right, and I can reassure him that those dedicated public servants who are working in the CRCs will have the opportunity to transfer, as I said in my statement, to the NPS, when the time comes in June next year. That is the timescale that we have kept to.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the need to focus on the reduction in reoffending. He will be glad to note that in last year’s spending review I secured an extra £155 million for probation services—one of the biggest rises and cash injections that the service has seen in many a year—and it is my aim to keep annual expenditure well over £100 million for each of the next several years. That is our ambition, and it is matched with investment and with a bold agenda on embracing technology. This is a service that will not only be able to keep pace with change, but be very much in the vanguard of it.

I am proud to be at the helm of a Department that has such a set of dedicated public servants. This is the right decision at the right time. I make no apology for it whatsoever, and I look forward to a non-ideological future in which the right hon. Gentleman and I can genuinely work together in support of the probation service that he says he values.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am going to try to get everybody in. However, I need to finish the statement at 12.50 pm. That will require short answers and short questions.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will do my level best, but I was the probation Minister between 2010 and 2012. One of the proudest moments of my time was attending a dinner where the Princess Royal presented the British Quality Foundation’s gold award to the National Probation Service. The reforms that subsequently were done to probation service would not have been done by me. They were visited upon the Department to a degree by some whizz kids—bright people—some of whom are now very senior in the Government.

There were two faults. The first was that the companies were too large and did not equate with the geographical area of the police force. I would have given them, had I done it, to the police and crime commissioners, saying that they were responsible for the input and the output. A very good point was made by the shadow Lord Chancellor about engaging local authorities in all the services we have to bring to an offender for there to be a decent chance of getting them rehabilitated.

Secondly, I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, attractive as going back to the position of 2012 might seem to me, we were trying to find the opportunities to make sure that we can get the charities, the private sector and everyone else engaged in the great work of rehabilitation of offenders. We are in many ways back to square one, but there is a huge opportunity to be grasped.

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the work he did as a Minister in the Department. I can reassure him that this is not a return—a “back to the future”—but a new departure. He is right that I will focus relentlessly on the need to harness the smaller organisations; we are going to do that. At force level, we will do it by working with PCCs. I have already engaged with them on several occasions about the need for co-commissioning. Where we have PCCs working together in reducing reoffending boards, I see that as another vehicle for the commissioning of truly localised services. I hear my hon. Friend, and we are going to act on it.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Government are recognising what Labour Members and many others have known—that privatised probation is a flawed system that enables companies to put profit before people. I would like to thank my trade union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, as well as Napo and Unison, and their members, for highlighting the failures of privatisation. How will the Secretary of State improve morale in the profession, particularly after many experienced and highly skilled probation staff were lost as probation services were part-privatised?

[Robert Buckland]

I am sure that the hon. Lady would seek to qualify her remarks by paying tribute to the ethos that I have seen among the CRCs and their teams in terms of their dedication to the public service approach to probation that we all believe in. I do not want to ignore that for one moment, and I pay tribute to them for their work. With regard to morale, she will be encouraged to know that it is my aim, as a result of the increased funding we are providing, to reduce the workload of individual probation officers by about 20%, and to mix that workload so that they are able to manage it in an even more effective way. That will, I believe, help to increase morale and a sense of value. I hope very much that we can attract new talent, and indeed bring back talent that has left the service. That is something that I am very, very focused on.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

In Kent we have an excellent community rehabilitation company. I am pleased that the Lord Chancellor has confirmed that the staff can transfer across, but can he also reassure me that their expertise overall will not be lost, and that there will be no disruption to the offenders they manage?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has long taken a keen interest in these issues. She is absolutely right to highlight the good work of that particular organisation—in particular, its specialised work with regard to stalking and the victims of stalking, which is very much on my mind. I want to harness the best of that in the future with the dynamic model, and dedicated staff would indeed be able to transfer across.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

One of the biggest causes of reoffending has been the failure to ensure properly effective through-the-gate services. We know that suitable housing, stable employment and strong family relationships all help to reduce the risks, so will the Government now ensure that the last few months of the custodial sentence are devoted to creating that foundation, and involve third sector organisations in that work?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. She will be glad to know that last year we invested a further £22 million in through-the-gate services in England and Wales. I have seen for myself how probation officers working in prison on offender management in custody really creates a cohesive approach where the prison officers, together with the probation service, are working weeks or even months in advance of release. That is very much part of our ethos. We are going to increase our emphasis on that and use tools such as release on temporary licence in order to make the transition as smooth and as safe as possible, not just for the offender but for the public.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I very much welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the involvement of voluntary sector organisations in the delivery of rehabilitation. As he has recognised, private sector organisations have played a role in the criminal justice system and its central challenge of reducing reoffending over many years, under Conservative Governments and Labour Governments. Does he agree that it is important now not to denigrate the efforts of anyone who has worked hard to reduce reoffending, whatever the correct shape of probation services in future, just because they have a private sector employer?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who served with distinction in the Department I now lead. He is right to make that point that this is not about blind ideology, but about people and the shared values we have across the sector. That is very much within the CRC. I will make this point, and he will remember this: it was this Government who finally created licence and supervision periods for people on short-term prison sentences. That was a singular omission from the system that the previous Government failed to address.

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

Two years ago, the Justice Select Committee, on which I served, produced its highly critical report, “Transforming Rehabilitation” on the performance of the privatised probation service. One of the criticisms was how those contracts were measured on outputs, not outcomes. Will the Secretary of State confirm that sufficient funding will be available to tackle the issues of heavy caseload, poor IT systems and the need to work with specialist services and the voluntary sector to ensure that probation officers can deliver a decent service and help reduce reoffending?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has a long interest in these issues, but I remind him of what I said a few moments ago about the £155 million uplift in this current financial year that we secured as part of the highest increase in the Ministry of Justice revenue budget in more than a decade. We will continue to match that in the years ahead with more investment, and he can be confident that that will translate not only into reduced workloads, but increased sophistication and development when it comes to the harnessing of new technologies and better ways of working. We have learned a lot from the current crisis about how we can do things even better.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

I regret to say that I am worried by the statement that my right hon. and learned Friend has made this morning, for the simple reason that I have seen probation services for my constituents improve over the past few years, with more people given the second chance that the shadow Secretary of State referred to. He has just praised the work of the Kent, Surrey and Sussex CRC, as he has done in the past from the Dispatch Box, so can he give me some reassurance that with this statement today he is not in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I can give him that reassurance because, as he reminds us, we are talking not just about a service, but the people who deliver that service. Those dedicated public servants will be able to transfer across to the NPS, and I want to retain the ethos that they have and the specialisms that they bring, so that we can enhance the probation service and make it even better in the future.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

This has been a sorry episode, and it is a sobering reminder of what happens when we let ideology push ahead of the evidence in public policy making. That is something I hope those on the Government Benches will reflect on, but frankly it is something for all of us to reflect on. Secretary of State, you have a real opportunity as you build your unified model. There is so much talent in the NPS and those CRCs, so will you commit to getting staff around the table, finding the best of their experiences and building on them?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he really should not be referring to the Secretary of State as “you”.

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes a keen interest in these issues. Perhaps I will emphasise the second part of his question. I thoroughly agree about the need to harness that experience and talent. That is what we are going to do. We will work with the unions and all the representative bodies to make sure that as we emerge from June of next year, we will be in an even better position to reduce reoffending.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Having been a non-executive director of HMPPS before my election to the House, I was privy to some of the challenges that have perhaps contributed to the decision today. With that perspective in mind, the timetable for reintegration seems tight, and I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend has considered further extending the CRC contracts, as is permitted, by six months, to enable that to happen smoothly. When that transition does happen, can we make sure that we keep the ethos of innovation, flexible staff and empowered staff so that we bring the very best back into the public sector?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He knows that I value the work that he did prior to his election to this House very greatly indeed. He is right to outline some of the options that were before me. I looked very carefully at that option among others. I could not see that bringing real value in time or space in order to make the necessary changes. The Government rightly committed to June or to the spring or summer of 2021 as the time by which we had to make these reforms. I thought that we needed simplicity and clarity, which is why I have elected to take this course.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement this morning—it is an important discussion area. Brixton prison sits in the neighbouring constituency to mine and I used to be the ward councillor for that prison. I will always remember the first time I visited and my conversation with the governor and his staff members. They said to me that short sentences do not work because the reoffending rates are so high. Will the Secretary of State consider the fact that to get those reoffending rates down, there needs to be a link with the local community? Will he look at ensuring that local links are formed with colleges, other education provision and local employers to make sure that we work to get those reoffenders back on track?

[Robert Buckland]

Like the hon. Lady, I have visited Brixton prison. I know the current governor well and I know a lot about the importance of having those establishments within a community. The hon. Lady makes a powerful point about the need to link community education facilities and structures that provide a support network for released prisoners or people on community orders. My ambition is to ensure that community sentences are so robust and effective that, when it comes to decision making by judges and magistrates, they will be the default choice as opposed to very short sentences that can frankly do more harm than good.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I commend everyone at the Ministry of Justice and in our Prison and Probation Service for their hard work at this challenging time. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the debate about the creation of new, modern prison places should focus on the need to create better educational, training and rehabilitation outcomes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend has put his finger on it, as usual. He is absolutely right to talk about the focus and purpose of the prison and probation environments. We must relentlessly think about the future: what will be the outcomes? How do we reduce offending? I always say that there are three things: a home, a job and a friend. If we can get those three right, we will do right by the community.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has had the good grace today to admit that the ideological experiment has failed. What can he say to residents in my constituency who feel that the regime that his Government brought in lacked accountability in places such as the Beverley Road spine in Hull, a large area where many ex-offenders lived? What accountability will be put in place by the Secretary of State’s measures?

[Robert Buckland]

I know that the hon. Lady will be familiar with this: the structure will be regional, within the national framework of the national probation service. The accountability will then of course be through Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and ultimately me. Locally, it is important to get that link with police and crime commissioners—the “and crime” bit of commissioners should come into play. That is why I want to focus on more localised commissioning. I want to get a sense of responsiveness and more than that, get ahead of trends in local areas such as Hull. The hon. Lady makes a good point, which we understand very well.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Education, health and social policies are key to supporting the work of the probation system. What does the Secretary of State make of the findings of the Thomas Commission on Justice in Wales? In particular, does he agree that the devolution of responsibility for the probation service would allow for better integration with Welsh health and education policies, thereby improving rehabilitation outcomes?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman makes a thought-provoking point and links the Thomas commission to it. Of course, the Welsh Government must respond to that, but we are ahead of the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, in Wales, the probation service was unified from the end of last year and is already supporting the people of Wales. The unified service, headed by Amy Rees, an outstanding civil servant, is delivering that integrated service that the hon. Gentleman so badly wants. We do not need further devolution or a separate jurisdiction.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I would like to think that private enterprise has no greater friend than me on this side of the House, but I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s announcement because we should follow the facts, and there are a great many benefits in the statement in terms of unified leadership, clear accountability and mobilising resources.

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. These decisions are never made lightly or easily, and I can assure him that they are made on the evidence and not as a result of ideology, which, I am afraid, still seems to infect some of the comments of my friends in the Labour party.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I welcome this announcement, because probation privatisation has failed, and a cohesive outcomes-led rehabilitation strategy is key. The Secretary of State spoke about links with the police and crime commissioner, but how will he ensure that accountability is improved in probation services? Is there an enhanced role for devolved English authorities such as the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, where the Mayor has PCC powers?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that there is already an agreement between my Department and Greater Manchester to devolve more powers and to work on a commissioning basis, to allow the authority to commission the sort of services that he and his residents want to see. I am extremely driven towards that model, and I am working with PCCs across the country to help deliver that flexibility.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

It is deeply worrying that young men from the black community are disproportionately likely to end up in the criminal justice system. Will the Secretary of State encourage the probation service to engage intensively with that cohort so that we can ensure that all offenders have the chance to move on from their past mistakes and make a success of their lives, whatever their background?

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. She will be glad to know that a lot of work is being done to improve the training of probation officers, particularly as regards the preparation of pre-sentence reports, which are vital documents for judges and magistrates to make decisions—in other words, to be more informed about black and minority ethnic issues, the services that might be available and the alternative ways of dealing with matters for members of that community. I would also make the point that, when it comes to the delivery of services, we are extremely privileged to have higher than average BAME representation among the probation workforce, which is a really good example to the rest of our community. However, it is about more than just getting people; it is about getting that ethos right and making sure people understand the alternatives that are available.

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

Probation services have without doubt suffered immensely because of deep Government cuts and the increasing fragmentation and privatisation of the service, as highlighted again and again by Napo, PCS, Unison and the Labour party, so I wholeheartedly welcome today’s momentous Government U-turn. However, will the Secretary of State establish a strategy for the resettlement of offenders, to link all the aspects of probation together—from through-the-gate support, planning and assessment in prisons to more frequent contacts and relationship building with offenders?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that that is precisely the approach I take. I have a strategy—it is called reducing reoffending. He will know that that means bringing together all agencies—not just criminal justice. Frankly, they have more of a role to play, whether that is public health, education—which has been mentioned—housing or other vital local services. We cannot do this on our own. The criminal justice system is often the repository of failure caused by other factors. Unless everybody puts their shoulder to the wheel and realises that all parts of public service have a criminal justice dimension, we will not achieve what we need to achieve for our communities.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s statement. Can he confirm that a key element of the future probation service system will be focusing on reducing the £18 billion cost to the taxpayer of reoffending?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to highlight the stark figure for the financial cost of reoffending—of course, it does not deal with the emotional, physical and mental cost of reoffending. Reducing reoffending means fewer victims of crime. We have succeeded in reducing it in certain parts of the criminal justice system, but I am afraid there is still a lot of work to do, particularly with offenders on short-term sentences. The focus will be very much on reducing reoffending levels among that cohort in the years ahead.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I want to stand up for the Lord Chancellor, who is being attacked from both sides of his own Benches today. Either it should not have happened at all, or the renationalisation should not be happening now. Why have we waited until now, when most of the service was taken back in-house last year? Does he want to take credit for that? As he is known—perhaps more than some of his colleagues—for his candour and thoughtfulness, will he admit that this privatisation has been an unmitigated disaster from start to finish?

[Robert Buckland]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is the champion of the leading question, and I am not going to fall for that old trick. As he knows, I do not take an ideological view of this. There are aspects of the last few years that have brought much new learning and experience that we will incorporate into the National Probation Service. I am talking about the people who have delivered for the CRCs on the ground. There are plenty of examples of local best practice that we want to hold on to and propagate and that we will expand through the dynamic framework.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement. One of the frustrations I see in magistrates courts in Cheshire and Merseyside, particularly for victims, is when probation staff cannot conduct stand-down reports on the day, which means that justice is delayed. How will the steps he has announced today improve efficiencies in magistrates courts?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend asks a very pertinent question. There is a tension, as I think he would acknowledge, between the need for swift justice and the value that properly crafted and prepared pre-sentence reports can play in the sentencing process. Where the ground has been prepared before the hearing and the options are very clear to the court, there should be no obstacle to the passing of a swift sentence. I will pray in aid the value of pre-sentence reports. I want to see more of them used, but with the eye to case management that delivers the swift justice that he and his residents want to see.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Short prison sentences do not work, especially for women, because the whole life of that woman and her dependants falls down. What can the Ministry of Justice do to instil confidence in the whole system that alternatives to prisons, such as women’s centres, work?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady will be glad to know that, as part of the female offender strategy that we agreed in 2018, we are making investments in organisations that work in that specialist sector, and we have also announced that we will fund a new centre in Wales, which will be delivered by the end of next year. It is a smaller unit that will cater for more localised sentencing and will support women effectively, albeit in a secure setting, but in a way that aids rehabilitation rather than the cycle of reoffending.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is correct for any Government to try different mechanisms for delivering the best outcomes for service users and for the taxpayer? Leaving the word “ideology” to one side, is it not right to follow in the footsteps of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who introduced independent sector providers to the NHS?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We need very short questions without long preambles, and a short answer.

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend, who speaks for the residents of Dudley so powerfully, is right to remind us about those ideological experiments indulged in by a Government of which the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) was a member not so many years ago. It pays us all to focus on the evidence, rather than the ideology.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I want to thank the Government for finally doing the right thing and ending privatisation in the probation service. Let us hope that this is a catalyst for bringing detention centres, prisons and other criminal justice services back within public hands. Most of all, I would like to thank the probation unions Napo and Unison, and their members, who have waged a hard-fought seven-year campaign against this wasteful and ideological experiment. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to those unions and encourage all workers across the UK to join a trade union?

[Robert Buckland]

I am always happy to encourage free association of workers. It is part of who we are as a civilised society. The hon. Lady represents the great city of Durham, so many of her constituents will be public sector workers in Durham prison and Frankland high-security prison, which is not too far away. We should value that ethos of public service, wherever it comes from, and I am sure she will join me in paying tribute to those CRC members of staff—we hope they will make the transfer to the NPS—who have been serving the public diligently, even though they have been in the so-called “bad” private sector.

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

The Secretary of State may not wish to talk about ideology, but will he reflect on morality? Does he think it is morally right to make private profit out of incarceration and rehabilitation, because I do not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I think it is morally right to harness whatever we can to help us deal with not only offenders, but the causes of offending. That will often be Government-led and state-led, and that is right—we have a duty under law to do that—but there will be plenty of occasions when the genius and talent that might be in the voluntary and private sectors should also be harnessed. So I do not accept this suggestion that somehow there is a moral difference between the mixed approach that I want to take and one that rigidly sticks to an ideological position that I do not really think the hon. Gentleman believes in.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Places such as Eden House in Bristol provided an important alternative to custody for vulnerable female offenders, but the services were slashed under privatisation. Will the Minister commit, based on the work of my predecessor in this place, Baroness Corston, to making sure that services such as Eden House are returned to full capacity, so that we can fulfil that agenda of trying to keep women out of prison and providing a safe alternative for them?

[Robert Buckland]

I pay tribute to the work of Baroness Corston, which has informed policy over many years. I know that she would welcome the female offenders strategy, which enjoyed cross-party support in 2018. We are now putting that into implementation. I have announced a centre in Wales, which will really help to provide that small-scale residential but secure environment. I am keen to try to replicate that wherever possible. I have to work within a budget, but, as I have announced, it has seen an overall increase, and I want to make sure we can drive that forward in a way that I think the hon. Lady will applaud.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has acknowledged today, as he did last year, that the employee-owned CRC in Kent is an example of good practice and innovation, and it has rightly received national and international recognition. Given the ambitious timetable that he has set out, will he confirm that he remains committed to a mixed market, so that the likes of our employee-owned CRC can continue to make a positive contribution to delivering services that matter in terms of keeping my constituents safer and helping to change lives?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has consistently raised these issues in the past year to 18 months. She is right to hold me to account on that need to maintain a mixed economy approach, to harness the excellent work of the employees that she talks about in the new structure and to make sure that that initiative—that sense of personal ownership of the programmes—is not lost as we make that transition. I am grateful to her.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)]

What steps he has taken as part of the early prison release scheme to ensure potential victims of violence in domestic settings are protected during the covid-19 lockdown period.

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

Domestic abuse is an abhorrent crime, and I am determined to better protect and support the victims of abuse and their children and to bring perpetrators to justice. I also recognise that measures announced to tackle covid-19 can cause anxiety for those experiencing or feeling at risk of domestic abuse, and therefore I have excluded any prisoner convicted of an offence relating to domestic violence, including harassment and stalking, from the scheme. I have also excluded anyone who is identified by prisons, police or other agencies as a domestic abuse risk from release under the scheme.

[James Murray [V]]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. As he will know, an increase in domestic abuse has been widely reported during the covid-19 outbreak. How many conversations have he and the Home Secretary had about suspending “no recourse to public funds” for any victims of domestic abuse to whom that condition applies?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the Home Secretary and I discuss many issues relating to domestic abuse. With regard to public funding and access to justice, he will know that in a large number of measures involving police activity on domestic violence prevention orders, legal aid is not a barrier to those orders being made. Indeed, emergency applications make the domestic abuse test somewhat more accessible for people who need that protection. There is ongoing work with regard to aspects of legal aid, which we will return to later in the year, but I assure him that we are doing everything we can to assist the victims of domestic abuse, and not just in terms of access to legal proceedings.

[Feryal Clark]

There is real concern that a six-month time limit on a summary charge could mean that some domestic abuse victims may lose out on the opportunity to take charge during lockdown. What steps is the Department taking to address those concerns?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady raises an important point about summary-only offences, which, although relatively speaking might be not as serious as some other types of charge, have real effects upon the victims of domestic abuse. I have certainly drawn my mind to that issue throughout this crisis. I am confident, from the police activity I see, that arrests and charges continue and that a number of perpetrators are being charged within that time. Nothing has led me to believe that there should be a problem with regard to timely charging within the six-month time limit. That can be done, and then these people can be brought to justice.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

What recent assessment he has made of the trends in the level of violence on the secure estate for young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of personal protective equipment for (a) prison and (b) probation staff during the covid-19 outbreak.

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

Personal protective equipment is critical to protect staff and those in our care where close contact is necessary and unavoidable. There is currently adequate stock and forward supply of PPE, in accordance with public health advice. We have stock in the hundreds of thousands for aprons, coveralls, eye protection, pairs of gloves, respirator masks and fluid-resistant surgical masks. However, we are making continued preparations and keeping demand for PPE under regular review as we move into the next phase of managing this outbreak.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer, and for the support he has given me in recent years in my attempts to make sure that HMP Nottingham is the safest environment it can be. In that vein, will he give an assurance to staff at Nottingham, and indeed prison staff across the estate, that as lockdown restrictions are eased, they will still have access to those PPE stocks that he talked about, and that if that is what they need for them to be comfortable at work, they will be permitted to keep wearing it?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He knows, and he has followed very carefully, the good progress that is being made in HMP Nottingham. I know he would want me to pay tribute to all prison staff for the incredible work they have been doing throughout this outbreak. I can give him such an assurance. We are looking to ease the lockdown, and as the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) said, we published the plan for recovery last week. For example, for visits to prisons, it seems sensible that visitors should wear coverings, so that we can minimise the risk of an outbreak coming into prisons. All those measures will continue to be discussed with the unions, as we have done throughout this outbreak.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)]

What recent assessment he has made of the implications of the covid-19 outbreak for his Department’s priorities.

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

Covid-19 has indeed brought unprecedented challenges to the justice system, but I am proud of how my Department, and everybody in it, has responded to keep the wheels of justice turning and to adapt to this changing world. We have harnessed technology to use audio and video in 90% of our hearings, and we are using video calls and secure mobile phones to keep prisoners in touch with their families and to maintain order. Getting the system fully back up and running is now our priority, which is why we are working at pace on issues such as increasing jury trials and, indeed, the legislative programme that we have. The world is changing, but we will need to continue to ensure that, as we recover, we build a more effective justice system.

[Kenny MacAskill [V]]

As the Secretary of State is aware, 10 prison staff have died from covid-19. As in the health and social care sector, it is not medals that staff want, but decent pay and conditions. Will he commit to adopting the best practice demands of the unions for a safe working environment, and will he authorise the additional financial compensation to families who lose a loved one to covid-19, as applies in the health sector?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman knows that in response to this outbreak we took particular measures agreed by the Treasury to ensure that those working in the prison system were rewarded financially in terms of incentives and extra pay to deal with the pressure they were facing. That regime continues to exist, and we continue to engage regularly with prison representatives and the unions to discuss the issues he has raised. It is an ongoing discussion, but he can be assured that I and my Ministers have taken every reasonable step possible so far to support our dedicated staff.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

People still need justice, even in an emergency. In normal times, more than 200 jury trials ordinarily take place in England and Wales each week. During the height of the covid-19 lockdown, jury trials were suspended entirely due to public health concerns. A few weeks ago, as the lockdown measures were relaxed, jury trials restarted, but at only a fraction of the normal rate. We expect the Ministry of Justice to at least know the size of the challenges it faces. What is the Secretary of State’s estimate of the total number of jury trials in the backlog currently waiting to be held?

[Robert Buckland]

The right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that I continue to look at that on a daily basis. The overall case load in the Crown Court is approaching just over 41,000. Before the crisis it was 39,000, so there has been a slight increase. Within that case load, the courts have managed a lot of cases that can be dealt with administratively and by way of plea, but that does leave a cohort of trials to be dealt with. Normally, 200 jury trials a week will be heard in England and Wales, and we are still dealing with a very small number. That will clearly tell him the scale of the challenge, but I can say to him that both the Lord Chief Justice and I are working together closely in order to scale up capacity, to look at court hours and the way the courts sit so that we can accommodate jurors and staff, and to do whatever it takes not just to manage that case load number but to bring it down as we go through the year.

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

The Lord Chancellor has a strong record of defending judicial independence, and I congratulate him on that. Does he agree that it is equally important that those in Government do not seek to influence the police or the Crown Prosecution Service in the exercise of their duties? Can he confirm that that is why he, unlike other members of the Government, refrained from tweeting in support of Dominic Cummings when there was a live issue as to whether Mr Cummings had breached the lockdown regulations and guidance?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. and learned Lady will know that I refrain, in correspondence and, indeed, in statements or questions in the House, from talking about individual cases. I remind her and the House that, as Lord Chancellor, I will always act in a way that is consistent with the rule of law. The independence of the police and prosecutorial authorities has to be paramount, and that is something that I will absolutely uphold. My constitutional duties come first, and everybody within Government knows that full well.

[Joanna Cherry]

Perhaps the Lord Chancellor could share those thoughts with the Attorney General.

Upholding human rights is also an important part of the Lord Chancellor’s Department’s priorities. When the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave evidence to the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union recently, he made it clear that the Government still intended to amend the Human Rights Act 1998. Can the Lord Chancellor reassure us that any such amendments will not seek to abrogate domestic law giving effect to the European convention on human rights?

[Robert Buckland]

I can tell the hon. and learned Lady that, as part of our manifesto commitment, we have pledged to update the Human Rights Act, which is now 20 years old in terms of its operation. That is only the right and proper thing to do. I can absolutely assure her that our membership of the convention is beyond any doubt or peradventure. That will very much remain the case as we go through the negotiations with our friends in the European Union on the future relationship and, indeed, domestically as well. We are working on an important independent review into the operation of the Human Rights Act, and I will update the House when further details are available.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) [V]]

People in Midlothian have made huge sacrifices, over months now, to obey the rules, while the Prime Minister’s most senior adviser was breaking them on multiple occasions. Does the Secretary of State believe it is right that some unelected bureaucrats appear to be allowed to break the law while the public are cautioned or fined?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman can be reassured: he knows that I believe in equality before the law, and that is why I refrain from making comments about individual cases. I respect the decisions made by the police independently and, indeed, by the Crown Prosecution Service and any other prosecutorial authority either north or south of the border.

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

What steps he plans to take to help people who are bereaved after a public disaster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

What discussions he has had with the (a) judiciary and (b) Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on the exemptions on evicting tenants under the Coronavirus Act 2020.

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

The Government took the necessary action through the Coronavirus Act to ensure that landlords could not start proceedings to evict tenants until at least September, and on Friday, at my request, the judiciary passed a new rule to protect renters by making sure that evictions would be suspended until 23 August. I intend to introduce the necessary secondary legislation. The Housing Secretary and I will continue to work closely with the judiciary and others to protect vulnerable renters.

[Gareth Bacon]

I do not want anyone to be unfairly evicted at such a difficult time, but could my right hon. and learned Friend offer guidance on two constituents who have written to me separately as landlords, the first having served notice to quit on a tenant whose behaviour had become very nasty, and the second on a heavily pregnant lady who had to return home from working abroad when she was repatriated during the health crisis and who, along with her family, is now unexpectedly homeless?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend knows that I am more than happy to hear more detail about those individual cases if he writes to me this week. On the general point, I can assure him that this was not a matter I took lightly. I am bearing very much in mind the issue of small landlords in particular and—shall we say—egregiously continuing breaches, which is why we excluded, for example, trespassers from the provision, because clearly there is a social necessity to deal with them. Other measures are also available to deal with antisocial behaviour, but I will look at the two cases he raises.

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

Given the capacity constraints on the judicial system at the moment, which are of concern to many of my constituents affected by similar issues to those outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), will my right hon. and learned Friend give consideration to relaxing the mandatory retirement age for magistrates so that the loss of our valued local administrators of justice can be stemmed and additional capacity be allowed in the system for the foreseeable future?

[Robert Buckland]

Your non-intervention, Mr Speaker, shows how ingenious Members of Parliament can be in weaving in themes to questions. I admire my hon. Friend’s tenacity. He will be glad to know that we will shortly be consulting on the retirement age not just for magistrates but for the judiciary in general. I am grateful to him.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

What steps his Department is taking to reduce the backlog of court cases that has accumulated as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

The death of George Floyd in the United States and the protests that have been taking place across the globe are stark reminders that we live in a world where prejudice sadly and unacceptably continues to play a role. We all have a duty to stand up to racism wherever we see it, and I am more determined than ever to work with our justice partners and the black, Asian and minority ethnic community to address racial disparity in our justice system. The right to peaceful protest is one of the hallmarks of a mature democracy such as ours, but under the rule of law, which is the guarantor of equality before the law. We must never accept violence or criminal conduct as a legitimate tool of protest. At a time when we face the national trial of covid-19, when for months this whole country has come together to fight a deadly plague, I believe that on this issue we, too, can and must come together.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I join in the remarks expressed about the Black Lives Matter protests, and the shadow Secretary of State wrote a fantastic report on this and the justice system, which I thoroughly recommend.

Will the Secretary of State ensure, in suspending all eviction proceedings during this crisis and fulfilling his party’s manifesto pledge to scrap no-fault evictions, that no tenant is evicted post-crisis by the courts if they have offered to pay, according to their respective means, a furloughed 80% of rent or a universal credit local housing allowance rate during the period?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. He will of course understand that it is for the courts to judge each individual case, but I am confident that the work being done by Mr Justice Knowles and his committee to allocate and prioritise the work that will need to be done in possession actions will allow courts across the country to take very much into account the circumstances of individual renters and the effects of covid-19 upon their incomes and their ability to pay.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Following a series of burglaries and car break-ins in the Colne and Holme valleys in January and February, West Yorkshire police made a series of arrests. My constituents now want to see justice done, so what is the Department doing to reduce the backlog of court cases during the covid crisis so that my constituents can see justice done?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend, whom I am delighted to see back in his rightful place, speaks powerfully for the communities of Colne Valley, whom he represents and has represented so ably. He will be reassured to know that in the magistrates court a huge amount of work is being done to deal with technology and to allow for remote hearings, and the same is happening in the Crown court, where guilty pleas are being dealt with expeditiously. The issue here is about trials. He will have heard earlier the plans we have to scale up, in capacity and sitting hours, the work that needs to be done to bring justice to his constituents and many more.

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

Legal aid lawyers, often doing the most complex cases, are already struggling for their financial survival, but the Justice Secretary now plans to pile on more pressure through reforms of fixed fees in immigration and asylum appeal cases. He knows that this change means that lawyers will be forced to do more for an awful lot less or will simply walk away, so will he acknowledge that this ploy, pretending to give with one hand but snatching far more away with the other, will further drive lawyers away from representing the most vulnerable people? Will he now commit to working constructively with those professions to find a better and fairer alternative?.

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman knows from my long background as a legal aid practitioner that I always work constructively with the professions and engage closely with the representative bodies.

[Karl Turner]

It’s cynical.

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman is making totally unfair comments from a sedentary position. We have started, particularly with regard to immigration, to increase the amount of money that is rightfully being paid. We are looking at trying to make sure that the money is targeted—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would listen, perhaps he might learn something. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us calm it down.

[Robert Buckland]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are trying to make sure that the work that is done, particularly in immigration cases, which often involves a lot of preparation in skeleton arguments, is remunerated. That end of it has seen a significant fee increase, but it is an interim measure and the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that more work is being done in this area. Of course we will engage closely with representative bodies. He may shake his head, but he represents a party that took a knife to legal aid. I will take no lectures from him about legal aid and what he did to it. I had to live with the consequences of what his party did and he can put that in his pipe and smoke it.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a commitment that the Government will not seek to extend the early release scheme, which residents in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke think is too weak, and instead consider scrapping it?

[Robert Buckland]

I know that my hon. Friend speaks with conviction on behalf of his constituents. He knows that necessary steps were taken with regard to the covid crisis to allow a measured release of certain types of lower-level prisoners as an attempt to contain the outbreak. We have been very careful in the way that we have done that. On the more general issue of release, he will know that a scheme has existed for many years called home detention curfew. There are no plans to extend that, and, again, he can be reassured that we are dealing with prisoners who do not pose a high risk and have been carefully assessed. He will know from the measures I have taken to end automatic early release at halfway that the Government are determined to ensure that when prison terms are given, the majority of the term ordered is served.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

As well as “I can’t breathe”, the Black Lives Matter protesters cry “No justice, no peace.” I am sure the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to condemn all violence and vandalism, as I do, but does he also recognise that that cry cries out for a response? Does he acknowledge that the Government’s failure to take any action on the report on racial disparities in the justice system by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is not the response that will reassure protesters?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that important matter, but she can be reassured that the work done by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and my Department’s response are far from being ignored or deprioritised. As a result of what has happened, we have already started “chance to change”, an important initiative about deferring prosecutions. We are already working to improve the way in which pre-sentence reports are prepared, in order to eliminate bias. Important work is being done to identify ethnicities within the system. In essence, the vital tools and foundations are being prepared to deal with the challenge that the hon. Lady rightly poses.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

Following the immensely destructive Extinction Rebellion protests last year and the violence and the criminal damage committed over the weekend by a small minority of thugs, is my right hon. and learned Friend confident that the law as it stands is on the side of the law-abiding majority and our brave police officers, who have really stood up and been counted over the past couple of months?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to praise the work of our brave police officers, and indeed all emergency workers who put themselves on the line, particularly in the context of this crisis. We are in the process of looking carefully at the sentencing maximums for assaults on emergency workers. I will update the House on our progress.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The privatisation of probation has been a complete failure. The Secretary of State might want to remind his colleagues of Serco’s role in that failure, given the way it has just been awarded the contract for covid test and trace, but for today will he tell us when the family of probation services will be brought back together in their rightful place in the public sector and end this scandal of privatisation?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman knows that last year an important announcement was made on the reform of the Probation Service, which is progressing. I am considering the matter very carefully, particularly in the light of covid-19 and the effects on the process, and I will make a statement to the House as soon as possible.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

The land banking scandal of nearly a decade ago is as real today as it was then to some people, especially in cases where solicitors have been prosecuted and struck off by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The SRA deems compensation claims out of time after a year, even when the timescale from prosecution to striking off can be over a year. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the Legal Services Board to investigate whether the discretionary compensation fund administered by the SRA is actually fit for purpose?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He and I have discussed this matter on a number of occasions, and he is right to raise this sensitive issue for those who have been unjustly deprived as a result of a fraud. The fund, which is operated by the SRA, is for those who have suffered financial loss specifically caused by solicitors. It consulted earlier this year between January and April. It would need to seek the approval of the LSB for any changes to the fund. We need to be realistic about the fact that any compensation fund will not be able to fully recompense those who have lost under it, but I take his point about time limits, and it is something that I will discuss with him further.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

Following the death of George Floyd, there has been peaceful, socially distanced protests in both Buxton and Glossop in my constituency. We should not pretend that there are not very clear differences between this country and the United States. It is 21 years since the Macpherson report and, as a country, we have come a very long way since then, but there is still work to be done. What steps are the Government taking to increase trust in the criminal justice system among the BAME communities?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I can enlarge on the points that I made to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). In February of this year, we published an update against each of the recommendations made by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I have mentioned deferred prosecution schemes. There is also a change to the way in which the use of force in prison is scrutinised. We have completely revised the complaints process to ensure that it is fairer. On the recruitment of BAME people into the system, we are on target to meet our objective with regard to the percentage of Prison Service recruits and have increased the number of senior leaders. As the review recommended, we have concentrated on improving the quality and transparency of data, which ensures that we properly monitor ethnicity. A lot of work is being done, but there is a lot still to do.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]]

It is reported today that Ministers are desperately looking for venues for Nightingale courts. Twenty two magistrates courts were closed in Wales between 2010 and 2020, so will the Minister reopen those courts so that the people of Wales can be properly served?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but what he has to remember is that the extra courts need to be compatible with social distancing. What we are looking for is space and room so that people can stay safe, which is why in Wales we have been looking particularly at civic buildings near the established court centres in Cardiff, Swansea and, I think, Mold and Caernarfon Crown court, which I know well. I am confident from my close consultation with partners in Wales that work is being done that will allow that capacity to increase and allow justice to be served more swiftly in Wales.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

It is now more than a year since my Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019 passed. Before that, my right hon. and learned Friend’s colleagues did a lot of work on section 4, which would amend the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to empower coroners to investigate stillbirths. That has still not happened—when is it going to happen?

[Robert Buckland]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his work on this matter and I am happy to continue to meet him on it. I had hoped to publish our report on the consultation about now, but covid, I am afraid, has affected things. My aim is to publish later this summer in accordance with his wishes, but I will of course engage with him on the matter.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]]

A recent study by the London School of Economics has shown that people are torn about using the contact-tracing app, due to civil liberties concerns. To increase public confidence, will the Secretary of State commit to bringing forward a legislative framework and independent oversight of the app to protect human rights?

[Robert Buckland]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She knows that the Isle of Wight pilot is still ongoing and the precise nature of the app to be used has yet to be determined. I am quite clear—and I have been clear to the Joint Committee on Human Rights—that, if there was to be any change in the basis of the use of data, legislation would be necessary. But the important points for me are consent of the subject and indeed the use of that data and confidentiality. If the existing parameters are maintained, legislation might not be necessary, but we will have to wait to see the precise ambit of the app.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

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

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

The first duty of any Government is to protect the public from harm. Combating the unprecedented threat of coronavirus has, of course, been the focus of our energies over the last few months, but as our country begins to open up once again, it is crucial that we maintain our vigilance towards the all too familiar threat of terrorism. As the House will recall, there have been a number of devastating incidents in recent years. The appalling atrocities at Fishmongers’ Hall on 29 November last year and in Streatham on 2 February this year, barely two months apart, were brutal attacks on innocent members of the public just going about their day-to-day lives. Those incidents drove home some hard truths about our approach to managing terrorists in the justice system, with each committed by an offender who had been released automatically halfway through their sentence, with no involvement from the Parole Board. We cannot allow that to happen again.

Following the Streatham attack, we acted swiftly to introduce the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020, which ended the automatic early release of terrorist offenders and ensured that any release before the end of a sentence is dependent on a thorough risk assessment by the Parole Board. I was extremely grateful for the co-operation we received from Members on both sides of the House on that vital piece of legislation, and I was proud of how quickly this place acted to get it on to the statute book. That piece of legislation built on the Government’s plans to bolster the United Kingdom’s response to terrorism and to ensure that we have some of the strongest measures in the world to tackle that threat.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Lord Chancellor mentions the importance of speed in dealing with these situations. Does he agree that we have perhaps not moved fast enough in, for example, proscribing some organisations? I am thinking particularly of extreme right-wing organisations that target the black community, other people of colour, the Jewish community and the gay community. It took years to get System Resistance Network and Sonnenkrieg Division banned by the Government, and there are other organisations out there, such as the Order of Nine Angles, that need to be banned. Does he agree that we need to move further and faster on proscription so that people involved in those organisations can receive the sentences that he is talking about in this legislation?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the function of proscription is for the Home Secretary. From my knowledge of it, which is not as close as that of my colleague, proscription is a device that should be applied equally, without discrimination. He is absolutely right to talk about the rise of far-right extremism. At this Dispatch Box and elsewhere, I have readily acknowledged the fact that out in our community, sadly, and in our prison system, we have a proportion of far-right wing terrorists who have been convicted and brought to justice. What I would say about those individual examples is that wherever there is evidence of activities that amounts to grounds for proscription, I know that this Home Secretary—indeed, like her predecessors—will act with alacrity. Of course, her predecessor did in the instances that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, so I assure him that the Government will work within the law and apply it equally to all groups and organisations that pose a direct threat to our way of life. That is what we are talking about here.

I was dealing with the measures that we announced in the aftermath of the atrocity at Fishmongers’ Hall. In the current financial year, 2020-21, we have increased funding for counter-terrorism policing by £90 million. We announced a review for the support for victims of terrorism, with a further £500,000 being provided to the Victims of Terrorism Unit. We then announced our plans to double the number of counter-terrorism specialist probation staff. We are also working to increase the places that are available in probation hostels, so that authorities can keep closer tabs on terrorists in the weeks after their release from prison. Of course there is also the independent review—led by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, QC—of the way in which different agencies investigate, monitor and manage terrorist offenders. This was just the first stage of our response, because these attacks clearly demonstrated the need for terrorist offenders to spend longer in prison and to be subject to more stringent monitoring in the community.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am very conscious that although we are looking at the recent period, at those who were involved in ISIS and Daesh attacks in London and elsewhere, IRA terrorism is clearly a strong issue, as was illustrated last week when there was a bomb and arms find in Londonderry. When it comes to sentencing, I ask that those who are involved in IRA terrorism, who are convicted in this jurisdiction—on the mainland—will not receive any reduction in the sentences that they receive if they are transferred back to Northern Ireland, for instance. I seek that assurance from the Secretary of State—that IRA terrorists will get the full brunt of the law and not get away with a reduced sentence if they are sent back home.

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman can be reassured that the whole purpose of this UK-wide legislation is not to discriminate between different types of terrorists. It would be wholly wrong for this legislation, for example, to focus on so-called Islamic terrorism, as opposed to far-right terrorism, the Provisional IRA and irregular republican, or indeed, irregular terrorism of a general nature within Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom. This is not discriminatory legislation. It is designed to deal with terrorism in all its forms, and I believe that this legislation is also agile when it comes to dealing with and anticipating the enduring challenge of how to manage terrorists in whatever form they might come. As we know, terrorism is evolving and taking different forms all the time.

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

My right hon. and learned Friend mentions a couple of cases, including Fishmongers’ Hall. Does that not illustrate the great range of problems that have to be addressed? In recent times, was there not a case where someone had to be released even though people were sure he would reoffend at the first opportunity—he did so, and had to be trailed and stopped by an MI5 team—whereas at Fishmongers’ Hall, was the problem not that the person had claimed to be reformed and that there was no reason, apparently, not to release him? It will have to be a very comprehensive piece of legislation to cope with such a wide range of problems.

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who speaks with experience of these matters. He helps me to outline the point I was about to make about the complex and evolving nature of the threat. He is right to talk about different types of threat: superficial compliance, which we saw, sadly, with regard to Fishmongers’ Hall; and known threat, but with an inability of the authorities, due to the current regime, to manage that within custodial settings, and the paraphernalia, cost and sheer planning that has then to be undertaken to try to deal with and manage the threat in the community.

I must pay tribute to the teams who worked so hard at Streatham to minimise what could have been an even more horrific incident on that Sunday afternoon on Streatham High Road. I well remember looking at the detail of what the teams did that day and being lost in sheer admiration for their bravery and professionalism in dealing with a terrible incident that could have involved very serious loss of life. The work of looking at the detailed facts will go on by way of an independent inquest. We will, of course, look precisely at the outcome of that, and at the serious further offence reviews, which are ongoing but will conclude very shortly. They will help to supplement the excellent work done by Jonathan Hall in his review of MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements.

I was explaining that the announcements we made some months ago were but the first stage of our response. The step-up response to counter-terrorism is very much at the heart of what I and the Government are about. The legislation we are now introducing will ensure that the process for how we at each stage deal with both convicted terrorist offenders and those who pose a concern of becoming terrorist offenders will be strengthened. We are determined to ensure that those who commit serious acts of terror and put members of the public at risk serve sentences that properly reflect the harm they cause.

The Bill will reform the sentences which can be handed down to terror offenders by introducing a new category of sentence. The serious terrorism sentence, for the most serious and dangerous terrorist offenders, will carry a minimum period of 14 years of custody, with an extended licence period of up to 25 years. That sentence will apply to only the most serious and dangerous terrorist offenders who would otherwise receive a life sentence: those who have been found guilty of an offence where there was a high likelihood of causing multiple deaths.

The Bill also introduces further provisions for terrorist offenders who have been assessed to be dangerous, and who have committed a sufficiently serious offence, to spend the entirety of their sentence in custody without the prospect of early release. In addition to spending that full term in prison, the courts will be able to apply longer extended licence periods of up to 10 years for those offenders, so we can continue to supervise them once they are allowed back into the community. Any breach would put them straight back into prison.

In February, I announced that the Government would review sentencing for terrorist offenders, including whether current maximum penalties for terrorist offences were sufficient. Following that review, the Bill proposes to increase the maximum penalty for three specific terrorism offences: first, membership of a proscribed organisation; secondly, supporting a proscribed organisation; and thirdly, attending a place used for terrorist training. The maximum term is currently 10 years, but will be increased to 14, which sends a clear message about how serious the Government consider that type of offending and is consistent with existing penalties for similarly serious terrorist offences.

Another outcome of the review included in the Bill is an amendment to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which will enable the courts to find any offence with a maximum penalty of more than two years to have a terrorist connection. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation noted that that would be a useful change. It will give the courts more flexibility to reflect the facts of each case fully in the sentence that they may wish to pass.

[Jim Shannon]

Minister, those who are involved in terrorism may have—

[Jim Shannon]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I endeavour to follow your instructions and I will do my best.

I seek assurance that those who are involved in terrorist activity, be it providing safe houses, physical assistance, cars or weapons, and who play a smaller role will also feel the brunt of the sentencing for their minor role in a bigger terrorist atrocity.

[Robert Buckland]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, there have been developments in terrorism law since the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, which he will remember, then the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Acts that followed the atrocity of 9/11, which saw a development and evolution in the law that allowed a wider penumbra of people who supported, encouraged or facilitated that type of serious offending to be brought before the courts.

I was explaining that the particular measure to which I was drawing the House’s attention allows the courts to find a terrorist connection in offences that are not specifically terrorism or terrorism-related; they might be offences under a different type of Act, such as an offence of violence or an acquisitive crime. If there is enough evidence to satisfy the criminal standard of proof that there is a terrorism connection, the court can use that as an aggravating factor in increasing the level of sentence given to that particular offender.

That will result in more offenders being managed through the registered terrorist offender notification requirements and will ensure that operational partners can effectively manage that risk on release so that no terrorism-connected offender should fall through the cracks. Taken together, the sentencing provisions will reduce the threat posed to the public by incapacitating dangerous terrorists and will maximise the time that the authorities have to work with offenders, giving offenders more time in which to disengage from their dangerous and deeply entrenched ideologies.

The recent terror attacks demonstrated the importance of improving and maximising our capability to monitor offenders in the community. The Bill introduces a range of measures to allow the Government to intervene more effectively where required. Time spent on licence is crucial in monitoring and managing offenders in the community, and also in giving them the opportunity and support to change their behaviour to desist and disengage from terrorism.

Right hon. and hon. Members were rightly concerned during the passage of the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 that terrorist offenders released at the end of their sentence would not be subject to licence supervision when released. This legislation takes vital steps to extend the scope of the special sentence for offenders of particular concern to cover all terrorist offences with a maximum penalty of more than two years. That will mean that any terrorist offenders convicted of an offence covered by the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act will no longer be able to receive a standard determinate sentence, but will instead face a minimum period of supervision on licence of 12 months, even if they are released at the end of their custodial term.

The Bill will also strengthen the licence conditions to which terrorist offenders are subject by making available polygraph testing as a condition of their licence. We believe that that will help probation staff to monitor compliance with the other licence conditions—such as contact with named individuals, entering exclusion zones or accessing material that promotes or relates to acts of terrorism—imposed on offenders. Research has shown that mandatory polygraph testing for adult sexual offenders can be an effective risk-management tool; extending that to certain terrorist offenders will therefore enhance our ability to monitor them in the community.

In addition, the measures in the Bill will maximise the effectiveness of the existing disruptions and risk-management toolkit available to counter-terrorism policing and our security services. That toolkit can be used alongside licence conditions for those serving a licence period after sentence, or with individuals of terrorism concern who have not otherwise been convicted.

Prosecution and conviction are always our preference for dealing with terrorists, but in the limited instances in which we cannot prosecute, deport or otherwise manage an individual of terrorism concern, terrorism prevention and investigation measures—known as TPIMs—are a crucial tool for protecting the public. The Bill makes a number of changes to TPIMs to increase their value as a risk-management tool and support their use by operational partners in cases when it is considered necessary. The changes include lowering the standard of proof for imposing a TPIM notice, specifying new measures that can be applied to TPIM subjects, and removing the current two-year limit from which a TPIM notice can last, to ensure that we are better equipped to manage individuals of significant concern who pose a continued threat.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware of cases in respect of which he, the Home Secretary or others think that a TPIM should have been granted but could not be because the burden of proof was set at the wrong level?

[Robert Buckland]

I am sure the right hon. Lady will understand that it would be a little invidious of me to go into individual cases, but she will know from her long experience of this issue, and control orders previously, that TPIMs and control orders are complex and resource-intensive mechanisms that require a high degree of planning and continued monitoring, so decisions made to apply for them are never entered into lightly. By returning the position on the standard of proof to the one that existed some years ago, the Bill creates a more flexible means of monitoring, rather than a system that does, and did, require a higher standard of proof. It is not my wish or the wish of the Government to see an overdependence on TPIMs to the exclusion of other types of disposal.

It is still very much the Government’s view that prosecution and conviction is absolutely our priority, but experience has shown that the judicious use of this type of measure is not only lawful and proportionate but necessary when we cannot meet the high standard of proof that the right hon. Lady knows exists in criminal prosecution. It is my view that although TPIMs have never been the complete solution to the problem, they are an invaluable additional tool that the security services and all of us need when it comes to managing this complex problem. The right hon. Lady will be reassured that according to the latest published figures the number of TPIMs in force is currently five. I do not believe that the changes we bring in will act as any incentive or artificial stimulus to a sudden change in the way that the measures are used.

Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I dwell at length on the point made the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. I have noticed, certainly from my time as a Law Officer, that from the middle part of this decade we saw a welcome increase in the number of prosecutions, particularly of returning foreign fighters. That showed that where we put the resources and the will into investigation we can make the prosecutorial system work well. Maintaining that focus, but then adapting, refining and modernising the system as we are doing in this Bill, strikes the right balance in terms of the need to protect the public and to adhere to those principles of liberty, the individual and the rule of law that all of us in this House share.

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

rose—

[Robert Buckland]

I will give way to the Chairman of the Justice Committee.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I have a lot of sympathy with the point that my right hon. and learned Friend makes about the value that TPIMs can have as part of the armoury, so to speak, in dealing with these matters. May I draw him back to the point about the change in the burden of proof? The increase in the burden of proof to the current standard was specifically in response to a recommendation from the then independent reviewer, Lord Anderson. The current independent reviewer, Mr Hall QC, has made no such recommendation to reduce the burden proof, as is proposed here. That is a striking difference. What we are trying to get to is this: what is it that triggers this change in the burden of proof without some evidence, either by way of recommendation or some hard fact to demonstrate it?

[Robert Buckland]

I absolutely accept and understand the motivation behind my hon. Friend’s intervention, and he makes such a recommendation not just as Chair of the Select Committee, but as a guardian of the principles of the rule of law, which, after all, is what we, as a nation, are trying to defend against those who would kill, shoot and bomb their way into power and influence. He can be reassured that this—if you like—reversion to the previous standard of proof is all about making sure that we have as agile a tool as possible, bearing in mind the rapidly changing nature of the terrorist threat that we face. It is vital that we make sure that, when applications for TPIMs are made, they can be done not only in such a way that there is clearly an evidential basis and those grounds exist, but in a way that means they can be effective and as rapidly implemented as possible. The focus of the TPIM and the number of people on it will change, adapt and evolve according to the constant and the changing nature of the threats.

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

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. The point made by the Chair of the Justice Committee is very well made. Not only has the current independent reviewer of terrorism, Jonathan Hall QC, not recommended the change, but he has specifically questioned the basis for the change. So again, is the Lord Chancellor able to clearly articulate for us why this change in the burden of proof is necessary?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her question. Indeed, in the lengthy answers that I am giving, I am trying to do just that. What I am trying to explain is—I know that she knows this—that the TPIM mechanism is not something that is entered upon lightly. It involves a high degree of resource and a high intensity of resource management. It is a self-evident truth that the resources of the state, however large they may be, are not infinite and therefore choices and priorities have to be allocated. What I can assure the House of is that of course every time we assess that the grounds are met and that there is a risk, we will act. That is what our security services do, day in, day out, for us. What I am saying is that the change in the threshold creates that greater agility. I accept that it will be a lower standard, yes, but the reason for that is to allow for greater flexibility when our operational partners come to apply them.    



I was talking about the importance of TPIMs’ use being proportionate. I believe that the annual review of TPIMs, which is going to be part of this process to qualify the question about their indefinite duration, strikes the right balance between the need for vigilance and control against the need for those basic civil liberties that we all guard jealously to be maintained. Let us not forget that where it is no longer necessary or proportionate to extend a particular TPIM for the purposes of public protection, that TPIM will be revoked. That check and balance is very much at the heart of the regimen that we are proposing in the Bill.

The Bill also amends legislation governing serious crime prevention orders. Those are civil orders imposed by the courts that protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting an individual’s involvement in serious crime, which of course includes terrorism. The Bill supports the use of these orders in terrorist-related cases by allowing counter-terrorism policing to make a direct application to the High Court for a serious crime prevention order. We are therefore streamlining that process. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has noted that these mechanisms are at the moment an under-utilised tool in terrorism cases, and I believe that by streamlining the process we will see a greater reliance upon them.

We are also adding the offences of breaching a TPIM notice and breaching a temporary exclusion order to the list of relevant terrorism offences that can trigger the registered terrorist offender notification requirements. Again, the independent reviewer has publicly confirmed his support for that change. The regime requires individuals aged 16 or over who have been sentenced to 12 months or more in custody for a relevant terrorism offence to provide certain information about changes in their circumstances, such as their address, to the police and to notify them of any foreign travel plans. Together, these changes strengthen our ability to manage the risk posed by those of terrorism concern in our community, including those who have been released from prison without a period on licence.

The Bill also reforms how we deal with terrorist offenders under the age of 18. We recognise, of course, that there is a separate sentencing framework for that category of offenders, and that it has distinct purposes and aims that differ from those relating to adult offenders. We have carefully considered which measures it would be appropriate to apply to under 18-year-olds in developing this proposed legislation. Although we remain firm in our aim to ensure that custody should be used only where absolutely necessary, it is a sad and inescapable fact that some young people are susceptible to radicalisation or to the adoption of extremist views, and that among those, there are a few who pose a very serious threat to the public.

The Bill will therefore ensure that the courts have the right range of tools at their disposal to deal with those under the age of 18 who commit serious terrorist or terrorist-related offences. We will do that by introducing a youth equivalent to the special sentence for offenders of particular concern. This will mean that, if convicted of terrorist offences serious enough to warrant custody, these offenders will serve a fixed period on licence once they have been released into the community. This will ensure that they receive an appropriate level of supervision. We are also replicating the changes to the extended determinate sentence to ensure better public protection from young terrorist offenders who have been assessed as dangerous. This removes Parole Board consideration of the two-thirds point for the most serious terrorism offences, and in the interests of public protection, it gives the courts the option to apply an extension period of up to 10 years on licence. I accept that this is an exceptional series of measures, but we are dealing with an exceptional type of offending.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State explain, first, what additional resources will be made available within the prison system to ensure that those who commit terror offences are not then left there to radicalise other young offenders? That has been a huge concern, and the Government have been pretty lacklustre in dealing with it. Secondly, when they are released, what resources and support will be made available to local authorities and other partnerships to ensure that other young people are not susceptible to their influence? It is one thing to sentence, but quite another to deal with the underlying challenges in communities.

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I can give her the strongest reassurance that, though at times it might appear, from some of the coverage of how terrorism is monitored in prison, that our system is failing, it is not. There are many aspects of the counter-terrorism regimen in our prisons that are world leading and which other countries are learning from and coming to us for help and advice on. I can say this about our recent announcement: the doubling of the number of specialist probation officers, and imams with specialist training, will further improve the way we deal with terrorism both inside prisons and in the community.

I can reassure the hon. Lady that, after 2017, when the Home Office and my Department came together with the joint extremism unit that deals with terrorism, a visitor to a prison with a particular specialism—Belmarsh, for example—would have seen embedded in the command and control structure police officers, probation officers, all parts of the system working jointly around a particular offender: not just monitoring but anticipating and understanding the trends, themes and information emerging. A lot of this is of a sensitive nature and it would be wrong of me to dwell too heavily upon the detail, but I can say that we have created separation centres. Those are challenging, as one should not use them on a whim and there needs to be a clear basis on which to separate individuals of known extremism from the rest of the prison population. Otherwise, there is a danger of creating an even more worrying unit or cadre of individuals who feed off each other and whose agenda of hate and terror is only entrenched by their being separated from the rest of the prison community.

The hon. Lady is right to say there is a challenging balance to be reached between separation and the danger of the proselytization of these views among other more susceptible members of the prison community, but we have the resources and are ploughing them in. The Bill is only part of the step-up approach I announced earlier this year. She can be reassured that not only is the work being done in prisons but—to deal with her point about the community—the specialist probation officers will have a community role as well. Furthermore, as I will refer to shortly, the statutory review of Prevent will give us all an opportunity to hone, improve and refine our approach to terrorism within the community.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

When I was Prisons Minister between 2010 and 2012, we abolished control orders, to which we are returning, because of the inflexibilities they created. I will speak on that in my main remarks. Will not the inflexibilities and the mandatory elements in the Bill make significantly more difficult the job of those most brilliant people in the Prison Service engaged in the rehabilitation of this most difficult class of offenders?

[Robert Buckland]

I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend did in my Department at the beginning of the coalition Government. He is right that in many instances the removal of flexibility in sentencing can pose huge challenges, but we are dealing with an exceptional cohort—a small group of people whose type of offending is very different in my view from the mainstream of other types of offender. As he knows, I have worked in the system for many years, and I have seen individuals capable of the most astonishing rehabilitation, who have turned away from crime and gone on to lead blameless lives, but I am afraid that within this cadre of people there is a stubborn minority who are not capable of rehabilitation, who might show superficial signs of co-operation but whose agenda remains unchanged and undeterred and whose chosen path remains the same, even many years later. That is the sad reality of terrorism and I make no apology for taking an exceptional course to deal with an exceptionally difficult, troublesome, and dangerous group of people.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Lord Chancellor is being incredibly generous in giving way. He will be aware of the tragic circumstances in which young people in my constituency were recruited to Daesh/ISIS, and that the perpetrator of neo-Nazi actions a couple of years ago in Grangetown was only 19. It is right to focus on issues that relate to young people, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say a little more about the specialist probation officers, and about what training skills they will be given to look at the increasingly sophisticated way that some of these individuals engage online? As he said, they might be superficially engaging in face-to-face conversations, but then having a completely different set of conversations online, including through gaming platforms.

[Robert Buckland]

I know the hon. Gentleman’s community very well through my work in the criminal justice system. It sounds as if his community has particular criminal justice problems—that would be an insult, as it is a diverse and lively community that I know very well indeed. From that knowledge, I know that he represents a wide and wonderfully diverse range of cultures and views in the great city of Cardiff. He can be reassured that online work is as important as any offline interaction. I am impressed by the constant attention to renewal when it comes to the training of probation officers, and there is an acknowledgement that the threat is constantly evolving. The sad reality of the tender ages of some of these perpetrators is something we had to acknowledge in the Bill, hence the measures we are taking.

I was talking about the statutory review of Prevent. As we know, there was a deadline in statute for the completion of that review. We are having to change that, which is unfortunate and not something we wanted. We know there was a difficulty with the process, and Lord Carlile had to step down. We are engaging in a full and open competition to appoint the next independent reviewer, which is what the House would want; it has to be open and independent. We want to give the new reviewer the time necessary to carry out the review, so the statutory deadline will be removed. That does not in any way diminish my commitment, or that of the Home Secretary, to the success of the review, or our determination for it to be done properly and at speed. Our aim is for the review to conclude, with the Government response, by August next year.

In response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) I made the point that, perhaps unusually for a criminal justice Bill, this Bill has UK-wide application, because of the devolution settlement and the question of reserved matters when it comes to counter-terrorism. We have committed to ensuring that the seriousness of terrorist offending is treated equally across the three jurisdictions of the UK, and that we are able to protect all our citizens. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland, of Scotland, and of England and Wales, not to discriminate in any way or to create false and unhelpful distinctions between all corners of our kingdom. To that end, the provisions will apply equally to the three jurisdictions. That includes applying the measures that we took in the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020, in full, to Northern Ireland.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

Does the Lord Chancellor recognise that, despite supporting the Bill overall, the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland has expressed some concerns about the extension of those provisions to Northern Ireland, and raised some potential inadvertent and unintended consequences that would be undesirable?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman was good enough to write to me and I can reassure him that I have spoken directly in an official capacity on several occasions to the Justice Minister, who was of course a distinguished Member of this House in the 2010 Parliament. I know she is a dedicated public servant who is reviving the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland in an important way. I have of course discussed these matters carefully with her and considered them. She makes some important points about the sensitivity of polygraph testing, which I well understand, and the regime for youth offenders, which is a particular passion of hers.

The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) will know that when I considered retrospective application to Northern Ireland in February, I was careful not to rush into doing that in an emergency Bill. That was because I respected the devolution settlement and some of the differences in our approaches in various parts of the kingdom. I assure him that, having reflected, taken the appropriate steps and considered the matter in the round, I now believe that the provisions of article 7 of the European convention on human rights will not be affected by the measures I wish to take. It is important that we ensure that there is equal treatment of all types of terrorist offender throughout the kingdom.

Earlier, I made the point that I do not want the legislation to be discriminatory. That underlies my approach and I therefore intend to move ahead. Of course, it is a matter for the Administration in Stormont, but I very much hope that they will grant legislative consent. That is what I am seeking and that applies to the Scottish Government as well. My discussions with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and the Justice Secretary in Scotland, with whom I have a good professional relationship, will continue so that, with the consent of both legislatures, we can press forward with what I hope will be UK-wide legislation. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

We know all too well the consequences that face us when terrorists are given sentences that are just not long enough, when they are released too early or when the arrangements to supervise them in the community are not robust enough. It is abundantly clear that the law failed the victims of Fishmongers’ Hall and Streatham. I believe that the comprehensive set of measures in the Bill helps to put that right. By strengthening our hand at each stage of the process of dealing with terrorist offenders, it represents our determination to do everything in our power to ensure that the public are protected.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Chamber for arriving late. I was at a Defence Committee meeting. My right hon. and learned Friend will know that the post-covid world we enter will be very different security-wise from the one we left. That distraction is being used by our adversaries, including terrorists, to regroup, rearm and retrain. Does he agree that this is not the time to reduce our security or defence budgets and that we must remain on our guard?

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend is right to remind us all of the need for constant vigilance. He described the current covid crisis as a distraction; it is a serious and grave crisis and all Governments must give their energy, heart and soul to dealing with it. However, he is right that there is a risk that we take our eye off the ball when it comes to security and defence. We are not doing that. At no stage are the Government doing that. That is why we are putting more resources into counter-terrorism and the Bill is just part of that.

The rapid passage of the emergency Bill a few months ago represented Parliament at its best: acting swiftly to take the urgent steps necessary to keep all our constituents safe from harm. That legislation was a necessary step then, but now we must finish the job. I hope that the Government will have the full support of hon. Members across the House in doing just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

That is very generous—characteristically so—of the right hon. Gentleman. This is something that, as he rightly observes, has nothing to do with party. Any of us who has lived in any of our great cities has lived with the reality of that risk from time to time. That is why, to return to my point, we must try to get the detail right as well as the broad thrust.

There is much in the Bill that I support, and I shall certainly support it on Second Reading. I think we all accept that, precisely because of the particular nature of Islamist terrorism, the threat of which we now have to confront—the way it seems to warp an ideology even more particularly and more deep-rootedly than many other political motivations—it requires particular care in its handling.

There is no doubt—we have seen it in some of the cases that have been referred to, and it is well established by those who have researched these matters—that those who have been attracted to that ideology frequently present as particularly manipulative and are sometimes adept, as the Lord Chancellor has observed in previous debates, at hiding their motivations for a considerable time. It is therefore is all the harder for the authorities to make an assessment about when it is safe for them to be released, so it is not at all unreasonable that we should have particular types of regimes for sentencing, rehabilitation and release to deal with the particular types of threat that can arise from this particular class of offending.

That said, there are legitimate concerns, which must be raised, about whether we are still getting this right. I do not think any Government have ever got it wholly right. We always have to learn as we go along, as greater awareness and understanding become apparent. That is no criticism of anyone in this context.

I agree with the point that the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) made about the work of Ian Acheson. Mr Acheson’s report was most important and significant and, I think, extremely valuable. He gave compelling evidence to the Justice Committee at the time he brought it out. I have always regarded it as a matter of regret that that report was not more fully implemented. Much of it was, but I still think that there may be bits that we ought to look at.

[Robert Buckland]

I am extremely grateful to the Chair of the Justice Committee for giving way. He is helping to develop the debate in an extremely productive way. I can assure him that I have engaged regularly with Ian Acheson, whose work I respect hugely. Eight of those 11 recommendations were carried out. There was one in particular, with regard to Friday prayers, that we did not think was necessary. However, things have moved on considerably in the four years since that important report. I speak with the benefit of having been into some of these institutions, of engaging weekly with members of JEXU and of getting frontline information that gives me a higher degree of confidence that there is indeed a plan, a strategy and an approach that is yielding benefits. There is more to do, but there is far more out there than perhaps is fully appreciated.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for that intervention. I know that he takes this immensely seriously on a personal level as well as an official level. We ought to be prepared to engage with all expertise in this field. He is right to keep things under review, and I hope that he will continue to use the expertise of Mr Acheson and others who worked with him on that report to inform our best practice.

I visited a young offenders institution where a young girl who had been suborned into this dreadful ideology was being held on remand. She was no doubt going to receive a very substantial sentence, such was the gravity of the matters in which she had become involved, but because of her age, it was inevitable that at some point she would have to be released. Having a means of doing that safely is profoundly important, but I accept also that it is profoundly difficult because it is well established that the pre-indicators that we find in relation to general criminality are often not available to be picked up in this type of case. So I totally understand where the Government are coming from in that regard. That is why, as I said, I do not have a problem with the basic thrust of the changes to the regime that the Bill proposes.

The other point, which has been picked up in the debate by Members on both sides of the House and in interventions, is that the whole purpose of our standing up against terrorism, from whatever source it comes, is to protect our basic values as a society, which are underpinned, perhaps more fundamentally than almost anything else, by a commitment to the rule of law. Anything that seeks to drive us away from that, or inadvertently causes us to move away from that, ironically serves in its own insidious way to assist the terrorist cause rather than our own. I do not think for one second that any Government—none of the Governments who have had to confront this going back to the time I was talking about when I was a young man—have ever sought to do that deliberately.

We have to be particularly alert to that risk, and that is why I hope that when we look at the detail of the Bill we will take on board the need to ensure that we continue safeguards in this regard. That is one reason why it was a good thing that we appointed an independent reviewer of terrorism in the first place. I am a great believer in independent inspectorates, be they of the Prison Service, probation, the Crown Prosecution Service or education services. The same applies to the desirability of having a robust independent reviewer, and we have always had those in the shape of distinguished lawyers. That is why I have a concern about the burden of proof in relation to terrorism prevention and investigation measures. The initial changes were driven, as has been pointed out and I said in my intervention, in response to specific recommendations from the independent reviewer.

The current independent reviewer, Mr Jonathan Hall, QC, supports and endorses a number of changes that the Bill makes, and I think that is powerful evidence in the Lord Chancellor’s favour in relation to many elements of the Bill. But that actually makes it all the more striking that the change to the burden of proof in relation to TPIMs does not arise from anything that the independent reviewer has sought, or anything that the independent reviewer has advocated. His silence on that point, as opposed to other areas where I would suggest that he has given valuable external support to the Government’s position, is therefore striking, and that is why we must be particularly careful about how we deal with this matter. It is a little bit like putting the other side to proof, if I can put it that way.

There may well be a good reason for that, and I am sure that the Lord Chancellor would not reinforce the proposal unless he genuinely believed there was, but I think we have to be able to set a reason before the public as well. I accept that there are pressures in terms of resource and the amount of time it takes to bring forward one of these measures. I accept, too, that the Lord Chancellor observes that it is therefore not done lightly. That is all perfectly fair, but if we are going to make that change—after all, I was a junior member of the coalition Government who made the change in the opposite direction, away from control orders, as has already been observed—we ought always to be able to do it on the basis of the clearest evidence. With every respect, I am not quite sure that we have yet got the clarity of evidence that I would like to see to satisfy me on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for his indulgence. I was talking about the need for flexibility. That is why we are making the change. I served on the Committee that considered the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill in 2011, and I followed the developments in the law very carefully, but it is right that we act on the advice and support of the security services and all those involved in the monitoring of offenders, and it is because of that need for flexibility that we judge it right to make the change now. I hope that that is clear.

[Sir Robert Neill]

The Lord Chancellor makes the point very clearly, and I fully understand that, but I do just juxtapose it with the observation by Mr Hall, QC, in his note dated 2 June, in which he says:

“In these circumstances it is not clear why there is any need to change the law in the manner proposed. Steps to reduce the resource burden of obtaining TPIMs are already in hand. The courts have not found that the current approach is wrong.”

There may be an argument for flexibility, but we cannot say that it comes from the independent reviewer, so I wonder where it does come from.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I did not mean it in those terms. Clearly where we have a regime specified by statute, it needs to be applied rigorously. I was talking about operational flexibility, bearing in mind the complexities of these orders, and the fact that they are not obtained lightly and there has to be a very good operational case for them. That is what I meant, and I am sorry if there was any ambiguity in my remarks.

[Yvette Cooper]

I appreciate that, but I think that also makes clear the gap in the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s case, because operational flexibility still should not apply to the burden of proof—the evidence required in order to justify applying measures that are for particularly extreme circumstances. The independent reviewer, Jonathan Hall, has said that

“administrative convenience does not appear to provide a basis for reversing the safeguard of a higher standard of proof.”

We cannot justify saying that in order to somehow reduce the paperwork, we want to reduce the burden of proof to use such measures. His predecessor, Lord David Anderson, who argued for bringing back relocation and who has been a supporter of strong powers, has agreed with him on this matter. Initially he argued for increasing the burden of proof, and he has said that the Home Secretary should at least have to “believe” someone is a terrorist, not just “suspect” it. That is the important criterion if these powers are to be used. I urge the Government to rethink these safeguards. If we are to have these strong powers to keep us all safe, prevent terrorist attacks, and protect us from people who may be immensely dangerous, we should also ensure the right kinds of safeguards to make sure that those powers are not misused, abused, or used in the wrong cases.

On the Government’s Prevent programme and the review of it, I am disappointed that there is now no date in the Bill—it has been removed altogether. It is clear that we still have no reviewer in place for the Prevent programme, so they will obviously not complete the review by August, but that in itself is a huge disappointment. The timetable has been extended again, as has the application process. There is no deadline at all, and it is immensely important that the review is not just chucked into the long grass. Will the Minister include an alternative date? A date was included for a good reason, after debates about previous legislation, to ensure that the review happened. A programme that is so important and has had different questions about it raised, should be effectively reviewed to see how it should work.

Finally, we should also be looking at deradicalisation more widely, both as part of the Prevent programme and in our prisons, as well as at how we can do more to prevent extremism and radicalisation, and at how to turn people back towards a better course once things have gone wrong.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Robert Buckland Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

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

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

Marriage will always be one of the most vital institutions in our society, but we also have to face the sad reality that marriages sometimes breakdown. No one sets out thinking that their marriage is going to end. No one wants their marriage to break down. None of us is therefore indifferent when a couple’s lifelong commitment has sadly deteriorated. It is a very sad circumstance, but I believe that the law should reduce conflict when it arises. Where divorce is inevitable, this Bill seeks to make the legal process less painful, less traumatic. It does not, and cannot, seek to make the decision to divorce any easier. The evidence is clear that the decision to divorce is not taken lightly or impetuously. Indeed, it is typically a protracted decision based on months, if not years, of painful and difficult experience and consideration. The sad reality is that it is often too late to save a marriage, once the legal process of divorce has started. Once that decision has been reached, the parties need to move forward constructively. The Bill focuses on that very legal process.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My wife and I have been married for 33 years and my mum and dad and were married for almost 61 years. The sanctity of marriage is very important. Does the Minister not agree that more funding must be allocated to counselling services to provide trained help for those in marriage difficulties and to prioritise saving a marriage where there is still the will to do so but perhaps not the means to do so? The waiting list for free counselling with Relate stands at seven weeks in some areas of the country, and families cannot afford to pay for private counselling. Relate and counselling are so important in trying to save a marriage.

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He cuts to one of the most important issues in the debate about divorce, and I absolutely agree with him on the merit of organisations such as Relate and the work that they do to support marriages that have run into difficulties. However, it is the sad experience that, by the time a decision to issue a divorce petition has been made, matters have gone beyond that, to a great extent—not in every case, but in my view, in the vast majority of cases.

The Government are working hard to support initiatives such as the troubled families programme and, in the last Budget, to invest more money into proper research into effective family hubs where work can be done to support families in conflict who are struggling and having difficulty keeping together. The work of the Department for Work and Pensions in the £39 million reducing parental conflict programme, even at this time of covid, is an example of the Government’s strong commitment to supporting families. We believe that the family is a vital component of what it takes to be a civilised society. It is the source of stability, safety, love and all those things that we should be cherishing as a society.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

We are in the final year of that £39 million, and there is no guarantee as to what will happen in the next financial year. Could the Lord Chancellor reassure us that he will be a doughty champion with the Treasury and at the Cabinet table to ensure that that programme is renewed, reinvigorated and properly funded?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can make the assurance that I, in my position as Lord Chancellor, will do everything I can to reinforce the important messages about the values of family. As a Conservative, they are particularly important to me, but I know that Members of all parties in this House share those values and from their own experiences believe in the family.

I want to add this comment: it is because I believe in the family that I think these measures are the right approach. Some people might think that is contradictory, but I do not believe so, because I think it is our responsibility in the legal process to try to reduce conflict, because conflict leads to emotional difficulty. It can lead to damage. It can lead to serious consequences, not just for the adults in the relationship but, let us face it, the children, too. We owe it to them to minimise in our legal processes, rather than maximise, the damage that can be caused.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

One of the most important things for ensuring that families, when they do sadly break up, do so in an ordered way is an ordered financial process. We are one of the few countries in the world that I know about that does not have a process for pre and post-marital contracts. Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that this would have been the perfect opportunity to have brought in the wording that the Law Commission has already provided? It is sitting there and could be put into the Bill. Rather than leaving the courts to dictate the issue, this place should be dictating the issue. Will he consider that?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who served for a considerable period in the Department I now have the honour of leading. He is right to talk about the financial consequences of breakdown. It is important to note the commitment made by my noble and learned Friend Lord Keen in the other place by way of a letter dated 16 March to Baroness Deech, which has now been placed in the Library of each House, that we will consider how a review of the law governing financial remedies provision on divorce may take place. I give him that undertaking.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. The Law Commission also recommended that rather than reducing the time that people can get divorced within from two years to six months, it should be reduced to nine months. Given his willingness to concede on the previous point, will he at least look at that again?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know that he, like me, is a doughty champion not only for the family, but the need to reduce conflict. I know that he makes his point passionately, but I would argue that the way in which this Bill is constructed makes the so-called quickie divorce a thing of the past. The minimum terms that we are talking about provide an equality of approach that will no longer discriminate in favour of those couples who perhaps have the means and the wherewithal to either separate and live separately or to employ the sort of lawyers who can, shall we say, get things done in a more expeditious way.

I stress to the right hon. Gentleman that the six-month term that has been naturally focused upon is a minimum. There will be divorces that take longer than that for reasons of complexity relating to each relationship. The point is that there will not be divorces that can take place in as quick a time as eight weeks, as is currently the case.

Reform of divorce law is supported not only by the lawyers, judges and mediators, but by the Marriage Foundation and, importantly, by evidence from academic research. It is evident that the law does not do what many people think it does. It cannot save a marriage that has broken down, nor can it determine who was responsible for that breakdown. Allegations made in a divorce petition by one spouse about the other’s conduct give no advantage in any linked proceedings about arrangements for children or financial provision for a spouse, yet the current law can perversely incentivise conflict. It requires an applicant for divorce or for the dissolution of a civil partnership to provide details to the court of the respondent’s unreasonable behaviour if their circumstances mean that they need to divorce before a two-year separation period. The incentive at the very start of the legal divorce process to attribute blame can only serve to antagonise parties at the most difficult time in their lives. Moreover, the court in practice has limited means by which to inquire into such alleged behaviour and must often accept what is said by one spouse at face value. This can be a source of real resentment for the other spouse.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on what he has said so far. This is an important Bill that we look forward to supporting. Does he agree that this legislation is needed all the more because of the huge backlog in the court system right now, and that, alongside the important measures that he is introducing, we really need some Government heft to support our legal system and clear away that backlog?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the caseload, which covid has exacerbated. He will be reassured to know that the senior judiciary and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service are working every day to expand the current capacity, to open more courts as we move away from the peak, and to look at alternative capacity in order to get as many cases running as possible and to deal with what must be an agonising wait for many families and victims. I would say—and I know that the hon. Gentleman would agree—that this Bill is not about the immediate crisis. It has been brought forward after long consideration, and has been dealt with very carefully in the other place. Indeed, it went through most of its stages in this House during the last Parliament, and represents an important milestone in the evolution of our approach to the sensitive and difficult subject of divorce.

I was talking about the perverse position whereby the current attribution of blame does not benefit anyone or serve society’s wider interests. Instead, it can create long-lasting and often bitter resentment at the outset, precisely at a time when couples need to work together to agree arrangements for their children and their finances. Furthermore, the simplistic allocation of blame to meet a legal threshold does not really reflect the reality that responsibility for a marriage breakdown may be shared. Marriages sadly end for a multitude of reasons. Existing law does not reflect that reality, and the truth is that we have stretched the law for a number of years in order to set out behaviour particulars sufficient to satisfy the court and obtain a divorce—a form described by the former president of the family division, Sir James Munby, as intellectual dishonesty.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I accept the immense good faith with which my right hon. and learned Friend brings this Bill to the House, but does he share my concern, sadness and pain for the grandparents involved in any situation where there is family separation?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remember the wider family concerns, and the difficult position that grandparents—often on both sides of the divide—face when it comes to issues of contact and the welfare of much-loved grandchildren. He is right to remind us that that is a real dimension of the situation.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Perkins]

rose—

[Robert Buckland]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) first, but I will come back to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins).

[Steve Brine]

I have to be honest with the Lord Chancellor: I am troubled by his Bill, but I am not yet entirely sure why and I am listening for him to give me a reason. It almost feels as if we are trying to prevent something from pulling apart by seeking to bind it together even tighter—almost “What the law has bound together let no one put asunder.” Does he agrees that, as a society, we should invest more heavily in relationships, in preparation for marriage and in conflict resolution? I remember myself and Mrs Brine doing that, which is why we are so happily married—17 years next week. If that were the case, maybe fewer relationships would fail.

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend makes the point extremely eloquently that all of us are concerned about the institution of marriage. Those of us who value it and who are part of it can see its benefits, but we are concerned to see a decline in its use—a decline in committed relationships. This Bill will not solve those problems. It will not stop those problems. This is a Bill about the legal process. I do not pretend that, through this legislation, we can solve some of the sociological issues that he raises, but he is right to look through the telescope the right way. My worry is that, however well-intentioned those who are properly concerned about the details of the Bill might be, we are in danger of looking through the telescope the wrong way if we focus our attention on this process, as opposed to what might happen at the beginning.

[Mr Perkins]

The Secretary of State is right about the conflict caused by the current system. Does he agree that the old adage is true, that it is a good man who can keep a wife happy, but it is an amazing man who can keep an ex-wife happy?

[Robert Buckland]

I could not put it better myself, and the hon. Gentleman makes his point with characteristic force.

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

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Robert Buckland]

I give way to the Chairman of the Justice Committee.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor, and I support the Bill. Is it not an important argument, which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) will take on board, that it is clear from research by practitioners and academics that the requirement to allege fault does nothing to protect the institution of marriage or alter the divorce rate or the breakdown rate? That is exactly why it is right to look through the right end of the telescope, not the wrong one.

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend will recall his Court of Appeal appearances, where the tribunal might have said, “Mr Neill, that’s your best point. You needn’t go any further.” He makes an important point on the issue of blame; it does not help anybody when it comes to these issues.

The clear purpose of the Bill is to reduce conflict, because conflict does not help when it comes to the legal end of a marriage. That can only be to the advantage of divorcing couples and their children, because children’s best interests are most clearly served by the reduction of conflict and the co-operation of divorcing parents who work together to ensure that they co-parent effectively. The Bill will help couples to focus on a more constructive way of collaborating in making future arrangements that are best for their family—in essence, looking forward rather than backward.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way a second time. The acid test is: as a result of this legislation, will there be more divorces or fewer? It is my contention that if we make something easier, people are more likely to do it.

[Robert Buckland]

I understand entirely my right hon. Friend’s concerns. The number of divorces has declined in recent years, but that perhaps goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester about the beginning of it, because the number of marriages has declined in proportion since 1972, just under 50 years ago. Taking the long view, one should focus upon the beginning of the process—the nature of the commitment, the solemnity of that commitment and the importance of that relationship and that commitment—rather than the detail of the end process.

This Government’s proposals will apply equally to married couples and civil partners. While I conveniently refer to the concept of marriage and divorce, the principles and effects apply equally to civil partnerships and their dissolution. Husbands, wives and civil partners will no longer need to produce or face a real or perceived catalogue of failings in respect of their most intimate relationship. There is a strong common view underlying the proposals in the Bill, built upon the foundation of a significant evidence base.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Of course, it is not necessary to make any allegation under the present law—people do not have to prove fault if they rely on separation. In addition to the present grounds for divorce, why do we not go down the Scottish route of having a no-fault provision, perhaps of a year? In Scotland, all but 5% of divorces are no-fault. Why do we not have a moderate measure such as the one in Scotland?

[Robert Buckland]

As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his constructive approach. He quite properly seeks to make a comparison with a nearby jurisdiction—a next-door jurisdiction—but I believe that taking a more comprehensive approach will cure problems for the long term. Rather than encouraging a piecemeal approach to divorce reform—in other words, coming back to it in very short order—we are creating a Bill that will, I believe, endure for a considerable period of time.

Let us remember that the evolution of divorce law has involved significant moments in parliamentary history: there was the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 and the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which of course led to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which brought together a lot of the legislation on such issues. These things are not done, and I do not think they should be done, from Parliament to Parliament; they should have a longer shelf life, bearing in mind the gradual evolution of the law in this area.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Robert Buckland]

I will just make some progress. I will of course allow for interventions in a proportionate way, remembering the time pressures that we are all under.

The Bill purposefully does not seek to change the other aspects of divorce law for financial provision—I dealt with that issue in my response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). It is more than half a century since the Divorce Reform Act 1969 gave rise to the current law. There is only one legal ground for divorce or dissolution—namely that the marriage has broken down irretrievably—but existing law requires that the petitioner must satisfy the court of at least one of five facts before the court will hold that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. Three of those facts—unreasonable behaviour; adultery, which does not apply in respect of civil partnerships; and desertion—rely on the conduct of the respondent. Two of those facts rely on the parties’ separation—namely two years, if both parties consent, and otherwise on the basis of five years’ separation.

Around two out of five divorces in England and Wales currently rely on the two years’ separation fact. The parties must have been separated for at least two years before the presentation of the divorce petition. However, that route to divorce can be used only if the respondent consents; if the respondent does not agree, it is a five-year wait before the divorce can be granted.

Around three out of five petitioners for divorce rely on the conduct facts—that is, unreasonable behaviour, adultery or, in rare cases, desertion. In only around 2% of cases does a respondent indicate an initial wish to contest a petition. Such initial opposition can often be driven by strong disagreement with what has been said about them by the other spouse in the petition. Of those contested petitions, each year a mere handful proceed to a trial at which the respondent’s case is heard. It is abundantly clear that marriages are not saved by the ability of a respondent to contest a divorce, because marriage is—has to be—above all things a consensual union.

I set out at the beginning that the current law incentivises many divorcing couples to engage in proceedings that quickly become acrimonious, even if it had been the intention to divorce amicably. Research shows that spouses are often surprised when told by a solicitor that they must either choose to wait a minimum of two years to divorce or be prepared to make allegations about the other spouse’s conduct. Although this is no longer the world of the staged scene of adultery in a hotel so criticised by the great A. P. Herbert, former Member of Parliament in this House and the author of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937, it is right that we pause for thought about a situation wherein the law and circumstances are stretched in a way that does not help anybody, least of all the lawmakers themselves. It is a great poetic irony that A. P. Herbert went on to write the smash-hit musical “Bless the Bride” some years after he helped to author that major reform to the law of divorce, but perhaps that story itself makes an eloquent point: those of us who seek to make changes in this sensitive area of the law can, in the same breath, absolutely celebrate the institution of marriage and the values that surround it.

[Steve Brine]

I have found the reason I referred to. I think the unease that many feel about this legislation is the timing of it—the so-called lockdown break-ups. I can understand why that is a sensitive issue at a sensitive time on what the Lord Chancellor rightly says is a sensitive matter. What would he say to those who oppose this legislation on the grounds that it is a difficult time to be introducing so-called quickie divorces?

[Robert Buckland]

First of all, no time is an easy time. This is a sensitive matter at all times. Secondly, these are not quickie divorces. We are regularising the position to end the so-called quickie and to equalise the position with regard to minimum terms. We must, I believe, accept that divorce is a sad and unhappy consequence of relationship breakdown, not a driver for it.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my right and learned hon. Friend for giving way. I am listening hard to what he is saying in the hope that he might be able to persuade me to support his Bill. I know that he brings it forward with exactly the right motives. He talks about the evolution of our divorce laws and the long-term view and so on, but will he accept that over the past 30 or 40 years, each time that we have made a change, we have said that we are putting in safeguards and putting additional support into mediation or whatever it had to be, but the trend has continued in the same direction? This Bill has been labelled, for better or worse, the quickie divorce Bill and labels stick. Will he accept that that gives the wrong signal to society?

[Robert Buckland]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on his last point.

This is not—I repeat not—a quickie divorce bill, and he is right to say that we in this House owe it to all our constituents to send the right message. Let me put it straight—this is a matter that he might not agree with: I do not believe that issues of reform of the process of divorce are germane to the issue of marriage itself. The question that was posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) is indeed the right one, about society’s attitudes to relationships, the values that are inculcated in young people, and the level of understanding and insight into the nature, degree and complexity of the commitment to join in union, whether it is marriage or civil partnership. All of those are actually the relevant issues to the future of marriage and this Bill will not, should not, and does not have a consequence for those issues.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

As someone who is tragically going through the divorce process and has had to put blame on my partner when I would have preferred to have had a no-fault divorce, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reaffirm the message that this is, in no way, a quick decision. As someone going through this process, I can say how painful it is. It was not a decision that I came to easily, but this type of legislation would not require the burden of guilt to be applied to one person or the other.

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend has shared a difficult and sensitive experience with the House, for which we are grateful, and he puts it extremely powerfully. This is not about blame or guilt; it is about acknowledging the fact that the causes of divorce are very complex and will evolve often over a long period of time. I am grateful to him for his powerful contribution. No one benefits, least of all the children of the relationship, from the requirement for parties to dredge up the past in order to end a legal relationship that is no longer beneficial or functioning. It is not in the public interest and cannot be right that the law would encourage one parent to be pitted against the other, when we all know the deeply damaging impact that parental conflict has on children.

Indeed, the limitations of the court process are not particularly well understood by the public. Under existing law, the legal fact that many people choose as their route to divorce bears little resemblance, as my hon. Friend says, to the reality of why a marriage has broken down. A respondent may have behaved despicably, yet a petitioner may reluctantly decide to rely on two years’ separation through fear of abusive repercussions should he or she allege unreasonable behaviour. Likewise, a petitioner may, from a desire not to have to wait for two years, feel compelled to embellish the unreasonable behaviour of a respondent beyond what one might ordinarily expect in normal marital discord. The concept of unreasonable behaviour is also purely subjective, so that what is unreasonable to one spouse in a marriage may not be at all unreasonable to another spouse in a different marriage.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Robert Buckland]

I need to make some progress, because I am conscious of time.

The lack of transparency and objectivity means that a spouse who is trying not to cause unnecessary hurt risks not meeting the legal threshold. That has consequences, for example, for victims of domestic abuse and can lead to the manufacture of blame between couples who might have grown apart entirely amicably.

What we are creating is a level playing field. Our equal-handed approach will allow all couples to use the same legal process and will not favour couples who can afford to live apart before their divorce. Vulnerable parties will no longer have to work out whether they can afford to be separated for two years, or face the danger of presenting conduct particulars in respect of an abusive spouse. Our proposals remove many obstacles currently faced by victims of domestic abuse in the legal process of divorce. Victims will not have to place themselves in danger by detailing their abuser’s conduct; they will not have to remain in a legal relationship for a further two or more years in order to rely on a separation fact; and they will not have to fear an abusive spouse exerting their control by contesting the divorce. This position has to be changed, and divorcing couples must be given every opportunity to avoid conflict.

In developing our proposals, we have reflected on a wide range of views, including from the profession, the judiciary and couples themselves, that emerged during our consultation process and from evidence given during consideration of the Bill in the previous Session of Parliament. We have also considered and continue to consider carefully the views of those who oppose reform, although, with respect, I think that there is something of a disconnection between what some think the current law does and what it actually does.

With all that in mind, I will talk briefly about the measures in the Bill. The two stages of divorce and dissolution are maintained. The current decree nisi and decree absolute become a conditional order and then the final order. Always, the intention is to make the process more understandable and more accessible to everyone who seeks to use it, but we have retained the two-stage process because it ensures that a divorce is never automatic; rather, the decision should be considered and intentional at each stage. The reform will retain irretrievable breakdown as the sole legal ground for divorce and dissolution, but replace the current requirement to evidence that with a conduct or separation fact, as outlined in the statement of irretrievable breakdown. Indeed, the statement itself will be conclusive evidence that the marriage or civil partnership has irretrievably broken down; it therefore removes the possibility of contesting the decision to end that relationship, which currently only 2% of spouses do. Importantly, and for the first time, couples will be able to make a joint application where the decision to divorce is mutual. That will create a level playing field for joint applicants and encourage them to work together from the very beginning of the process.

As I have said, the new minimum period of 20 weeks is all part of the drive to create an equal, level approach. It ends any suggestion of so-called quickie divorce. In addition to the 20-week minimum period, the current six-week minimum period between conditional and final orders will remain, so six months is a minimum, not a maximum or absolute time limit. As is currently the case, a conditional order may not be pronounced unless the court is satisfied in relation to service on the respondent.

We are aware of the concerns of hon. and right hon. Members and the Law Society about the question of delayed service where this is done by the applicant’s spouse, and we will of course work with the Family Procedure Rule Committee on that point, and indeed on the point about making sure that divorce does not end up being a complete surprise to a respondent who perhaps knew nothing about service. We will, through the Family Procedure Rule Committee, make sure that those important concerns are dealt with.

Our proposals allow time for the applicant to consider the practical implications of the important decision to divorce. We estimate that, under the new law, the legal process of divorce will take longer for about four fifths—80%—of couples, after taking account of the projected impact of the take-up of the streamlined, digitised divorce service. That means that the question of quickie divorce is one that is wholly refuted, I believe, by the provisions and, indeed, the evidence that underlies this new reform.

The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), will, in his summing up, deal with other points that arise through the Bill. I know hon. Members will have read its provisions and it would perhaps be idle of me to go through all of them in order. This is not a long Bill, but it is, I concede, a significant one—no, I do not concede; I make no apology for the fact that it is a significant Bill, because we are talking about the lives of people we represent, and about making this sensitive and difficult process an easier one.

Importantly, apart from maintaining the balance, we will retain the existing triple lock that requires an applicant to confirm the decision to proceed with the divorce at each of the three stages, meaning that divorce will never be, to coin a phrase, automatic. First, the applicant must apply for the divorce; secondly, they must, after the end of the minimum 20-week period, confirm to the court that it should make the conditional order; and, thirdly, following the expiration of a further minimum six-week period, the applicant must apply for the final order of divorce.

This, I believe, is a measured Bill, which we shall implement in a measured way. I pray in aid the spirit of one of my predecessors, the great Tory Lord Lyndhurst, who, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) will know, was no lover of reform. But at the end of his long and distinguished parliamentary career in the other place, he spoke passionately about the rights of women and the abandoned party in Victorian marriages, and paved the way, as a Tory, for the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857. He is a predecessor whom I invoke today, and in whose spirit I move the Second Reading of this Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Prison and Probation Service: Roadmap to Recovery (Covid-19)

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing the Government’s plans for how Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service will start to recover from the impact of covid-19.

I want to first pay tribute to the hard-working staff across the country who have continued to deliver essential services in spite of the virus. They have been striving tirelessly to make sure those in their care are safe and the public is protected.

The Government have introduced strong measures to save lives and protect the NHS, including reducing face-to-face interactions in both prison and probation, minimising transfers between establishments, shielding the vulnerable, quarantining new entrants to prison and making greater use of technology to enable family contact and supervise offenders in the community.

As a result of the success of these measures, we are formulating plans for how these restrictions can be cautiously rolled back over the coming weeks and months. This will happen within overarching frameworks for prisons and probation which have been published today. These decisions will be guided by public health advice and the best available data.

In prisons there will not be a simple easing of restrictions across the estate but national guidance will ensure there is consistency in decision making by governors. That means establishments will progress at their own speed, taking full account of their specific circumstances.

We know it will not be a straightforward return to normality. As the Prime Minister has set out, the whole country now needs to prepare for an extended period of living with and managing the threat from the virus.

But over the coming weeks and months, we will restart aspects of daily prison life, such as social visits, education and work, and face-to-face probation supervision, including unpaid work and accredited programmes, with adaptations where necessary to ensure safety.

We will continue to closely monitor the situation, and only proceed once it is safe to do so. Should restrictions need to be re-imposed to ensure the safety of staff and those in our care we will not hesitate to do this.

During this time, we will continue with measures such as providing additional temporary accommodation, and making careful use of our end of custody temporary release powers, to ensure we are able to manage the possibility of any future outbreaks.

[HCWS259]

Domestic Abuse Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Secretary Robert Buckland to move Second Reading. He is asked to speak for no more than 20 minutes.

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

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

It is a great pleasure to open this Second Reading debate, albeit with a sense of déjà vu. Those of us who had the privilege of being in the House on 2 October last year will not have failed to be moved by the many powerful contributions we heard, including from the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who recounted her own very personal and heart-wrenching experience of domestic abuse. She was not alone in showing great courage by bringing home to this House the devastating impact of domestic abuse on the lives of survivors, as this Bill has also brought forth very personal accounts from, among others, the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). On that occasion, I was able to share my own personal experiences, as a young barrister, of domestic abuse. I will not repeat them today, because I have no doubt that we will hear some memorable speeches in this debate—more testimony, adding power to what has already been said.

After the last debate, some Members approached me privately to share with me their own domestic abuse experiences—stories that are still raw and still cannot be told. For many of us, the sounds and sights witnessed in our homes, often as children, still haunt us many years on. The experiences we have heard recounted by Members are, sadly, all too frequently repeated across the country. I have heard no more harrowing account recently than that of Claire Throssell, whom I had the privilege to meet last October. Claire’s young sons, Jack and Paul, were killed at the hands of her abusive partner. No one can imagine the pain and suffering that she has had to endure, but we owe her a debt of gratitude for giving such a powerful voice to the survivors of domestic abuse.

Gratitude is also due to Tracy Graham, a victim of controlling and violent domestic abuse who this year chose to speak out, go public and share her experiences with my local community in Swindon via the new Swindon domestic abuse support service, which I helped to launch just before lockdown, seven weeks ago. Tracy is not only a domestic abuse ambassador for the service, but is volunteering with the local police as well, to help to support domestic abuse victims who are going through what she went through. She truly is an inspirational young woman—one of many who are standing up, stepping forward and sharing their harrowing experiences, to the benefit of current and future survivors and victims.

It is right, in this time of covid-19, to dwell a little on the impact that this pandemic is having on victims of domestic abuse and their families. We are seeing evidence of it in the increased calls to domestic abuse helplines. My local refuge had an increase in referrals of 80% in one week, and the helpline in my local area had an increase in the number of calls of nearly 30%. People are speaking up and speaking out about domestic abuse, but it is happening even at this time of great crisis.

The phrase “Stay at home”, which we so associate with the directions to deal with covid-19, should be words of reassurance and comfort. The home should be a place of safety, both physical and mental. The concept of the home as a refuge is such a strong one, yet for too many people it is not a refuge. At this time of lockdown, that fear, distress and suffering is multiplied. I assure all victims that help is available. The police continue to respond to incidents of domestic abuse, and anyone in immediate danger should not hesitate to call 999 and the emergency services. Where necessary, the existing civil order framework can be used to remove a perpetrator from the family home in order to protect victims of abuse.

We are working with and listening carefully to domestic abuse and victims organisations to make sure that we understand what their most pressing needs and priorities are, and we are committed to ensuring that victims have a comprehensive package of support available. We have launched a new campaign to signpost victims to the support services available and provided an additional £2.6 million to ensure that the national helplines have the capacity to respond to increased demand.

In addition, we are working with the domestic abuse commissioner to ensure that refuges and other organisations that provide frontline support to victims will be able to access the £750 million fund set aside by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to bolster charities that are responding directly to the pandemic. I am happy to say to the House that allocations under the charities package will be made very shortly indeed. The Home Secretary and I have together been very much engaged in tailoring the requests to ensure that help is targeted where it will make the most difference. Having spoken to police and crime commissioners, I know that many are making available extra resources for safe accommodation.

I am grateful to the Home Affairs Committee for the report that it published yesterday on the pandemic’s impact on victims of domestic abuse. I welcome the Committee’s support for our public information campaign and the additional funding. We will of course respond promptly to the Committee’s recommendations.

In short, this is a concerted period of direct action being taken by the Government. Measures are being taken to address directly the concerns that I know the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), whom I welcome to his post, will raise in due course.

Let me turn to the Bill, which is necessarily about strengthening protection and support for victims in the longer term. I share the frustration of Members from all parties that we are having to repeat a number of stages of this Bill, which was initially championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). All parties want to see this Bill on the statute book, but we have to put to good use the time available to us since the election to make it an even stronger Bill than the one that came before the House last October.

The aims of the Bill are fourfold: first, to raise awareness of this insidious crime; secondly, to better protect and support victims and their children; thirdly, to transform the response to the criminal, civil and family justice systems; and, fourthly, to improve performance across all national and local agencies. I shall take those objectives in turn.

If we are to tackle domestic abuse effectively, it is vital that the nature of that abuse is properly understood and recognised. Part 1 of the Bill sets out a statutory definition of domestic abuse. It will apply for the purposes of the whole Bill, but we also expect it to be adopted across all agencies that have a shared responsibility for combating this crime and for helping survivors to rebuild their lives. The definition makes it clear that domestic abuse is not confined to violent or sexual abuse, but includes controlling or coercive behaviour, psychological abuse and economic abuse, too. Identifying and calling out domestic abuse in all its manifestations is just a first step. We then need to protect and support victims. In terms of protection, a number of civil orders are already available to help to safeguard survivors, but the existing landscape of occupation orders, non-molestation orders and domestic violence protection orders is complex, and none are, arguably, wholly adequate to the task.

The new domestic abuse protection order—DAPO—will bring together the best elements of the existing civil order regimes. It will be available in the civil, criminal and family courts. It will be flexible, in that the court will determine the length of an order and decide what prohibitions, and positive requirements too, are appropriate to attach to it, including conditions that may compel the respondent to attend perpetrator programmes or require them to wear an electronic tag. The new DAPO will also have teeth, with a breach of conditions being a criminal offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both.

We want to get these new orders right so that they work for victims and their children, the police, the courts and others who will have to operate them. We will therefore be piloting these new orders in a small number of areas before rolling them out nationally.

But protecting victims from abuse is never enough on its own. We also need to ensure that they are effectively supported as they reset their lives. The Bill, as reintroduced, includes a significant new measure to that end. When a victim of abuse has to flee their home and seek sanctuary in a refuge or other safe accommodation, it is not enough simply to provide that person with a safe place to sleep. In such circumstances, victims and their children need access to counselling and mental health support, advice about follow-on housing, help in enrolling children in a new school, or specialist support, such as translation services or access to immigration advice. We know that refuges and other providers of safe accommodation struggle to provide such support so, to plug that gap, the Bill will place new duties on tier 1 local authorities in England. Under part 4 of the Bill, such local authorities will be required to assess the need for accommodation-based support for all victims of domestic abuse and their children in the area. Having identified that need, the relevant local authorities will then be required to develop, publish and give effect to a strategy for the provision of such support in their locality.

Of course, these new duties will come at a cost—some £90 million a year, we estimate. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary is committed to ensuring that local authorities are appropriately resourced as part of the spending review.

I know from my own experience of the legal system that appearing as a witness in criminal, civil or family proceedings can be—shall we say—a daunting experience, so we need to make sure that the victims of domestic abuse can give their best evidence in court. In the criminal courts, that often means being able to give evidence hidden from view of the alleged perpetrator or via a video link. The Bill provides that these and other so-called special measures will be automatically available to victims. In the family courts, for a long time, there have been calls for a bar on the practice of perpetrators being able to cross-examine in person the victims of domestic abuse. Such an experience is bound to be traumatising for victims—it must stop. We have listened to the views of the Joint Committee that examined the draft Bill. Indeed, the Bill as reintroduced now extends the circumstances in which the automatic prohibition on cross-examination in person applies, which is a welcome further step to safeguard and prevent the perpetuation of abuse through the courts.

I know that there are wider concerns about the experiences of victims of domestic abuse in the family courts, which was why we established last year a specialist panel to examine how effectively the family courts respond to allegations of domestic abuse and other harms in private law proceedings, including around the provision of special measures. I aim to publish very shortly the panel’s recommendations, together with the Government’s response. One way we can improve the experiences of victims is by better integrating domestic abuse-related proceedings right across the various jurisdictions in our courts.

With that in mind, we committed in our manifesto to pilot integrated family and crime domestic abuse courts. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set aside £5 million in his March Budget to allow that important pilot to progress. Again, I expect to be able to inform the House soon as to how the trial of these new integrated domestic abuse courts will be taken forward. I will take a close personal interest, to make sure that there is a genuine bringing together of the jurisdictions around the victim, around the family—around those people who need the support and benefit of any orders and sanctions that the court might impose.

It is not only the courts where there is room for improvement. The new independent domestic abuse commissioner will help drive consistency and better performance in the response to domestic abuse right across the relevant local and national agencies. The relevant agencies will be under a statutory duty to co-operate with the commissioner, and will be required to respond within 56 days to any recommendations that the commissioner makes. We are lucky to have Nicole Jacobs, who brings a wealth of experience to the role, and I fully expect her to perform her functions without fear or favour.

I know that, on the previous Second Reading, a number of hon. Members argued for the post to be full time. We reviewed—with Nicole Jacobs—the appropriate time commitment for this role and have now extended it from three to four days per week. The Minister for safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), will keep this matter under review as we transition to the statutory arrangements provided for in part 2 of the Bill.

We did not want to wait until the Bill became law to make that appointment, and I am very glad we did not, because Nicole Jacobs is already making a huge difference. One area where we want to draw on her experience is in the provision of community-based support. As I described, the provisions in part 4 of the Bill will make sure that victims of domestic abuse in safe accommodation receive the support they need, but of course most victims of abuse remain in their own home, and they need to be able to access appropriate support while doing so.

Victim support services are provided in the community by police and crime commissioners, local authorities and other agencies, but the landscape is, frankly, complex, and there are undoubtedly gaps in the current provision. In order to determine what action needs to be taken, we must better understand the existing routes by which these services are commissioned and funded. To that end, the domestic abuse commissioner has agreed to undertake an in-depth exploration of the current community-based landscape of support. Once we have her findings and recommendations, we will work with her to understand the needs identified and to develop the right options for how best to address them.

Finally, I will say a few words about the amendments put forward in the last Session by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). It is absolutely right that we reinforce current case law that a person cannot consent to violence that leads to serious injury or death. To be clear, there is no such thing as the rough sex defence. I had a productive meeting with both Members to discuss the issue, and, as I made clear to them, we are looking at how best to address it. It is a complex area of criminal law, and we need to ensure that any statutory provisions have the desired effect and do not have any unintended consequences; we do not want to inadvertently create loopholes or uncertainties in the law that can then be exploited by those who perpetrate crimes. I am confident that we will be able to set out our approach in time for Report, and I am grateful for the continuing constructive engagement on this important and sensitive issue.

Domestic abuse is one of the most prevalent crimes in our society—let us be honest and frank about that. It is staggering that some 2.4 million people experience domestic abuse each year, and unforgivable that, on average, more than two individuals, the majority of whom are women, are killed each and every week in a domestic homicide.

Tackling domestic abuse needs to be everyone’s business, from prevention to protection to prosecution to support. Legislation alone can never have all the answers, but I believe that this landmark Bill will make a significant contribution and I commend it to the House.