Oral Answers to Questions
Robert Neill Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elizabeth Truss
I absolutely agree that the retention of staff is a very important issue. I have been to a number of prisons and seen how brave, fearless and hard-working our prison officers are. They are vital in turning around offenders and getting them the education and skills they need to succeed outside. I am determined to support and work with them, and over the coming months I will lay out more detailed plans.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
May I warmly welcome the Secretary of State and her team to their posts? Lawyers do sometimes have their uses, and so do non-lawyers. Her predecessor made prison reform a centrepiece of the agenda and rightly described the deterioration of safety in prisons as terrible. The figures have now got worse. He committed to an action plan to tackle violence in our prisons. Will the Secretary of State reaffirm that, and what specific steps will be taken to deal with what is a ticking time bomb in our criminal justice system, because nothing else has worked?
Elizabeth Truss
May I say how pleased I am to have been able to meet the Chairman of the Justice Committee? I take the advice of all my lawyers, but particularly that of the Chairman of the Select Committee, extremely seriously.
This is a critical issue that faces our prisons. We cannot have reform in our prisons if we do not have safe prisons for people to work in. Those two things go hand in hand. I am committed to an agenda of making our prisons safe and places of reform. I will be laying out my plans very shortly on this issue, and I look forward to discussing it more with the Select Committee tomorrow.
Safety of Prison Staff
Robert Neill Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the detail and tone of his remarks. He continues now on the Back Benches the great work he did on the Front Bench, making sure that the condition of our prisons is kept at the forefront of our minds.
May I first say that in the limited time I had available in response to his original urgent question, I was not able to outline all the steps being taken? Thanks, of course, to his diligent work and that of the Justice Committee, a number of areas of concern have been brought to our attention or highlighted or underlined.
We have appointed a highly experienced prison governor, Claudia Sturt, formerly governor of Belmarsh, to lead work specifically to ensure that our prisons are more secure. She has set up a taskforce to visit the prisons that face the greatest challenge. Those visits have so far resulted in prison governors feeling reassured and strengthened that they have the best professional advice to help them deal with these problems. In addition, we have been rolling out something called the five-minute intervention, which is a specific intervention to help prison officers to de-escalate violent incidents. It is being pioneered by a first-rate professional, Russ Trent, who is due to be the governor of HMP Berwyn, the new prison in Wales.
The hon. Gentleman made the point that £10 million was only a start, and it is indeed only a start. I stress that the Treasury has given us £1.3 billion as part of a broad prison reform programme, but I shall not run away from the fact that we have a difficult situation in our prisons. That is one of the reasons that I invited the BBC in to visit our prisons in recent weeks. It is also one of the reasons that I have sought to work across the aisle to ensure that we tackle this problem fairly. I know that the hon. Gentleman is sincere and dedicated in his desire to ensure that our prisons work better, and I look forward to working with him to that end.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s full and prompt response to our Select Committee report on prison safety published in May does great credit to his personal commitment to tackling this issue, and I am grateful for his frankness on the level of the challenge that we face. Will he update us on whether he is now able to take on board some of the report’s recommendations? For example, will the Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service now produce a joint action plan to tackle the underlying causes of violence? Will he also address the issues of staff recruitment and retention, and will he agree to produce a quarterly report to the House so that we can measure progress on the action plan against clear, specific targets?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for making those points. The report was exemplary, and, as I mentioned earlier, it has been a great help to the Ministry. I absolutely agree that we will bring forward an action plan and provide the House with regular updates on the steps that we are taking. He is also right to point out that the recruitment and retention of staff are critical. In response to his questions and those of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), I want to underline the fact that I want to work with the Prison Officers Association and all trade unions to ensure that legitimate concerns—all concerns, indeed—are addressed. I also want to ensure that we continue to attract high-quality people to the Prison Service, because it is a vital job.
Courts and Tribunals Fees
Robert Neill Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a great pleasure and a privilege to speak to the motion and raise the issue arising from the report by our Select Committee. This is the first time that one of our Committee’s reports has been debated on the Floor of the House in this way.
I begin by expressing my appreciation to all the members of the Committee for the constructive and diligent way in which they have approached the work of the Committee and this report in particular. It was undertaken in an entirely collaborative and non-partisan spirit. As is perhaps appropriate for anything that touches upon the law and justice, we have endeavoured throughout to base our conclusions on the evidence that has come before us. I am grateful for that. The report was agreed unanimously, and I hope that that will weigh with the House and with Ministers when they consider it.
We had significant assistance from the evidence, both written and oral, that we received from witnesses. It is particularly worth noting that in this case we were assisted by the evidence of very senior members of the judiciary—the Master of the Rolls, the president of the family division, and the senior president of tribunals. When they speak, their views ought to carry very considerable weight indeed.
There is no doubt that over the past few years, fees for litigants bringing cases have spread and increased across our civil courts, the family courts and tribunals, and there have been a number of proposals for further increases. When we set up the inquiry, we identified four objectives to be looked into. First, how have the increased court fees and the introduction of employment tribunal fees affected access to justice? How have they affected the volume and the quality of cases brought? Secondly, how has the court fee regime affected the competitiveness of the legal services market in England and Wales, particularly in an international context? Thirdly, we particularly wanted to look at the effect on defendants of the introduction of the criminal courts charge, about which I shall say more. Fourthly, we wanted to examine the impact of the increases in courts and tribunals fees announced in “Court and Tribunal Fees”, Cm 9123, published on 22 July 2015, and subsequent proposals.
I am grateful to the Government for moving swiftly on the criminal courts charge. The evidence was clear that it did not work and was, if anything, counterproductive, arguably costing as much to administer as it would ever bring in. We therefore decoupled the issue from the main part of the report and brought it forward swiftly. I am grateful to the Government for their prompt response and for moving to accept our recommendation and abolish the charge.
In fairness, the Secretary of State for Justice and his ministerial team deserve great credit for that. We should not criticise politicians when they are prepared to change their minds. I think it was John Maynard Keynes who famously said, “When the facts change, I change my opinion.” The Government listened to the evidence and removed the criminal courts charge. I hope they will be as expeditious and responsive on a number of the other matters we raise in the report—as a West Ham supporter, I am always an optimist.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I compliment the hon. Gentleman on an excellent report, but would it not be fairer to say that the Secretary of State changed? I do not know whether that is one of Keynes’s principles. The facts did not change at all; some light was suddenly shone on what was always a mad scheme, and a change came about. However, I do not want to detract from the credit that is owed to the hon. Gentleman’s Committee.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he made his contribution. I am a friend of the current and the former Secretary of State, and giving credit to those who responded to the evidence is perhaps the appropriate and balanced way to deal with the issue.
It is worth looking at a little of the chronology of one of the matters I am going to turn to. As well as having significant witnesses from the judiciary, we heard evidence from the trade unions, the business community, the Bar Council, the Law Society and a number of individuals and interest groups. We had four oral evidence sessions between November 2015 and February 2016, the last of which was on 9 February, when we heard from the legal profession and then from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara).
We then waited, because we were anticipating the promised post-implementation review of the impact of employment tribunal fees, which had formed an important part of the evidence that was put before us. We knew that the review had been commissioned some time back, so we waited—and nothing came forward. In the end, on 25 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who is on the Front Bench and who had taken over responsibility, courteously responded, but he was unable to give any indication of a publication date. I have to say that we do not regard that as satisfactory.
It was against that background that, rather than waiting for the two months the Government normally have to reply to a Select Committee report to lapse, we thought it right to bring our report to the House today in this estimates day debate.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend tell us whether we have yet received that report?
Robert Neill
No, we have not, and I have to say that we used quite strong language about that in our report, because we were, frankly, disappointed. What happened does actually go against the spirit of courtesy, openness and co-operation I have seen from the Ministry of Justice team throughout the year or so I have chaired the Select Committee, and I hope it is an outlier. I hope the Minister will give us an indication of why the review report has taken so long and when we will get it. I know it is sometimes not easy to agree these things across Government, but it is pretty clear that the data required for the analysis were collected a long time ago, and, as we say in our report, there can be no reason why at least that factual material cannot be published forthwith, even if the Government are not yet in a position to respond, because the more informed the House and the public are, the better. That is an area of regret, and that is why today’s debate is important and timely.
Let me touch on some of the principles we are concerned with. The levels of various courts and tribunal fees have been politically controversial. We all need to bear it in mind that a balance must be struck between the cost to the public purse of administering a justice system, which is an integral part of any civilised society and of the rule of law, and how much can reasonably be recovered from litigants. We say that, in principle, we do not object to the idea that there should be some financial discipline on those who choose to go to law—those who choose to litigate—in deciding whether that is a wise decision for them to make. We do not have a problem with the principle of a certain level of a fees. Equally, however, we must bear in mind the comments that have been made consistently ever since Magna Carta but were recently elegantly captured by the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill in his book, “The Rule of Law”—which I always think should be compulsory reading for anyone in the political sphere—in which he says, in essence, that the accessibility of justice is as much a part of the fundamentals of the rule of law as clarity of the law itself. He says that justice is not a commodity—it cannot be commoditised in the way that, perhaps, other services can be. It is important to get the balance right. That is where we have some concerns that I will now turn to.
We accept that there is no problem, in principle, with fees for litigants. We know that there are financial pressures on the Ministry, which is not a protected Department. I understand the pressures that Ministers were under when these decisions were taken. We think it is entirely legitimate to find a number of means of reducing the number of vexatious claims. That could be done as part of the financial discipline we referred to, but it could also be done by changing the substantive law to raise the threshold or by making changes to court procedure. That is a legitimate part of the mix. But—we then have to say a number of “buts”, looking at the evidence —the answer to what is a reasonable charge in striking this balance will vary depending on a number of factors such as the effectiveness of fee remission, the vulnerability or otherwise of the claimants, and the degree of choice that they have. There is a distinction, for example, between someone who chooses to litigate over a commercial contract dispute and someone who is charged by the state with an offence, or someone whose marriage has broken down and has no other recourse, in order to have the marriage dissolved and move on with their life, than to go to the courts. The degree of choice is an important issue that must be considered carefully in each case.
There is an argument for trying to recover, as far as one can within that balance, some of the costs that fall on the public purse. In some cases, it may be possible to recover all the costs, but that cannot be an absolute. We were particularly struck by the fact that in some cases there are fees that exceed the full cost of the operation of the court; they are sometimes referred to as “enhanced fees”. We take the view, consistent with Lord Bingham’s formulation and with a public policy approach that we have had in this country for decades, that making a profit from the justice system, in effect, albeit one that is intended to be used elsewhere, requires particular care and a strong justification.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Surely the Ministry of Justice should not be making a profit out of justice. Getting rid of tribunal fees and having equality of access to justice is about making sure that everybody in this country can be productive, particularly women, who can be discriminated against—it drives up productivity and boosts the economy.
Robert Neill
We do not go so far as to say that it follows that there should never be fees in any particular class of case—that includes employment tribunal fees—but we do say that a balance has to be borne in mind. I suppose that one could conceive of an argument—we did not rehearse it in detail in our report—whereby an enhanced fee might be recycled within the system. If, for example, some of the fees were being used to cross-subsidise, as it were, other elements of the family jurisdiction, then there might be something in that, but we do not have any evidence that that is the case. The hon. Lady makes a fair point, which is consistent with our report, about the undesirability of going down that route.
The situation provides a contrast with the speed with which the Government acted over both the criminal courts charge, quite rightly, and the new proposals for higher fees ever since the employment tribunal fees were introduced, with some controversy. The Department made those proposals with great speed, but it has been remarkably tardy in producing its review of the impact of those employment tribunal fees. That is why we conclude that, although a legitimate balance has to be found in the interests of society, where the objective of achieving cost recovery and the principle of preserving access to justice are in conflict, it is the latter—access to justice—that has to prevail. In a sense, that is a restatement of the point made by the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill, and I would have thought that most Members saw the logic of that.
Other members of the Select Committee will wish to make particular points, so I will touch on a few of the major matters. I have already referred to the quality of the evidence from the Ministry of Justice, particularly that in relation to employment tribunal fees. Ultimately, the Department may not have the evidence; if that is the case, it should say so, rather than pretend otherwise.
It is worth giving a flavour of some of the comments we received about the evidence base. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, described the Department’s research as “lamentable”. It is pretty serious when the head of civil justice in this country talks in those terms. The chairman of the Bar Council described the research undertaken in relation to the domestic effects of fees as “insignificant”, and the president of the Law Society said it was “poor”.
I appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton has only just started the job—I do not blame him or any of his colleagues personally—but the truth is that the Government did not produce adequate evidence. On the face of it, it seems to have been a “wet your finger and hold it up in the wind” job, rather than being based on significant research. We do not think that that is satisfactory.
Perhaps things would have been different if the Government had brought forward their review. We might have been less critical if we had seen the evidence that they have collated but not yet made available. As it was, we had to base our conclusions on the evidence that we had, which I am afraid went significantly in another direction. It is ironic that, by not providing that material, the Government have not been the best of advocates of their own cause.
I am not going to say that everybody had difficulties with employment fees. In their evidence to us, the Federation of Small Businesses and Peninsula Business Services said that it was reasonable to have the objective of discouraging weak and vexatious claims. That was certainly the Government’s assertion when they introduced the fees, but hard material to support that view has not yet been forthcoming. We must bear in mind the comments of the senior president of tribunals, Sir Ernest Ryder, who said that it was simply too soon to say whether that has happened. If that is the case, and if the valuation is not yet available, now is not the time to be rushing similar increases in other parts of the civil and family and immigration jurisdictions, which I will turn to later. I will leave it to others to go into more detail about employment fees, as I know they will.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am grateful to the distinguished Chair of the Justice Committee for allowing me to intervene on him. If there is very little evidence to suggest that there were vexatious claims in the employment tribunal system and if the number of claims in some regions has dropped by a quantum of about 80%, is it not possible to make the opposite argument that fees are a block to justice and that, to get access to justice, they will have to be lowered? If this is about cost recovery, the number of employment tribunal cases is now so low that no costs are being recovered at all.
Robert Neill
That is why we made the point that we need to have a much better evidence base before we go forward with like increases in other areas. We did not rule out the fact that a fee may be appropriate in some cases, but we need better evidence to know the proper level to pitch it at and whether there are any unintended consequences—whether it will deter not just unworthy claims, but, as we fear, meritorious claims as well. A particular concern raised was that the employer and the employee claimant would get into a war of attrition, depending on who has the deepest pockets. That is not really consistent with the “equality of arms” argument that we have always regarded as being central to our justice system. Funnily enough, it may tend to make cases more protracted than they need to be, when the swiftest and earliest possible settlement would, as a general rule, be in everybody’s interests. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point. We were much assisted in our inquiry by evidence on the matter from the Law Society of Scotland, and we are grateful for its assistance.
Against that background, we made all due allowance for the fact that there has been some change in the substantive law, for the improving economic situation, for the previous downward trend in tribunal cases and for the ACAS conciliation schemes. Those things could account for some of the drop, but we were looking at a drop of about 70%, and we found no evidence to suggest that it was accounted for entirely or substantially by those matters, so we were led to the conclusion that the clear majority of the decline was attributable to the level of fee. That is why the matter needs to be looked at seriously and we need the factual information immediately.
We set out certain indicative thoughts about the sorts of changes that might be made; they are indicative because we do not have the evidence to go further than that. We think that this is an important issue, which really cannot be kept back for much longer.
Andy Slaughter
I commend the hon. Gentleman on many of the recommendations in the report, but—as I would, I suppose—I want to highlight one that I think is slightly problematic. The Justice Committee went along with the decision of the independent commission on freedom of information to disallow appeals from the Information Commissioner to the first-tier tribunal, despite the fact that 20% of those appeals are successful. Would the hon. Gentleman like to look at that again? The Select Committee stated in its report:
“We see no reason to disagree with the Commission’s view.”
Has the hon. Gentleman simply gone along with the view of the commission? What is his reason for making that decision?
Robert Neill
Simply that there was no compelling evidence presented to us to the contrary. We followed the evidence, as we did in the other matters. It is not because we are afraid of pulling our punches; as the hon. Gentleman has seen, we have not pulled our punches in some areas. We simply did not find any evidence to suggest that that assessment by the independent body was wrong.
I will move on quickly to some other matters. There has been particular concern about the impact of employment tribunal fees, but certain other matters have also been brought forward. The April 2015 increase in fees for money claims should, in our judgment, be reviewed. That may seem rather remote and arcane, but it is very important, because it affects the international competitiveness of London and the UK as a jurisdiction of choice, especially for commercial litigation. That is a great strength of this country, and some figures released today by the Legal Services Board highlight its significance. Legal services and their related supply chain contribute something like £35 billion towards this country’s GDP. Legal services exports have increased by some 33% over the past eight years, and something like 10% of the legal profession have instructions from overseas clients.
At the same time, there are pressures on the British jurisdiction and threats to its exclusiveness. We have already seen, in places such as Singapore and Dubai, courts operating on the basis of English common law but outside our jurisdiction. It is worth observing that very recently in Amsterdam, in the Netherlands, an English-language court was established. We should be very wary of biting off the hand that feeds us—or, to use another metaphor, doing anything to kill the goose that lays the golden egg—by reducing the value of the British legal system and its attractiveness to litigants nationally and internationally.
We think that the Government should review the increase in fees for money claims, and they should certainly not resurrect the proposal to double the £10,000 cap or remove it altogether. They were right not to proceed with that when it was originally proposed, but they did not rule it out for the future. We are saying that they should not think about going anywhere near it, at least until they have had a proper review of what has been done.
Another point, which goes back to an issue that has been raised already, is about the increase in the divorce petition fee from £410 to £550. Given that the cost to the state of the average straightforward divorce petition is about £270, that is a mark-up of about 100%. We find it difficult to see how making a 100% profit out of divorce cases can be justified, when it is an entirely captive audience because there is no other way to get divorced than going to the courts. We say very clearly that the increase should be reversed.
Our view was fortified by the trenchant evidence from the president of the family division, the right hon. Sir James Munby. It is pretty unusual for a senior member of the judiciary to speak in such terms to a parliamentary Committee or any other body. Sir James said, rather tellingly, that he was concerned that the Ministry of Justice was
“battening on to the fact that there is a captive market”
and that it was
“putting up the fees until it becomes another poll tax on wheels”.
That is pretty strong language. I would put it slightly differently. We say that there is a risk that it will become a “divorce tax”. That cannot be just and we strongly urge Ministers to look at it again most urgently.
Immigration and asylum tribunals are another important issue. There are concerns over whether our immigration and asylum system and the appeals system are abused. There must be safeguards to ensure that proper cases are properly heard. Someone with a legitimate claim must have a decent chance of challenging the decisions of the state or of any Executive body. Equally, it is in everybody’s interests that weak and unmeritorious cases are weeded out. Nobody has a problem with that. Our concern is that fees have been brought in with remarkable swiftness, without a significant evidence base.
In July 2015, the Government consulted on doubling the fees in the first-tier tribunal from £80 to £160 for an application for a paper determination and from £140 to £280 for an application for an oral hearing. In December 2015, after the consultation, it was confirmed that that would go ahead. Only a few months later, in April this year, a further consultation was brought out, without any review of the impact of the last set of increases, proposing a sixfold increase in the fees in those jurisdictions, so that there was full cost recovery. It was proposed that an application for a paper decision would cost £490 and an application for an oral hearing would cost £800.
We have the same concern that I have raised more than once: there is no apparent evidence base to support that increase. If there were, we might have taken a different approach to it. Making that increase does not seem justified when the people involved are, by the nature of these cases, vulnerable. That is why we express considerable concern over the proposals.
I am surprised that the Government have adopted that approach, given their experience with employment tribunal fees and the criminal courts charge. The idea is to have full cost recovery. The problem is that we are dealing with people who are by their nature—particularly those in the asylum system, but also those in the immigration system—very unlikely ever to have any means to recover even a decent percentage of the cost against, let alone the full cost. The Government will end up in exactly the same position as with the criminal courts charge. They are setting themselves an objective to raise money that they have no hope of raising because the people they are trying to get it from do not have the means—it is getting blood out of a stone. We think that it is pointless to pursue an unachievable objective. That is why we urge the Government to think again.
I have endeavoured to outline what is a detailed report. I hope that it is useful to the House. Given the nature of its technical but important topic, we make no apology for its detail. These are issues that impact not just on our system, but on individuals, because every piece of litigation involves an individual somewhere. The Government have had ample time to consider the report, so I hope that we will have a substantive response from the Minister in which he says when the information will be published, what they will do about the increase in divorce fees, what they will do about the realism or otherwise of moving to full cost recovery in the immigration and asylum chamber, and what they will do about the other significant pieces of evidence that we have detailed in the report. I am grateful for the House’s indulgence.
Mr Djanogly
The hon. Lady talks about unfair advantage, but I am not sure how she defines it, particularly if it is a single employer. Most of the FSB’s membership are two-person companies. If the hon. Lady is saying that it is unfair if it is one employer against one employee, I would say it was not. The answer to her question is that it would depend on the circumstances.
There grew a culture of settling claims, even weak claims, so that they would simply go away. The fact remains that there is more to business confidence than statistics. If the indirect impact of fees has been to change this perception among business owners, which I feel it has, fees have made a significant contribution to an economy that is delivering the creation of the highest level of employment the UK has ever enjoyed. We should be cautious about meddling with that.
The big change from when I was a Minister in the Ministry of Justice is the use of ACAS conciliation. I should be interested to hear more from the Minister, but the figure of 83,000 claims being dealt with by ACAS at an early stage sounds very promising indeed. It was the policy of the last Labour Government and then of the coalition Government and this Government that alternative dispute resolution should be promoted as a cheaper, quicker, more consensual and less stressful form of sorting out problems, including employment disputes. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister has plans to extend the use of ADR further still.
I note that, on access to justice, the Justice Committee’s report is rather limited to looking at the status quo—fees versus remissions, which seems to have a feeling of trade union influence.
Robert Neill
Will my hon. Friend comment on our specific proposal that there should be an uprating of the remission threshold to take account of inflation? Otherwise, there will be a risk of fiscal drag. That is one of a number of specific points we make about remission.
Mr Djanogly
It is useful to look at that, perhaps along with a wider review of the way in which remissions are working. A new system has been put in place, and I accept that such things need review.
The report totally overlooks the changing nature of the funding of legal claims now and possibly in the future—for instance, the use of loans to fund claims, or the use of no-win, no-fee agreements and insurance to fund claims. It assumes that the burden of risk is simply to be shared between claimant and defendant, which is unreflective of reality. What about the risk of claims being shared between insurers, lenders, lawyers—and, yes, even trade unions? For instance, should we not investigate what level of risk they should all take on board, before the taxpayer has to step in? Neither Opposition party statements so far, nor the Justice Committee report seems to be looking at the broader issues in an area where we need innovative ideas and an assessment of the wider marketplace. I would therefore be grateful to hear the Government’s views.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)
I congratulate the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), on his new position and welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who held our feet to the fire assiduously over many weeks and who I am sure will continue to do so from the Back Benches.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for his Committee’s important report and work on court and tribunal fees and charges, and hon. Members from across the House for their invaluable contributions to this debate. The Government will respond to the Committee’s report in due course, but I welcome this opportunity to address some of the issues it raised. I will try to respond to as many as is practical in the time allocated.
As hon. Members will appreciate, the principal reason for raising fees is financial—there is no getting away from that. The shadow Justice Secretary said that he would get rid of all the fees. He was a little thin on how he would pay for them, but perhaps that does not matter too much to the Labour party. The raw truth is that the Ministry of Justice is not a protected Department. We have a very challenging financial settlement, so we must reduce its annual spending by 15% in real terms, which means about £1 billion in cash terms by 2019-20.
It is worth remembering that this is not just about cuts; we are also committed to this approach precisely so that we can invest £1.3 billion to modernise our prisons, and more than £700 million to transform our court system. Achieving those dual financial objectives inevitably requires difficult decisions. There is no ducking them. We have to look at every area of the Department’s finances, and I am afraid that there can be no exceptions for the courts.
To ensure that the courts and tribunals are properly funded, and access to justice is properly protected, increases to court fees will be necessary. The cost of our courts and tribunal system to the taxpayer is unsustainably high, and it is only right that those who use the system pay more to balance that burden with the taxpayer.
Robert Neill
In coming to that conclusion, has the Department carried out research into or a survey on the costs to the court system of delays caused by persons appearing unrepresented as litigants? Should not that also be taken into account as part of the equation? What data does the Minister have?
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend raises a perfectly legitimate point. If he is willing to be patient, I will write to him with any precise details that I have.
In its report, the Committee accepts the principle of charging court users a contribution towards the cost of operating our courts. Whatever the specifics, I think that that principle is accepted. It is a question of balance between taxpayer subsidisation and user pay. I welcome the Committee’s finding in that regard.
Under the Treasury’s “Managing public money” rules, fees for public services should usually be set at a level designed to meet the cost of those services. However, Parliament has granted, through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, a power that allows the Government to set court and tribunal fees at a level above the cost of the service. The income from those fees must be used to fund an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals. When setting these fees, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to a number of factors, including the need to preserve access to justice. I assure hon. Members that we take that requirement seriously. The idea that somehow a profit is being made is not accurate according to the law, let alone the practice.
I will now turn to the specifics of employment tribunals. I appreciate the concerns expressed both by the Committee and by hon. Members across the aisles. Those who have spoken today have mentioned in particular the impact of fees on employment tribunals. When fees were introduced, there were three main objectives. The first was to transfer a proportion of the cost of the tribunal from the taxpayer to those who use it, where they can afford to pay. The second was to encourage people to consider other ways of resolving disputes, in particular the ACAS conciliation services, which are provided free of charge. There has been virtually no mention of them in this debate. The third objective was to protect access to justice. I do not think that anyone could disagree that those are legitimate aims to pursue.
The main concern about employment tribunal fees has been the large fall in the number of claims immediately after fees were introduced, but it is not that surprising that the volume of claims has fallen. It is obvious that more people will use a service if it is free than if they have to pay to use it. It is also worth reminding hon. Members across the House of a few key facts. First, help is available for those who cannot afford to pay, through fee remissions. Under that scheme, someone who is eligible for help may have the fee waived either in part or in full. We have taken steps to make sure that more people are aware of the help available, and that has led to a marked increase in take-up under the scheme.
Secondly, and crucially, the introduction of the ACAS early mandatory conciliation service has been a success, with more than 83,000 people referring their disputes to ACAS in the first year. As many people are using the ACAS conciliation service now as were previously referring their disputes to the ACAS voluntary service and the employment tribunals combined. That is important, regardless of whether the dispute ends up with a meritorious claim succeeding; it is valuable that potentially divisive disputes can be settled in that way.
Mr Raab
I will come on to that, if the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a few moments, because there are a lot of other points to get through. The point—this has been missed almost entirely in the debate—is that we are seeing the right kind of behavioural change.
Thirdly, the tribunal has the power to order the respondent to reimburse the claimant with his or her fee, if the claim is successful. Finally, on top of that, the Lord Chancellor has an additional power to remit fees where there are exceptional circumstances.
I appreciate that the Committee and hon. Members have not been shy in criticising the delay in completing the review. It is true that when we announced the review in June last year, we had hoped to finalise it by the end of the year. That simply was not possible and it is clearly important that we take time to carefully consider all the relevant material. It is regrettable that it has taken longer than planned, and I am sorry about that. I have looked into the situation and we will get the response published as soon as possible.
In our evidence to the Committee, however, we made it clear that, while we hoped that the review would be completed swiftly, we could not give a firm commitment on timing. I reassure hon. Members and the Chair of the Committee that the review is very close to completion, so I hope to be able to make an announcement in the near future.
Robert Neill
If the Minister will forgive me for saying so, his predecessor told us in February that he hoped we would have it “sooner rather than later.” What has caused the delay? Has the material been fully assembled in his Department, and why can it not be published?
Mr Raab
I thank the Select Committee Chairman, who is being as tenacious and assiduous as ever. We are in a position to make the announcement in the near future. I do not think it is right to split the evidence and our response to it. Hon. Members in this House and the public expect us, when we produce the evidence, to be able to say what we think about it. If he is patient with us, he will get both in reasonably short order. On top of the apology that I have already given, I want to make it clear that it will be coming as soon as is practicable.
Robert Neill
With the leave of the House, I will briefly respond to the debate. It has been a thoughtful debate, and I am grateful to Members from all parts of the House who have contributed. There is not time for me to refer to every hon. and right hon. Member who has contributed, but I am especially grateful to members of the Select Committee from both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate for the work that they have done. It is also right for me to say that I am grateful to the Committee staff for the work that they have put into preparing the report. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on his appointment to the post of shadow Justice Secretary, and I wish him a long tenure of office, if that is a wise thing to do, one way or the other.
I appreciate the Minister’s response. I may continue to press further, but I take him at his word, because he and his fellow Ministers have always been entirely straight in their dealings with us. I hear his word that we will have the response soon, and I cannot stress enough how important that is. I am grateful that he is not proceeding immediately with the divorce fee increases. I hope that we will be able to persuade him that that should not happen at all, but I will take whatever is available. I appreciate that this is a detailed matter, and I hope that we can go forward with more detail in due course. I must confess that I do not think that this issue will be solved constructively by voting against the estimates in a symbolic fashion, but that is a matter for individual Members to decide. I am grateful for the House’s time and the consideration that Members have given to the report.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Oral Answers to Questions
Robert Neill Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes a vital point. We are looking at how female offenders are treated overall. One thing we need to do—I know that this is not a view universally held by all my hon. Friends on the Back Benches—is to think hard about how we can reduce the female population in prison, and treat women who are in custody more sensitively.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that reform prisons are an important part of a broader package of reform of penal and criminal justice policy, so that we not only make better use of the time of those who are in prison, but make sure that we reduce the total number of people going to prison by finding an effective and genuinely successful means of dealing with offending in the community?
Michael Gove
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Justice is absolutely right. In the same way that the creation of NHS foundation trusts was not the only aspect of reform of the national health service, and the creation of academy schools was not the only aspect of reform of the education system, the creation of reform prisons is not a change in isolation. It is part of a broader change to the criminal justice system, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that part of that is diverting people from custody when appropriate.
Michael Gove
My view is that any Minister—Conservative, Labour or, who knows, Scottish National party in the future, perhaps as part of a coalition—should be accountable to the people of this country for the decisions that they make. When the European Court of Justice can rule in such a way that there is no recourse or appeal, our democracy is undermined. Our democracy is precious, and the European Court of Justice is no friend of it.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Next week the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will appoint a new British judge to replace Judge Paul Mahoney upon his retirement. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that that makes this an appropriate moment for us to recognise Judge Mahoney and thank him for his work, and to recognise the contribution that British judges and lawyers have made to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights throughout its existence?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course, the European convention on human rights was authored in large part by a British lawyer—a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, in fact. Whatever one thinks of the operations of the Court at different times, the rights contained in that convention are precious. I thank Judge Mahoney for his outstanding work, and I know that there are some brilliant lawyers who stand ready to replace him. I am sure that the Council of Europe will give careful thought, as ever, to ensuring that we have the right candidate in place to emulate Judge Mahoney’s outstanding work.
Policing and Crime Bill
Robert Neill Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Penning
May I start by saying, genuinely, that this Bill has progressed with the will, respect and the help of Members on both sides of the House? As there are several new Government amendments in this group, I thought it only right and proper that I address some of them. I will also address some of the amendments tabled by the shadow Secretary of State. We have had numerous meetings, and we have tried to work our way through all of this, so let us see whether we can carry that forward as best we can.
It is our intention to introduce a robust and independent inspection regime for fire and rescue authorities in England. New clause 48 and new schedule 1 will support that objective by strengthening the inspection framework currently provided for in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. The amendments provide for the appointment of a chief fire and rescue inspector, who will be required to prepare a programme for the inspection of fire and rescue services. The Secretary of State will have the power to require inspections outside the published programme if necessary.
Fire and rescue inspectors will be required to produce reports on their inspections, and the chief inspector will make an annual report to Parliament—something that does not currently take place. We will enable fire inspectors to carry out joint inspections with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. That will be particularly important where police and crime commissioners and metro mayors take on the responsibilities of fire and rescue authorities.
Finally, these provisions will ensure that inspectors have access to the information they need to undertake a rigorous and independent examination of fire and rescue authorities and the persons employed by them. That means that no door will be locked and all information will be available to the inspector.
Although we believe that the vast majority of inspections will be undertaken by consent, we need to be alert to the fact that additional powers might be needed. If inspectors do not feel that they are getting the access that they deserve and need to produce reports, they will have the power to ask for such things. These amendments will help fire and rescue authorities be more transparent and more accountable.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
May I say to my right hon. Friend that, as a former holder of this part of his post, I entirely welcome and support these amendments? The inspectorate is a thoroughly good idea, but may I raise one technical issue? There is provision for delegation to another public body. Many of us think that it would be much better if new schedule 1 were phrased so as to permit the use of external contractors to carry out certain elements of the inspection on behalf of inspectors where outside expertise may not be readily available in a public body. At the moment, the wording of new clause 48 and new schedule 1 does not appear to permit delegation to external contractors, who may well have expertise in operational audit, which is precisely what we need to make inspections robust and independent. Will he reflect on that?
Mr Speaker
Order. No one could accuse the hon. Gentleman of excluding from his intervention anything that he thought might at any time, in any way, to any degree be material, and I have a sense that when he practised law regularly he operated in a similar vein.
Mike Penning
I am conscious that I am in the hands of experts who were Ministers long before I was, but as an ex-firefighter, I was really quite surprised to see how the inspections took place when I came into the role. They did not take place as envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) when he introduced the relevant legislation. There was a genuine feeling that we had to address the costs and how the inspections were done. To be perfectly honest, the system has not worked. We cannot continue with the situation where one fire and rescue force inspects another and they tell each other what they can and cannot inspect.
This proposal is separate, which is why we have put the new inspector alongside Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. They will tell us exactly what expertise they require. As ex-firefighters, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and I can assume what they will need to look at, but I accept that some fire and rescues services will need to draw on financial expertise from other areas.
Robert Neill
I promise to try not to trouble my right hon. Friend anymore, but will he clarify something? I agree with his response to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), but is he saying that if evidence is presented, Ministers will not rule out making an appropriate arrangement whereby commissioning can take place if the chief inspector thinks it appropriate in relation to any inspection without us being required to make further legislative arrangements in the House? I am sure he will understand that the need for further legislation would defeat our objective.
Mike Penning
Absolutely. I can say categorically that we do not want to handcuff the inspector. If an inspector needs to bring in further expertise, whether from UKAS or others, they will be able to bring that to the attention of the Ministers responsible. There will not be a requirement to come to the House.
This is a really positive move for the fire service, and the chiefs have welcomed it. They have been supportive in the meetings that I have had with them. I am not sure whether they all support the proposal, because the ones who do not support it might not have been banging on my door quite as hard as the ones who do. Naturally, I will come back to the issue in responding to the debate if we have time.
I will touch briefly on DNA and fingerprint retention, which is an extremely important and sensitive topic. New clauses 49 and 50 will help the prevention and detection of crime by enabling DNA profiles and fingerprints to be retained on the basis of convictions outside England and Wales, in the same way as the material could be used if the offence had taken place in England and Wales. We are trying to protect the public. The measures, which have been requested, will apply specifically to offences committed outside England and Wales that would be offences in England and Wales. The amendments made by new clauses 40 and 50 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Terrorism Act 2000 will enhance the effectiveness of the national DNA and fingerprint databases and help our police keep us safe, which we all want, especially in the light of the heightened threat.
New clauses 51, 52 and 53 and new schedule 2 will strengthen the existing cross-border powers of arrest provided for in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and appear to be supported across the House.
I want to listen to the shadow Home Secretary’s comments, so I will touch only briefly on the new clauses that he has tabled, which we have discussed together with the shadow Policing Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). I know that the Home Secretary, too, has discussed them with the shadow Home Secretary. It may assist the House if I say a few words about them now. As I said earlier, we welcome the constructive approach from the Opposition, and in particular from the Hillsborough families and the campaign group. We would not be discussing these issues now without their bravery, for which I praise them. The work carries on; it will not stop, whatever happens today.
Robert Neill
It is appropriate that I follow the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, as I am conscious of the fact that my predecessor as Chair of the Justice Committee was present when those assurances were given. I do not doubt the good intentions of the Minister and I am prepared to cut the Government slack over the matter, but there is an important point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made: it is not purely the high profile cases that are of concern to many professionals in the criminal justice system.
The shadow Home Secretary spoke movingly and passionately about the impact of Hillsborough and other such scandals, but of equal concern to lawyers such as me—I have had 25 years in the criminal courts—is the long-term day-to-day cosiness of relationships that, I am sorry to say, develop between police officers, not necessarily at the highest level but at an operational level, and reporters. Unless something is done to deal with that, there is a risk of miscarriages of justice. However these things are done, they do not come purely on the back of headline catching; there is a more insidious culture in some ways, which can be dealt with only through very firm management by the leadership of the police service, and if that is lacking it needs to be looked at appropriately.
I accept the concern about outstanding cases, but there is no doubt that this issue is potentially important. Any practitioner at the Bar will know of any number of occasions where the local press—this is not just about the nationals—has been aware, surprisingly, that a particular person was going to be arrested or that a particular search was going to be carried out. I am afraid that that cannot happen accidentally, so there is an issue here of general concern.
Let me turn briefly to new clause 23, to which I am a signatory. Again, I accept that the Minister wants to take the issue forward, but I agree with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). There is inevitably a reluctance among officials—I used to find that as a Minister—and senior officers to complicate regulations if they think that what they have got will do. I do not doubt that the advice the Minister has been given was given in good faith, but I say as a London MP who speaks to officers on the beat—on the frontline—in my constituency that their concerns about the inadequacy of the current provisions are genuine, and their experience perhaps does not mirror the advice the Minister may be getting from some of the top brass in the service. That advice may also not always mirror the concerns of my constituents, who go up to London to work and who are sometimes caught in these particularly unpleasant and intimidating demonstrations. My right hon. and learned Friend therefore makes an important point in his new clause.
Let me turn now to the main issue I wanted to raise, which I hinted at in my two interventions on the Minister: new clause 48 and the fire inspection regime. As I said to the Minister, who was generous in his responses to me, I welcome the change. In some ways, I wish I had been able to bring it in when I was the Minister responsible for the fire services, but the political and administrative climate was not there for it to be done, so I genuinely congratulate him on introducing it. He has more front-line experience of the fire services than I do, having actually done the job of putting fires out. My involvement with the fire services goes back to my involvement with the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) some—I hate to say it—30 years ago, when I was the leader of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, immediately after the abolition of the Greater London Council. I would like to say that I lied about my age to join up, but that was not quite the case. However, I have been involved with the fire services in one way or another ever since.
At the time, we had the old-school inspectorate. Then we moved to an arrangement with a chief adviser. I think we all hoped that peer review and the work of bodies such as the Chief Fire Officers Association and others would achieve improvement from within. However, the Minister is right to have concluded that that arrangement is not delivering all that we want, and the recent evidence in the Public Accounts Committee report sets that out very clearly. It is therefore right to move to the inspectorate, and I warmly support it.
The reason I have raised what seems an arcane and technical point is this. I have taken on board what the Minister has said, but I want to amplify why I think it is right. One problem with the old inspectorate was that it tended to be a bit of an old boys’ club for retired senior officers. Almost invariably, the inspectors and the assistant and acting inspectors came from a very narrow group of retired senior officers, and there was a bit of a revolving door. There were therefore real questions about the inspectorate being up to the minute in its knowledge and about the degree of independence that it would bring. An inspector can have to say pretty hard things to a chief officer and his management team, and that is not too easy if someone has come fairly recently from within the ranks of a fairly close-knit service.
That is why there should, where appropriate, be greater flexibility to bring in a contractor with expertise in the appropriate fields. That may not be for the whole of an inspection, but it could be for a specific part. The obvious example is in relation to financial matters, but this would also work in relation to things such as the assurance of operational resilience, because there is now expertise in the private sector, as well as in the public sector, that can appropriately be brought to bear.
James Cleverly
In the new environment where we are encouraging greater collaboration between the blue-light services, might the fire inspectorate not also want to lean on senior members of the other uniformed blue-light services to add their expertise and to support the inspectorate as part of this multi-agency working?
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is also the former chair of a London fire and emergency planning authority, and he makes an important point. All of us who have taken an interest in fire services over the years favour greater collaboration between the blue-light services, and I know that that is where the Minister wants to go. We all want a formula that will achieve that, but my concern is that the current wording of the Bill might make that harder, although I have absolutely no doubt that that is not the intention of Ministers. The reason I raise this concern is that, as it reads, proposed new subsection (A5), which will be placed in section 28 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, does not seem to cover the use of contractors.
Mike Penning
I will look very carefully at this issue during the Bill’s passage from this House, should it get a Third Reading this evening, to the Lords. If I need to clarify the position, I will do so by means of a Government amendment in the Lords.
Robert Neill
I am immensely grateful to the Minister for that. That shortens greatly what I have to say. To fortify my right hon. Friend in what he says, let me say that the Public Accounts Committee found evidence that the Chief Fire Officers Association and the Local Government Association did not regard the peer review process as an adequate self-improvement tool. If he is happy to continue to talk to those with an interest in the sector and to deal with what might be an unintended lacuna, I and many others who wish him well in this endeavour, and who wish the fire and rescue services well, will be very happy to work with him to achieve that objective.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
New clause 12, which stands in my name, would amend section 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It would scrap the distressing rules that provide that dementia sufferers who die in care homes while subject to a deprivation of liberty safeguard are classed as being in state detention.
I first took this issue up after being contacted by families who told me of their distress at having to wait to bury their loved ones because inquests are required into the deaths of dementia sufferers who are subject to a DoLS, irrespective of the circumstances of their death.
Councils were inundated with DoLS applications from care homes after a Supreme Court ruling in 2014, which effectively lowered the threshold for what constitutes deprivation of liberty in care. Guidance issued by the Chief Coroner to local coroners following the Supreme Court judgment said that all persons who died subject to a DoLS order must be the subject of a coroner’s investigation, whether or not their death was from natural causes, because such persons are deemed for the purposes of the 2009 Act to be in state detention.
The new clause was suggested by the Chief Coroner himself in response to, and in recognition of, the distress caused to relatives. The Chief Coroner indicated to the Law Commission and the Government that a simple amendment to the 2009 Act might solve the problem of unnecessary cases being reported to the coroner, at least in the short term. The amendment proposed by the Chief Coroner said:
“For the purposes of this Act, a person who dies while subject to an authorisation granted under Schedule A1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 depriving that person of his or her liberty and detaining him or her in a hospital or care home does not die while in custody or otherwise in state detention.”
Constituents have contacted me, including one woman who wrote after her mother died in a nursing home. She told me:
“My mum suffered from dementia and other health problems and we sat with her for four days and nights before she passed away. Within one hour of her death, uniformed police arrived and we were asked to leave the room.”
Oral Answers to Questions
Robert Neill Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s personal commitment to this issue is very clear from his excellent interview in Inside Time, which a lot of us read. Does he accept that, as well as provider quality, one of the biggest obstacles is the fact that in the current prison estate prisoners are locked up for great lengths of time, as the physical facilities needed are not there? That makes it difficult to achieve anything on this. Will he assure us that this issue will be integral to the prison renewal programme and the new estate and new properties coming forward?
Michael Gove
The Chair of the Justice Committee is absolutely right, as is the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), to point out that it is simply not good enough that prisoners are in their cells for up to 22 or 23 hours at a time. Time out of cell is a key indicator of how effectively a prison is run—it is not the only one, but it is really important. My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to point out that when we think about new prison design we should concentrate on the time out of cell. I was privileged to visit a prison just outside Berlin where prisoners spend far longer out of their cells, either at work or in education, than in most institutions in this country. We can learn a great deal from the Germans.
Mike Penning
I believe the whole House would think that restorative justice, and victims’ involvement in it, is crucial. That will be part of the victims’ law proposals that we will come forward with in this Parliament.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
May I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to early publication of the report on counter-radicalisation policy within prisons? He will understand the significance of this issue, and the Justice Committee is carrying out an inquiry into prisoner safety as part of that. Will he and his ministerial team come to update us on progress on that report?
Michael Gove
I would be delighted to do that. The Chairman of the Select Committee’s question gives me an opportunity to confirm that we will be publishing the report in a suitably edited form, because it contains some material that cannot be shared in the public domain as it relates to sensitive security issues. I would, however, be delighted to accept an invitation from the Select Committee to talk to it, both about the problems that have been identified and the steps we need to take. I know how much the Committee wants to ensure that appropriate steps are taken, and I look forward to appearing before it as soon as is possible.
Court Closures
Robert Neill Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate. We have already heard powerful speeches on the subject. Let me say at once that I do not rise specifically to raise any constituency points, because the excellent magistrates court in Bromley continues in operation and is busy. I am concerned, however, as Chairman of the Justice Committee; the matter of closures has been raised in our discussions in this and the previous Parliament on a number of occasions. Although we are not dealing with a specific inquiry into the matter, it raises its head when we look at other important issues.
In fairness to the Minister, who I have always found to be a model of courtesy and openness in his dealings with me and the Select Committee, I must say that a balance has to be struck. Court closures have gone on through most of my life, first as a practising lawyer and then as a Member of Parliament. I cut my teeth as a young barrister going to courts in Essex villages, such as Castle Hedingham, Halstead and places of that kind, which sat perhaps once a month. They are now gone. I cannot say that at the end of the day the quality of justice was permanently and wholly undermined by those closures.
Robert Neill
Let me just make my point. We need a sense of balance. I think the hon. Gentleman is about to make that point, and he might well say some things later on with which I shall agree.
Albert Owen
I am certain that that will be the case. The hon. Gentleman is right that there was a big review of courts and some court closures in the last Parliament. At that time, only a few years ago, the Government told us that the remaining courts were needed in the community. Nothing has changed. It is just the Government’s attitude that has changed; when it comes to local justice, nothing has changed at all.
Robert Neill
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, particularly in respect of rural areas. In fairness, though, there were court closure programmes under Labour Governments just as much as there were under Conservative Governments, so it is not an issue over which any one party can claim advantage. The hon. Gentleman made a very fair point about access to justice, but it is not the case that one particular party is more or less committed to it. The issue is how to balance what is largely a centrally funded service with local needs. That is what we need to deal with, and it has been raised as an issue in the Justice Committee.
It is fair to acknowledge that the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was quite right when she referred to the comments of Lord Bingham of Cornhill. I have often thought that his book, “The Rule of Law”, should be made compulsory reading for Members of both Houses, not least because, although written by a distinguished lawyer, it is remarkably concise. It is worth bearing in mind that the common law doctrine of accessibility, to which the hon. Lady referred, grew up at a time when there were far fewer courts, distances between them were much greater, public transport was virtually non-existent and journeys took much longer. Everything has to be put into context; it is not a matter of absolutes; it is all about getting the balance right, as some hon. Members have said.
I repeat that there were court closures under Labour Governments, and the most recent set of closures occurred during the Parliament of 2010 to 2015. The Justice Committee was interested in the effect, because part of the argument has been the need at a time of pressure on the public finances to get maximum value for money. That is understandable, as is the fact that there has been a decline in the use of courts, particularly magistrates courts, because of the reduction in crime. I am told that use across the magistrates courts estate decreased by something in the order of 43% during that previous Parliament. That is not the whole picture, but it is fair to put it into the balance. I remember some magistrates courts being in poor condition—old, ill equipped and without the facilities to deal with the necessary separation of witnesses, victims and legal advisers, to which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) referred. So not all closures are bad. There has to be a process of renewal and, sometimes, of consolidation.
Robert Neill
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but I will not go into individual cases, because that is not the job that the Select Committee has sought to take on.
In October 2015, following the 2010 to 2014 closure programme—the court estate reform programme, as it was described—during the previous Parliament, the Committee took evidence from Natalie Ceeney, chief executive of HM Courts and Tribunals Service. We asked, in particular, what progress had been made—[Interruption.] I hope that that is not my clerk or someone ringing me up. I think it is worse when it happens in court, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can only apologise.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Let me say, for the avoidance of doubt, that it is worse when it happens here. For the moment, however, we will ignore it, and allow the hon. Gentleman to continue his excellent speech.
Robert Neill
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The honest truth is that it is worse anyway.
As I was saying, we wanted to know what progress had been made in the selling off of the courts that had been closed as part of the 2010 to 2014 programme. We were told that, as of 23 October last year, 10 court buildings remained unsold. It would be helpful if the Minister could update us. If courts are to be closed, it is important for them to be disposed of in a timely manner, given that one of the prime arguments for closures is the need to secure economies and value for money. There is certainly no virtue in continuing to spend money on mothballing unused buildings.
I agree with other Members that the issue of physical proximity and journey times is not unique to rural areas. When the last Labour Government were conducting court closure and amalgamation programmes in London, I made the point, as a London Assembly Member, that a journey in peak time from south-east London to, say, Wells Street—where a great deal of family court work was, at the time, being centralised—was likely to take an hour or an hour and a half, and that, if care or family cases were involved, that would impose an onerous and probably unfair burden on people who were in a difficult, perhaps vulnerable, state. Such issues do apply to urban areas as well.
The issue of longer travel times has been raised with the Committee, particularly in the context of our current inquiry into the role of the magistracy. There is a balance to be struck between the efficiency of the system and the localness of justice. Earlier this week we took evidence from the National Bench Chairmen’s Forum, which does what it says: it is the body representing the chairs of benches. The forum expressed concern about the issue. Interestingly, a representative of one of the benches in north Wales made exactly the same point as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) about the difficulty of getting mobile and other coverage in very rural areas. In fairness, it was not suggested that the problem was insuperable, but the point was made that if courts were to be amalgamated in such areas, it was important to get the technology right and in place first.
The magistrates expressed a fear—not only in oral evidence but in written evidence, which is available on the Committee’s website—that courts would inevitably be concentrated in more urban areas, that there would inevitably be a temptation for magistrates to be drawn from areas in the immediate proximity of the courts, and that rural areas would consequently be under-represented areas on the benches. I think that that is an important and legitimate point. It was also pointed out to us that larger benches—and some benches now contain up to 1,000 magistrates, or thereabouts—placed much greater burdens on the chairs of those benches. It was suggested that we should think about what support could be given to those chairing very large benches with considerable workloads in administrative matters that were not previously envisaged. Again, I do not think that the problem is insuperable, but we must ensure that that support is provided.
On the basis of the evidence that we heard, it is fair to say that members of the senior judiciary are much more positive about the opportunities that arise from the use of digital and other modern technology, and consider that it can alleviate some of the pressures that arise from court processes. On 23 February, the Lord Chief Justice gave evidence to us about digitisation in the courts service. He praised the approach taken by HM Courts and Tribunals in building its digital case system unit by unit rather than on a monolithic single contract—and I think it right to give praise where it is due—but he was also alert to the need to deal with digital exclusion.
The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, while recognising that there was much value to be gained from the use of IT to overcome some of the access-to-court issues, also made the point—with which I think we would all agree—that the Government’s track record on IT projects was “not exactly shining”. Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division, said that a digitised divorce service would provide real opportunities to reduce the burdens on people at a difficult time in their lives, but he was “disappointed” by the lack of progress so far. The Senior President of Tribunals, Sir Ernest Ryder, had “reservations” about the Department’s capacity to deliver the modernisation programme, and that is a point that I particularly wanted to make today.
I think it worries many of us that, while a number of fairly senior practitioners in the field say that they have no problem with the modernisation programme and— in some instances—accept the rationale for estates rationalisation, a greater move towards digitisation, the use of video conferencing and so on, there is doubt about whether either the Ministry of Justice or HM Courts and Tribunals Service has the necessary technical and professional capacity to deliver on those issues. That concerns me as much in relation to the estates disposal programme as in relation to the digitisation programme.
There is now a very good family law centre in east London, which is part of the combined family court that we now have at Canary Wharf. It opened in December 2014 and is working well, but its opening was delayed. It was apparent to us that the delay was partly due to the fact that the estate managers who were dealing with the project on behalf of the Government, in house, had spent the better part of a year pursuing a site in the Canary Wharf area that was never realistically going to be available at an acceptable rent or on acceptable terms. The commercial property operators with whom they were dealing were understandably running rings around them.
Government Departments and agencies often do not have the level of direct commercial expertise in tough, hard money negotiations that they need if they are to deliver the courts rationalisation, disposal and, subsequently, renewal programme. I hope that the Minister will tell us what is being done to strengthen the technical, managerial and professional expertise that is available to the Government. I hope he will also concede that the process need not be carried out in house, and that, in some circumstances, it is very proper to buy in specialist advice from the legal and property sector to ensure that the Government get the best possible deal and the changes are made in a timely manner.
The Magistrates Association and the judiciary have drawn our attention to the possibility of overcoming some of the pressures caused by a loss of local connection, which are of legitimate and genuine concern, by using satellite courts to hear cases that may require less security than those that are heard at a main magistrates court. It might be possible to use a public building, closer to the locality where the offence had been committed. I can think of circumstances in which it would not be too difficult to make use of, say, a town hall or a civic centre. Intelligent listing can be done now that more digital listing is being used, and it could be used in cases that were unlikely to have custody requirements or a large number of witnesses. In cases involving a summary-only offence and in which the witnesses were likely to be local, it should be possible, with sensible management and support for the bench, to get magistrates from that locality to hear the case. We ought to explore more ways of doing that.
We have also suggested to magistrates and to the bench forums that we should look at some of the existing learning in the local government world. Some of the issues that confront magistrates servicing rural petty sessional divisions are not dissimilar to those confronting district councillors in rural areas. Some local authorities have done significant work on online decision making and on finding ways of setting up delegated local area committees. Those would not be dissimilar to the satellite courts that I have mentioned. There is experience in other areas that the judicial world could learn from, and I urge the Minister to encourage his Department as well as those in the judiciary and the magistrates to take that on board. This applies to the legal profession as well. The Committee has received the representations that other Members have referred to, and there is scope for sensible co-working between lawyers on some of these issues.
I am grateful for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, I hope, for your forgiveness. I hope that when the Minister replies to this important debate he will be able to respond to these points, which have struck a chord across the board among members of the Select Committee.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), and I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate. I am pleased to speak in it, and I wish to speak up for the principle of local justice and the vital importance of the courthouse in Stockport for my constituents. I welcome last month’s decision by the Ministry of Justice to keep the Stockport courthouse open, particularly in the wake of my campaign with the Ministry of Justice and having had many productive conversations with the Minister.
As many hon. Members have said, a key principle of our justice system, one that underpins both the magistrates courts and Crown courts, is that justice should be delivered by one’s peers. By extension, that gives rise to the requirement for local justice to be administered by local people within the local area. Those principles have given rise to the patchwork of jurisdictions and local courts that make up the current structure of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. Those principles, under the current courts system, also give rise to the important practical benefits that help to deliver justice effectively. They provide a shorter distance to travel for the relevant parties in cases, including defendants, victims, and witnesses, many of whom are often accompanied by their families and friends to court, and for the magistrates, clerks and staff of the court. They also give rise to smaller benches having a local identity and a social or team aspect. Finally, the distribution of courts not only contributes to local communities, but serves as a catalyst to small micro-economies—we heard about the pies and pasties in Wakefield—and associated services, as well as to the legal professions that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned.
Out of respect for those principles and practical benefits, I also opposed the proposed merger of the local justice area of Greater Manchester, which was considered in a public consultation by the Ministry of Justice at a similar time to the one on courthouses. I made the separate case to the Ministry that in the event of any changes to that local justice area, not all the business of any new merged LJA should be conducted in the Manchester city courts, but rather a significant proportion should still be conducted in courts across Greater Manchester, including that in Stockport.
I made the case some months ago to the Ministry of Justice to urge that Stockport’s court should remain open and retain at least a significant proportion of its current magistrates court and county court functions. Stockport court has 47 staff and was running at only 54% capacity in 2014, with annual running costs of £879,000. Please allow me to explain why I felt the way I did. The first reason was that those impacted by the proposed closure would be the court users, including victims and witnesses in the magistrates courts, and those involved in small claims, bankruptcy and evictions in the county court. All those are groups of vulnerable people who need the security and convenience of local services, at what is an already stressful time for them. The closure of Stockport courthouse could have severely restricted access to justice and may have ended up being a false economy by simply shifting the operating costs to other areas.
Robert Neill
I am glad to hear my hon. Friend mention that Stockport court is not to be closed. That was particularly welcomed by members of our Committee, because it also houses a very successful problem-solving court, which has been recognised by the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor as one area where we could do much more to combine jurisdictions and get a much more effective use of judicial capacity and better outcomes.
William Wragg
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He raises an important point about the innovative work being carried out in the Stockport courthouse building, and I am grateful to him for drawing that to the House’s attention. The closure of the court would have left the town without a court and would have meant that my constituents would have had to travel to Manchester in the quest for justice. That would not only have seen them incurring additional expense, but it would have had potentially negative impacts on vulnerable people, and disabled people in particular. Any such closure could also increase the amount of defendants not turning up for hearings, thus wasting the resources of the court and meaning that more arrest warrants would be issued, with consequential impacts on police resources.
Moreover, from a local economic perspective, if the closure had gone ahead in its proposed form, all cases would have been heard in Manchester and there would no longer have been a magistrates court between Chesterfield and Manchester. The Chesterfield and Stockport case was something my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) mentioned. In addition, the closure of the Stockport court would have had an impact on not only the employees of the courthouse, but local businesses, particularly those in the legal profession.
I understand that in the context of the wider pressures on public finances some savings have to be made somewhere, and I acknowledge that the Minister has a very unenviable task in the difficult decision he is facing. I also have sympathy for other local courts in surrounding areas, many of which can equally apply these same arguments. Other local communities have strong allegiances to their local courts, and I am particularly sorry to hear that the courts at Bury, Oldham and Trafford are earmarked for closure. However, I think there was a stronger case in Stockport’s favour, in particular, because it is one of the most heavily used courts in the area. The stated aim of the reforms to the HMCTS estate is to reduce surplus capacity by closing courts that are unused or underused, or that are simply unsuitable for the services that we now need to provide in them. During the 2014-15 financial year, Stockport magistrates court was utilised at approximately 54% of its capacity—that was the highest level of occupancy of any of the Greater Manchester courts. In addition, Stockport courthouse is a high-quality building, only recently having been refurbished in 2010. I therefore cannot see how the closure of Stockport magistrates court could reasonably have been deemed as a cost-saving exercise.
The Government announcement that Stockport court will now not be closed is good news for people living in Stockport and the surrounding areas, including my constituency. I made a submission to the Ministry of Justice as part of the consultation process, and also attended meetings with the Minister, along with my neighbouring MP, the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), to whom I pay particular tribute for the amount of work that she did, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson). I am pleased that we were able to take this cross-party approach and work co-operatively with one another. I am pleased that our arguments were listened to by the Government, in what I felt—I know others may disagree—was a genuine consultation exercise, particularly given the Minister’s intervention in that process.
In summary, I feel that Stockport courthouse should remain open, and I am pleased that my view has been vindicated. Such a decision is important in order to preserve the long-standing principle of local justice being administered by local people within the local area; to provide practical benefits for both the parties in legal cases and the court staff; and to ensure that the court can continue to contribute to the local community and economy. It is also important because the court currently provides a relatively high level of occupancy compared with that of many other courts in Greater Manchester and surrounding districts.
I further urge that the continued operation of Stockport courthouse be incorporated into whichever future model of local justice area structure for Greater Manchester the Ministry of Justice decides to pursue. Can the Minister shed any further light on that matter today? I also welcome the fact that, as part of this reform package, the Government are investing more than £700 million over the next four years to update the court and tribunal estate, installing modern IT systems and making the justice system more efficient and effective for modern users.
As I said earlier, I have sympathy for other local courts in surrounding areas and other areas around the country, and I am glad that many colleagues have been here today to stand up for their local courts. Perhaps somewhat cheekily, may I say that in a week characterised by a refreshingly open attitude on the part of the Government to showing their listening mode, I hope that the Minister will be able to hear some of the important pleas of other right hon. and hon. Members here this afternoon?
Mr Vara
There comes a point when we have to start taking decisions and agree to disagree. This whole programme started before last year’s summer recess, and we had a lengthy consultation period. I have had numerous debates and met more people in the House than I can remember. There has been a huge dialogue, but there must be some recognition that we have listened and made changes in a huge number of cases. That may not be the case in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but I am afraid we must agree to disagree.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) raised concerns about the effectiveness of the administration process that will see this programme through. I will be keeping a sharp eye on proceedings, and if he has any concerns about his local area, I will be more than happy to try to arrange a meeting with senior people at local level, so that he has the comfort he wants.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) spoke of the wonderful work that magistrates do in our courts. I can only echo those comments and say that many magistrates recognise the need for reform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) spoke about the very useful work of the Justice Committee and brought his own expertise to the House. He also questioned the reliability of the IT projects we will be undertaking. I emphasise that we are taking a staged approach. We will not be putting all our eggs in one basket and we are bringing in expert advice from outside to assist us.
Robert Neill
Will the Minister also deal with the question I raised about what happened to the 10 courts closed under the previous programme that remain unsold? If he does not have that information to hand today, will he at least write and place it in the Library?
Mr Vara
What I can say is that the 10 has now been reduced to nine, and there are offers in place for some of the remaining courts. Others have had genuine difficulties because of joint occupation with other parties. We hope to transfer the remaining courts to the Homes and Communities Agency, which is dealt with by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) spoke about her personal experience. I was sorry, as I am sure were other colleagues, to hear about the assault that had taken place on her. I very much take on board the points she makes about domestic violence. I emphasise that we are improving the system by which witnesses and victims give evidence. At the moment, they have to go to court and go through a terrifying experience. With a video conferencing facility, they can go to a place that is closer to their home and in much more pleasant surroundings, rather than the awesome and austere environment of a court.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) for his comments confirming that this has been a genuine consultation. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made a very powerful speech, raising an important point about digital infrastructure. I take on board what he says. We will certainly be making sure that the infrastructure is in place to support the court reform programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke about low-level offences, such as TV licence offences. He sought assurances that perhaps they could be dealt with in courts that are closer to the area. Our thinking is that such low-level offences can probably be dealt with online where people plead guilty, which is the majority of cases.
The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd gave a very powerful speech, raising concerns about access to justice. I assure her that we are very mindful of rural areas and want to make sure we get this right. My constituency has a rural element to it, so I know where she is coming from.
Criminal Legal Aid
Robert Neill Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Vara
I welcomed the comments made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), although they were very brief. I must add, however, that his attempt to criticise what has been described as the Lord Chancellor’s sensible decision was opportunism, pure and simple. He obviously has a selective memory. I remind him that in 2009, when Jack Straw was Justice Secretary, he abandoned the criminal legal aid best value tendering scheme at a very late stage, just before the 2010 general election. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman’s grumbling to his boss at the time, and Jack Straw certainly does not recall hearing his voice. This needs to be put into proportion.
Let me now deal with the hon. Gentleman’s questions. When we embarked on the dual contract process, we had the support of the Law Society; the hon. Gentleman may wish to reflect on that. We have said that we will suspend the second fee cut for a year. We will then work with the professions, and will form a definite view in due course. As for the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, the hon. Gentleman knows only too well—because I have said it many times at the Dispatch Box—that a review will take place within three to five years. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is chuntering away, as he is wont to do on a regular basis. He says, “How much money?” He knows full well that all shades of Government, both Conservative and Labour, if they listen to people and feel that a decision needs to be changed, will make that change. Just as the Labour Government made decisions to change policies, we have made such a decision. I do not recall previous Governments wasting time and effort in trying to make calculations when they have made a change of direction.
Our decision has been welcomed by the profession, and we are pleased about that. We now want to look forward and move ahead.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The intelligent lawyer and the intelligent decision maker are alert to the dictum attributed to Keynes: “When my information changes, I change my conclusions.” Surely the Lord Chancellor should be commended rather than criticised for doing that on this occasion.
Will my hon. Friend give us some more details of the particularly welcome initiative to involve the professions themselves through the proposed advisory council?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Lord Chancellor should be commended. Mark Fenhalls, QC, the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said yesterday:
“It takes courage to make such decisions.”
Perhaps the hon. Member for Hammersmith will reflect on that sentiment.
The Lord Chancellor has his advisory board, and he will be working with the profession to ensure that as we progress further, the public will benefit, and the taxpayer who funds the legal aid budget will gain the maximum possible value.
Prisons and Probation
Robert Neill Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure and a privilege to speak in this very important debate. I recognise the serious tone that has been adopted by hon. Members thus far.
I particularly commend the Lord Chancellor for his immensely impressive analysis. He was spot on both about the cause of offending and about the way forward. I commend his analysis to my hon. Friends not just as thorough and thoughtful, but, from my point of view, as profoundly Conservative. As he rightly observed, none of us has a monopoly on understanding the need for prison reform.
The issues are intractable. When I started to make prison visits as a young barrister some 30—nearer 40—years ago, institutions or facilities such as Wandsworth, Holloway and Wormwood Scrubs were already unsatisfactory and not fit for purpose. They have not got better since, and the pressures have become greater. The pressures of overcrowding and of contraband entering prisons existed then—contraband has long been an issue; what has changed is simply the nature of the technology of the contraband and the means by which it is brought in—so these are long-standing issues.
The Lord Chancellor and his team deserve credit for addressing such issues, and particularly for having the imagination to replace our ageing Victorian prison estate when it is virtually impossible to carry out serious rehabilitative work, and given that dealing with the very real mental health and psychological issues of many prisoners is and should also be a top priority. Now that he has set out a vision, I hope that the Lord Chancellor will very swiftly give the House detailed proposals on how we can move forward.
The Justice Committee is currently carrying out an inquiry concentrating on young adult offenders, which is a particularly difficult subset of the prison population. The inquiry is influenced by the excellent review by Lord Harris of Haringey; in fairness, I should say that his work was done at the request of the previous Lord Chancellor in the coalition Government. The Government have responded to Lord Harris’s review, but I would argue that its detail—it goes beyond purely the specifics of young offenders to draw many other lessons—deserves a more detailed and substantive response than has been made so far. Much that is of general application can be taken from the review.
Safety in prisons is a critical issue. I do not doubt the quality of our prison staff. In the course of our inquiry, the Select Committee has visited Holloway prison and the young offenders institution at Aylesbury, where excellent people are working. My concern is that the senior management of NOMS do not always give the impression that, in their operations on the ground, they have worked through in practice the assurances they have given us in the Select Committee or elsewhere. It is important that NOMS has a genuinely flexible and responsive management system. There is scope for further review of the way in which NOMS delivers its laudable objectives in practice. I am sure that the new chief inspector, whom we look forward to having back before the Select Committee in about three months’ time, will have a strategy on that matter that he will want to discuss with the Lord Chancellor.
The Select Committee was particularly struck during the inquiry by the evidence we took from the families of young people who had died in custody. It was profoundly moving and demonstrated that there have been repeated and needless failings in some areas, such as sharing information and acting swiftly and decisively on information that could have been addressed. Those things can be put right through fairly basic measures.
There are successes and failings in the prison estate, but neither the successes nor the failings are unique to either privatised or publicly run prisons. We need to be realistic and not simplistic about that. We welcome the evidence that the prisons Minister and the chief executive of NOMS have given to us, but we think that there needs to be a specific programme, with action plans, to tackle violence and self-harm in prisons. I agree that there must certainly be more of an emphasis on rehabilitation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) was right to refer to the pointlessness of continuing with the so-called indeterminate public protection sentences. Yesterday, I was at the same event as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), where that point, among others, was made powerfully. We could start work on that swiftly.
We should recognise that a structured life and meaningful work are important in prison. Perhaps we should see whether we can remove some of the legal constraints that prevent meaningful and paid employment. Perhaps it would be right for prisoners to do work that is taxable. The money that they earned could be set aside for them and their families upon release. The Lord Chancellor’s vision points in that direction and I hope that he will give us more detail on how that might be achieved.
Finally, it is important that we have a robust inspectorate to ensure compliance. I wish the new inspector well. I hope that the protocol that was referred to when the permanent secretary and the outgoing chief inspector gave evidence to us recently will be put in place swiftly to ensure that resourcing and independence are not an issue in the ability of the inspectorate to deliver its important work.
All in all, this is an important and thoughtful debate. Those who believe in genuine reform and not in simplistic sloganising, and those who have spent much of their working lives in the system will welcome it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Robert Neill Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
One important area in which both service can be enhanced and value for money achieved is through greater efficiency both in the courts estate and the courts system. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Ministry has sufficient in-house capacity to deal adequately with major issues such as court restructuring, where negotiations have to take place at high commercial contractual levels, or will he bring in outside expertise where necessary?
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have already explained some of the back-office savings that we are making not only to deliver better value to the taxpayer but to find the savings to reinvest. He is right to say that, where we need to engage with the private sector—or the voluntary sector for that matter—to take advantage of their ingenuity and innovation, we will do so.