Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

The Minister is right to emphasise the importance of bearing down on these dreadful offences. Has he seen the research published this week in the Criminal Law Review based on the largest ever dataset of Crown court cases, which suggests that convictions for rape have risen markedly since 2018 and now stand at 75%, against an increase in charging as well, and that the conviction rate for rape and serious sexual offences is now higher than for other offences of violence against the person? That is important information. That work was carried out by Professor Cheryl Thomas, who is regarded as the leading academic expert on juries, using the largest ever dataset. Does the Minister agree that we should take that into account when we consider how best to take forward our policies to bear down on these serious offences—using up-to-date information to adjust our policies?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I confess that while I am aware of the Criminal Law Review article, I have yet to read it in full. I will certainly do so, given his strong recommendation. He is right to highlight what it says, which is that significant progress has been made, and that it is important to base our debates on this hugely emotive and important subject on evidence. A lot has been achieved, but there is still more to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

I am meeting the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) tomorrow to discuss this issue, and I am about to be briefed on the announcement that the Crown Prosecution Service made over the weekend on this subject. I will, of course, make sure that the hon. Gentleman is kept informed.

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

The Secretary of State will know the importance of good, reliable data in driving justice policy and will recognise the work done by the Legal Education Foundation and its director Dr Natalie Byrom in this regard. Will he welcome its establishment of Justice Lab, a new dedicated research centre in this field, which is being launched in Dining Room A in this House tomorrow?

[Dominic Raab]

As always, the Chair of the Justice Committee draws our attention to critical developments in the criminal justice system. Data and that initiative are incredibly important. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) will attend the event in the House of Commons, so he will laud that even further and at more length.

Probation Service: Chief Inspector’s Reviews into Serious Further Offences

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

May I thank the Minister for his statement, for his courtesy in letting me know about it, for the tone he has adopted and for his swift action in relation to these dreadful and appalling cases? Perhaps the House will permit me to say that this is particularly frustrating for me, because in the Justice Committee’s April 2021 report on the future of probation we listed a number of risks, including failures of information sharing, over-reliance on inexperienced and overworked officers, risks around transition with the policy of reuniting the service—that policy is absolutely correct, but those risks were there—and concerns about the quality of reports made available to the courts and of information available to sentencers and for monitoring. All those risks were being set out then, and sadly the service did not act on them.

In light of that, as well as the steps that the Minister has taken, will he consider these things? Will he strengthen the abilities and resources of His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation to enable it to follow up on its recommendations in the same way as the resources of His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons were increased to have dedicated follow-up teams to ensure that recommendations are swiftly acted on? Secondly, will the Minister make a special point of looking at a comprehensive workforce strategy for probation to ensure not only that we retain experienced officers, but that those who are recruited into this worthwhile and rewarding role are given support and training? Finally, will he also look to move away from the practice of having meetings between probation officers and clients by video? That was understandable during the pandemic, but it cannot be acceptable now, and it is one of the failings highlighted in this case.

[Damian Hinds]

I take seriously everything that the Chair of the Select Committee says, and we welcome the scrutiny of the Committee and the expertise that its members bring. I will look carefully at everything he has just said. Let me just make a couple of comments, if I may. First, the follow-up of recommendations obviously is important. Internally, HM Prison and Probation Service auditors will review the delivery of quality improvement plans, particularly in those areas. That goes beyond these two appalling cases to more generally where we know there have been problems that need to be addressed. I accept what he says about recommendations made in the past, but I reassure him that many of the things I have mentioned today are not things we are just committing to today, things that we say we will do in the future; these are things that are already happening and have been happening between these cases and today, or have been happening in the past few months.

Prison Capacity

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

The Minister is right, of course, to take this urgent action, and to say that this is not the first time it has had to be done. Does he recognise that two factors are at play here? One is the underlying upward trend in prisoner numbers over the past couple of decades. Those numbers have risen exponentially, and perhaps there is a case for us to look again at whether it is appropriate to be holding non-violent offenders in custody, as opposed to the dangerous people who we do need to lock up. Secondly, the Minister refers to the levels of investment in maintenance, but as he will know, the Justice Committee has more than once pointed out that even with increased spending on maintenance, there is still a significant backlog and shortfall in the maintenance budget. Many prison cells are therefore out of commission and not usable, when they ought to be brought back into use. What is being done to accelerate the maintenance programme to get more cells back into use?

[Damian Hinds]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for those important questions and points. He is right that the prison population has been growing of late, although it is not at its highest level ever. Part of that is because of tougher sentences for the worst offences, which I think is right and what the public expect and want. For other types of crime, it is important that we utilise alternatives to custodial sentences—for instance, drug desistance and advanced tagging, which is much improved—which can, on occasion, be better for getting certain individuals back on the straight and narrow.

My hon. Friend also rightly asked about maintenance, and accelerated maintenance. In fact, that is precisely what we have done. Two and a half times as many cells are currently undergoing capital works than would ordinarily be the case, precisely because we have brought forward some capital work to improve the estate. We are indeed planning for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Sir Robert Neill.

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

The Minister is of course right to say that we need to modernise and improve IT systems and replace the legacy systems, but will he sit down and talk in some detail with users of the system, both judges and practitioners? For example, a platform that is unable to record whether a case concludes in a guilty plea will not be very much help in tracking the progress of cases or improving listing at a time when we have massive backlogs. Practical changes are surely what is needed.

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am always happy to speak to staff groups and my legal friends in the justice system to iron out any particular issues, but the roll-out of the Common Platform needs to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

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

In 2018, HM Inspectorate of Prisons issued an urgent notification document setting out serious failings at HM Prison Exeter. Last week, the inspectorate, for the first time ever, issued a second consecutive notification about the same prison. I am grateful to the Minister of State for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of it, but will he look urgently at why the failings were not picked up in the four years in between?

[Damian Hinds]

I will indeed. I take this extremely seriously, as my hon. Friend knows. This is the first time that we have had two consecutive urgent notifications about the same prison. The Department will come forward with a full action plan within 28 days. As he rightly says, this is a very serious matter.

Human Rights Legislation Reform

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, and to have the opportunity to debate this important petition.

I will start from the basic principle that the Government and the Conservative party have always been firmly committed to our adherence to the European convention on human rights. For some of us, that is absolutely non-negotiable and fundamental, and rightly so because historically it has been a largely British-driven instrument. British common law traditions have actually greatly developed both the convention itself and the development of the Strasbourg Court’s jurisprudence.

It is worth bearing in mind that, as the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) alluded to, one of the principal authors of the European convention on human rights, the late Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, later Lord Kilmuir, was, at the time, a Conservative Member of Parliament, had been a prosecutor in the Nuremburg trials and later served as a Conservative Lord Chancellor. Conservative respect for human rights is actually very deep-rooted and, for many years, the UK was a diligent member of the convention, without having the Human Rights Act in domestic legislation. It was sensible to have an Act that enabled the remedies available under the convention to be sought in the domestic courts, rather than having to go directly to Strasbourg. That was the purpose of the Human Rights Act when it was introduced. It is not essential in terms of our commitment to human rights to have a statute in domestic law, but it is certainly convenient and greatly helps many British citizens in the assertion of their convention rights. I think it is right that we keep it, but does that mean it should not be reformed? Of course not. Any legislation has space for reform and improvement and that was the commitment in the 2019 Conservative party manifesto, the manifesto on which this Government were elected. I am happy to support that.

It was consistent with that manifesto commitment that the then Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), commissioned an independent review of the operation of the Act with a view to modernising and updating it. That was the manifesto commitment—no less, but also no more. In consequence, Sir Peter Gross KC, a distinguished former Lord Justice of Appeal, headed up an independent review panel, which took extensive evidence—over 180 submissions plus roadshows around the whole UK—and produced a detailed report. Subsequently, Sir Peter gave compelling evidence in support of his report to the Justice Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and to, I think, the Constitution Committee of the other place.

If there is to be reform, I suggest that Sir Peter’s balanced report is the appropriate template. It touches upon a number of practical changes that could be made. For example, the ambiguity that his panel concluded exists around the hierarchy of rights—the prioritisation of rights—under section 2 of the current Act. Strengthening the means of dealing with the margin of appreciation—that is the way in which there is a degree of flexibility—is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. According to this principle, each member state of the convention has some flexibility in the way it interprets the rights and the enforcement of judgments and decisions according to their own domestic legal traditions. Developing the concept of judicial dialogue was started again and brought to its current form by Lord Clarke when he was Lord Chancellor, and then developed in the Brighton declaration and subsequently by the Copenhagen declaration. That is a constructive means of developing jurisprudence within the member states. Further recommendations include tackling one or two other thorny practical issues around remedial orders and in relation to extraterritoriality, which is a real issue. Sir Peter posits various alternative ways, but, ultimately, these Houses, as a legislature, would have to decide upon them. Those would be practical improvements and reforms.

I was surprised when, after Sir Peter delivered the report, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) produced a consultation document that went rather beyond the party’s manifesto and then introduced a Bill of Rights that, again, went rather beyond the manifesto and Sir Peter’s panel’s recommendations. Without reciting the history, in September, as has been observed, the Lord Chancellor paused the passage of that legislation and wrote to the Justice Committee and other relevant Committees, notifying them that that was the position. The Lord Chancellor was right to do so. The Bill of Rights, which has had no more than its First Reading, went beyond the manifesto commitment; it also went beyond the sensible changes that I, as a Conservative, want to see, which would be consistent with the evidence that was available to Government. It would also needlessly undermine some of the practical workings of the convention rights for UK citizens.

That is not to say that there are not circumstances where either judgments in the Strasbourg Court or the application of convention rights by the domestic courts do not cause controversy or political sensitivity, if I can put it that way. However, for context, it is worth remembering that the number of instances in which the UK is in breach of its convention obligations is absolutely trivial. I was struck by that fact when I was a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, but also when looking at the evidence we have had most recently. The UK actually has one of the best records of compliance with our ECHR obligations of any of the member states.

The figures in the “Report to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Government’s response to human rights judgments 2020–2021” show that the number of adverse judgments has declined from 19 in 2011 to 4 in 2020. There has been a consistent downward trend. Similarly, the number of cases brought against the United Kingdom ongoing before the courts has declined from 2,500 odd in 2013 to 124. It is worth bearing in mind that many of those cases are now historic. They related either to certain elements of retention of evidence in terrorism cases that have now been dealt with or to the prisoner voting issue, in particular—of course, a minor amendment to the legislation resolved that issue and brought us into compliance with the convention. The outstanding issues, apart from those that hit the headlines around immigration and asylum and one or two other matters, are actually very minor.

When we look to change an important piece of legislation and at the strength of our commitment to our international obligation under the convention, it is worth bearing in mind that the issues are very limited and discrete. I therefore hope that we will leave the passage of the Bill paused and that the Government will reflect that, of all the issues confronting the Ministry of Justice, there may be other, rather more pressing issues that we should be dealing with. If we do move forward with reform, to which I would have no objection, I hope that we use the evidence-based approach that Sir Peter Gross and his panel set up for us. That, I argue, is the responsible and sensible way forward, and one that completely meets our manifesto commitments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

The Minister knows that the Justice Committee welcomed the Government’s acceptance of Sir Christopher Bellamy’s review, which relates to fees for both barristers and solicitors in criminal work. We all want barristers and solicitors to return to accepting instructions in all forms of case. The Minister will also remember that Sir Christopher’s review stated that the £135 million that is being paid, I grant in tranches, and subject to certain reforms, was

“the minimum necessary as the first step in nursing the system of criminal legal aid back to health after years of neglect”.

The “minimum necessary” first step. Will the Minister reassure practitioners of both professions that he accepts it is a first step, and that the Government are willing, able and ready to engage with the professions on the second step? Reassuring that good faith would make it easier to resolve the current impasse.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful, as ever, to the Chair of the Justice Committee. He may have seen that on Friday I published an article in the Law Society Gazette where I said that now that we have confirmed we will be legislating to deliver 15% increases to most criminal legal aid fee schemes by the end of September, I am keen that we move on to the next phase of reform. I am keen to engage with all parties, including the Criminal Bar Association, on how we can deliver that next stage. Everybody, including the CBA and the Bar Council, wanted this to be done in stages so that we could get in the initial increases as fast as possible, and that is what we are committed to.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I thank those who have worked to improve this Bill during its progress through both Houses. Without embarrassing him, I would single out my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who volunteered to lead on the courts part of this Bill—that is, most of it—before he had even finished with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. I would also mention the efforts of our colleagues in the other place, particularly my noble Friends Lord Ponsonby and Baroness Chapman and senior Cross Benchers, who are a large part of the reason why we are discussing successful Lords amendments today—all credit to them.

In the spirit of consensus that has been a feature of much of our proceedings, I thank the Minister and his team for at least listening and entertaining our views, even if we did not in the end see eye to eye, and for their significant concession in removing the presumption from clause 1. Since the Bill was first introduced, I have also been lucky enough to work with many individuals and organisations with particular expertise on the issues covered. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Public Law Project, Inquest, Justice, Liberty, the Bingham Centre, the Law Society and the Bar Council, but that list is not exhaustive.

The majority of amendments before the House today—Lords amendments 6 to 10 and 12 to 22—are Government amendments that amend part 2 of the Bill. For the avoidance of doubt, we do not oppose these. We had issues with part 2 of the Bill, but these were mainly procedural and are, I hope, open to correction in the light of experience. Our objections to part 1 are more fundamental, and we are grateful to the other place for highlighting these in Lords amendments 1 to 5. I will deal with these and then come on separately to Lords amendment 11.

First, by way of a little context, we see no purpose whatsoever in clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill, and it would be our preference to remove these clauses from the Bill entirely. Our attempts to do so in Committee were not successful, but our principal objections were reflected in the Lords amendments. Lords amendments 1 to 3, in the name of the noble Lord Marks, remove prospective-only quashing orders from the Bill.

One of the ways that the Government wish to change—they say improve—judicial review is to introduce a remedy that only rights a wrong for the future, without looking to compensate the complainant or those who have come before them. This has rightly been described as having a chilling effect on meritorious applications. It was not recommended by the independent review of administrative law that was supposed to found the basis of part 1 of the Bill. It does not, as the Government somewhat disingenuously claim, add to the armoury of the administrative court; it simply seeks to restrain its powers. That fact is given away by the clunking fist of the presumption in favour of prospective orders and of suspended orders, which clause 1 also sought to introduce. In a step bordering on the disrespectful, the Minister sought to tie the hands of the court in applying its discretionary powers, so I am delighted the Government have seen the light and do not today oppose Lords amendment 4, in the name of Lord Anderson. That extracts the worst of the sting in clause 1.

Lords amendment 5, in the name of Lord Etherton, was a pragmatic attempt to make sense of the Government’s proposal to abolish Cart judicial reviews in clause 2 of the Bill. It met both the Government’s complaint that these were too profligate and the real concerns of practitioners and others that errors of law would lead to human tragedies. It would also have mitigated the concerns about unnecessary and unwelcome employment of an ouster clause. Cart judicial review, as Members here know, is engaged when the High Court reviews a decision of the upper tribunal to refuse permission to appeal a decision of the first-tier tribunal.

Clause 2 abolishes this type of judicial review altogether, yet most cases that satisfy the threshold for Cart are compelling. In many examples, as we discussed in Committee, these are asylum or human rights cases—issues of mental health, special educational needs or entitlement to basic incomes and support needs—which have serious consequences for the claimants if errors of law have been made and are sometimes matters of life and death. Lords amendment 5 narrows the ambit of Cart so that in the majority of cases there is no onward right of appeal. The only exception would be where the case raises a point of law of general public importance. In that situation, the claimant could apply to have the case considered by the Supreme Court.

The amendment represents a compromise between the Government’s desire to save the cost of Cart judicial reviews and the need to preserve an essential judicial check against serious errors of law. All that has been argued in the other place, and votes won—albeit narrowly—on amendments 1 and 5. In discussions, the Government have conceded on the presumption. We accept that that is a significant concession, and we do not intend to press any votes on the Lords amendments clauses 1 and 2 today.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 11. Eleven days ago, on 15 April, we marked the 33rd anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy, where 97 people lost their lives at a football game. For 33 years the families of those who were lost have fought, and continue to fight, for justice. They faced cover-ups and fundamental failures of our legal system, which only prolonged their suffering. Many campaigners—prominent among them the Mayors of Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region, former colleagues of ours in this place—are asking for a comprehensive Hillsborough law, which we support. Lords amendment 11 addresses an important plank of the Hillsborough law, but it goes beyond that by providing equality of arms for all bereaved families at inquests and inquiries.

The amendment would require the Government to provide public funding for bereaved families where the state is represented. It is remarkable that, even with the cuts in legal aid that we have seen over the past 10 years, current rules do not provide that. This is an issue not just of access to justice, but of basic fairness. How can it be that state bodies have unlimited access to public funding for the best legal teams and experts, while families are often forced to pay large sums towards legal costs, or risk representing themselves or resorting to crowdfunding?

Five years have passed since Bishop James Jones delivered his report on the experience of the Hillsborough families. In that report, Bishop Jones made 25 recommendations, which included publicly funded legal representation for bereaved families. In May 2021, the Justice Committee recommended that for all inquests where public authorities are legally represented, non-means-tested legal aid or other public funding for legal representation should be available for people who have been bereaved. The inquiry by the all-party group on legal aid last year reached a similar view, and many voices are saying the same thing: it is time to level the playing field when state actors are represented in inquests.

The Government have acknowledged that there is more to do on this issue. They are minded to offer non-means-tested legal aid for early advice and representation where exceptional case funding is engaged. With respect, that is not enough. It would not help—to give only some examples—in the situations of families of those who suffer healthcare-related deaths in detention, self-inflicted deaths of voluntary patients in mental health settings, those under the direct care of a mental health trusts in the community, deaths in supported accommodation, or care settings where the person has been placed by a public body or local authority. It would not have helped Coco Rose Bradford, a six-year-old girl with autism who was taken to hospital in Cornwall and died unexpectedly on 31 July 2017. In January 2022, the inquest into her death concluded, finding it to be due to natural causes—something Coco’s family disputes. Coco’s mother, Rachel Bradford, told the inquest how she watched her daughter die in front of her, and how the hospital dismissed the family’s concerns, even though Coco was in glaringly obvious pain. Rachel gave evidence that Coco’s autism played a role in how she was treated by medical staff, and that the professionals wrongly viewed her as being unco-operative and non-compliant.

Members of the local community donated to contribute towards the family’s legal costs for the inquest. Coco’s mother said in a personal statement:

“Without our barrister offering to act pro bono at the inquest hearing we’re not sure what would have happened. It seems desperately unfair that we have had to crowdfund to cover our legal fees, and rely on our barrister waiving her charges, when the hospital’s legal team are paid for by our taxes.”

Cases such as those are daily injustices in our coroners courts. We can no longer ignore the voice of Bishop Jones or Rachel Bradford. I urge members of this House to retain Lords amendment 11 because it is the right thing to do. If the Bill passes without the inclusion of Lords amendment 11, we will miss another opportunity to ensure that fairness is at the heart of our legal system.

From the day this Bill was introduced, we have puzzled about why the Government were wasting time interfering with judicial processes that are designed to improve the quality of executive decisions, rather than tackling the record backlog of cases in our courts and protect the victims of crime. By supporting Lords amendment 11 the Government could make a small but significant step to improve the court system and the experience of bereaved families.

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

It is a pleasure to follow the Front-Bench speakers in this short but important debate. I welcome the Government’s stance on presumption and their acceptance of the amendment made in the Lords. It is worth remembering that Lord Faulks, who chaired the independent review that gave rise to all these proposals, took the view that no harm was done by removing that presumption, and that thereafter the discretionary power to have a prospective-only order that can be considered by the courts if it meets the interests of justice was, as I think he put it, an extra club in the bag of the judiciary. That is the whole point of it: it extends the remedial powers available. At the end of the day the presumption was not perhaps necessary, and the Government have taken a sensible and pragmatic stance on that. The principle of having that extra flexibility in the remedy is not objectionable, and I am glad the Opposition have not opposed it.

Some of the other changes made by the Government in the Lords are welcome. The ability to make payment for pro bono representation in a number of cases is welcome, and I am glad the Government have moved in that direction. Practitioners and the judiciary alike will welcome the changes to make online procedure rules easier and swifter to deal with, so those are practical changes.

Two issues then remain, including Cart appeals and litigation. I must respectfully differ with the shadow Minister and their lordships on that, and it is perhaps worth quoting what Lord Faulks said about it in the other place—after all, he examined this issue with probably more care than anyone. His stance was that the independent review into administrative law

“came to the firm conclusion that Cart ought to go. It did so carefully considering the fact that Parliament should be slow before reversing decisions of the Supreme Court.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 March 2022; Vol. 820, c. 1736.]

That was its view, having carefully considered the evidence, in adopting a cautious approach to such a change.

Cart was controversial at the time, and it remains controversial. Lord Carnwath, who has given evidence to the Justice Committee in the past, raised questions about the Cart appeal, with his specialist knowledge of the genesis of the upper tribunal. The general view of many is that, to quote a phrase used by Lord Hope in Committee, it was a “legal misstep”. There are, of course, a tiny number of successful cases, but those should be set against the very real burden that falls not on the Court of Appeal, where Lord Etherton— for whom I have great respect—served, but on the justice sitting in the Queen’s bench division. That is where the judicial pressure is, and we should look to remove something that many practitioners, and in private many members of the judiciary, regard as an unhelpful burden on them.

In immigration cases in particular, convention rights will be engaged, but they will have been engaged from the outset. By the time we get to the Cart appeal, they will have been argued and considered by the first-tier tribunal and by the upper tribunal which, as Lord Carnwath pointed out, was designed to be a superior court, and to have in effect the judicial weight and equivalence of the High Court. An anomaly arises from the Cart decision, and it is right and proportionate to remove it.

Rape and Sexual Violence

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

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

This is an appropriate day on which to have this important debate because as we celebrate International Women’s Day we also need to recognise the particular challenges and threats that women and girls sadly face in our society. We all want the experience of victims of rape and serious sexual offences in the criminal justice system to improve. We also want to ensure that the guilty are convicted of these offences. That has to be done in a way, which, in our criminal system, safeguards the rights of an accused person, who is of course innocent until the offence is proved against them. That is always a difficult balancing act, and particularly difficult in sensitive cases such as these. I say that as someone who has probably prosecuted and defended more rape and serious sexual offences than most people currently in this House. This requires investment in resource, in training and in sensitivity.

The best way we can increase the level of rape convictions in this country is to improve the quality of the evidence gathering, so that when the files go to the Crown Prosecution Service to take a decision to charge, more cases meet the threshold. We cannot lower the threshold in any criminal case. The threshold for prosecution is the same for any criminal case, and so it must remain. In other words: is there sufficient legally admissible evidence for a reasonable prospect of conviction? The key problem is that not enough cases so far are reaching that threshold.

Interestingly, when cases of rape and serious sexual offences are charged and get to trial, the conviction rate when they go before a jury is broadly similar to that for other serious offences of violence. A positive thing about our jury system is that, whatever polling there is about the misconceptions about rape that allegedly exist in general society, once the jurors have been empanelled, sworn their oath, heard the evidence and listened to the directions of the judge, they take their responsibilities very seriously indeed and generally set those misconceptions aside. We must ensure that we keep the Judicial Studies Board’s model guidance to judges up to date, and that the judiciary take that seriously themselves.

The problem is getting these cases to the Crown court in the first place. It is appropriate that the chief inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service and the senior inspector of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary gave evidence to the Justice Committee today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) said earlier. They gave compelling evidence about the challenges that we face. There is much being done. The end-to-end rape review is important, Operation Soteria is important and they said that there was a willingness for there to be greater collaboration across the system, but there are still issues.

I want to highlight one issue in particular, which is the question of delays. We have talked about the significant amount of delay, with an average of 706 days from the reporting of the offence to the start of the trial. It is interesting when we break that figure down, because the evidence we heard from the chief inspectors was that there is an average of 218 days from the start of investigation to sending the file to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision. From receipt of the papers by the Crown Prosecution Service to a decision to charge: 21 days. From the decision to charge to the first appearance in court: 13 days. From the decision to charge to the first pre-trial and preparation hearing: 30 days. A plea is entered and directions are given, but it is another 320-odd days before the final disposal at trial.

That shows us where the problems are. On that evidence, it is not within the CPS. I pay tribute to the priority that the current Director of Public Prosecutions has given to rape and serious sexual offences, but the evidence is very clear that the biggest attrition rate, the biggest drop-out rate, among complainants comes in the period between reporting a case to the police and it going to the CPS for charge.

That means the police need to handle these cases much more sensitively. Good chief constables recognise that, and I also find it inexplicable why on earth any force would not have a RASSO unit. There are proper obligations to disclose unused material as part of the checks and balances in our system, but there is no reason why it should not be done speedily and sensitively. We need to make sure that happens, and we also need better training on proper evidence gathering, asking the right questions, probing intelligently to find supporting evidence and working with specialist Crown prosecutors to build a case.

That will get more cases over the charging line, and then we need to look at the delays in bringing cases to trial, which is where there is merit in exploring specialist courts and making sure we have enough ticketed judges and recorders to do it, as well as enough experienced advocates both prosecuting and defending—that is important to the experience of complainants, to just outcomes in such cases and to confidence in the system.

These are important matters that we need to address, and I hope the chief inspectors will come back to our Committee once the Government have responded to their joint thematic report, which raises important points and is obviously something this House will want to consider again in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Of course. I thank my hon. Friend very much and I would be delighted to do that. I am working across Government with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education and so on to have a cross-Government response to this matter.

Members have raised the issue of sentencing in a range of contexts. It is important to note that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is passing through the House, will ensure that serious sexual and violent offenders serve two thirds of their sentence in prison, instead of half. Indeed, a number of other measures in that Bill strengthen the management of sex offenders, including by enabling electronic monitoring requirements to be imposed on those who pose a risk through sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, if necessary.

It is important that our criminal justice system catches up from the impacts of the pandemic. Our decisive action in the courts has kept justice moving. That is why we invested a quarter of a billion pounds to support recovery in the last financial year, and 30 Nightingale courtrooms are to be extended until March next year as we work across Government to continue our efforts to tackle the impact of covid-19 on the justice system. The new victims Bill, which we are introducing as quickly as possible, will bring about a cultural shift so that victims’ experiences are central to how our society thinks about and responds to crime. We want to ensure that the Bill tackles the things that victims most care about.

Members have referenced health, which is a vital component of our strategy to provide the tailored support that victims of rape and other serious sexual offences need. Through the work being carried out by my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, the victims Bill consultation is looking closely at the commissioning of community-based services, including the role of health bodies. That consultation is now being analysed and we will bring forward a draft Bill as soon as possible.

I will reference an important piece of work from my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care through the women’s health strategy. The Department will appoint our first ever women’s health ambassador for England, whose role will be to focus on raising the profile of women’s health, increasing awareness and bringing in a range of collaborative voices. Members will know that I work closely with Women’s Aid, which is campaigning on better mental health support for victims of trauma and sexual offences. That forms another important component of the domestic abuse plan that we are bringing forward.

It is important to reference that we on the Government Benches fully accept that the current data shows that the system is not working as well as it could be. We have consistently been honest and transparent about that. It is only by doing that that we will be able to bring about the change that is desperately needed.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am glad that my hon. Friend references data. Will she take on board the fact that the joint thematic report from the two inspectorates specifically references the need to do more on data in this field and ensure that that is in the Government’s response?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We are reviewing those reports and others to ensure we have that data at our fingertips and bring forward the response that is required for victims. We are not complacent. We know there is more to do. This is the third time in the space of a week that I have personally stood in this Chamber discussing these very important issues. I am happy to continue to do so, because the work we are doing through Operation Soteria and some of the other workstreams is groundbreaking. I am proud to be associated with it, but we will not rest until we get the result that we need.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House commemorates International Women’s Day; regrets that under this Government conviction rates for rape have reached a historic low and that the typical delay between reporting an offence of rape and the completion of the resulting criminal case is over 1,000 days; calls on the Government to introduce minimum sentences for stalking and rape, to raise minimum sentencing for spiking and to implement Labour’s survivors’ package for victims of rape and serious sexual violence to restore trust in the criminal justice system; and further calls on the Government to begin an immediate assessment of the impact of setting up specialist rape offence courts on the significant Crown Court backlog of rape cases, as recommended by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate.

Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow my fellow Select Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).

This hugely important issue and debate concerns men as much as women, which we need to emphasise. It is not easy, and there is no single silver bullet. A raft of reasons give rise to this appalling level of offending and the difficulties we have in dealing with it. As both Front Benchers said, it needs to be addressed on a wide front.

I will concentrate on the criminal justice issues, as my Select Committee is seized of these matters. As it happens, an interesting and useful report was recently published by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate. In fact, the four criminal justice inspectorates are giving evidence to the Justice Committee next week, which will give us an opportunity to probe a little more into the report’s useful recommendations. I hope that, by and large, the Government will look upon them favourably, although even there we have to recognise some of the complexities.

In my previous life as a barrister, I prosecuted and defended quite a number of rapes and other serious sexual offences. They are the most appalling offences, and most of us rightly regard them as perhaps only a little below homicide in their vile impact on individuals and in how seriously the system must take them. These offences must therefore be handled, at all stages of the process, with particular sensitivity and care, which the system always endeavours to do.

Given the time I spent at the Bar, I can say that the experience of complainants has markedly improved from when I first started in practice. We are much, much more aware of the myths that sometimes abound about why such offences are or are not reported. There is much greater sensitivity in the handling of complainants and witnesses in these cases. In particular, the Judicial Studies Board has produced much more up-to-date and much more sensitive model guidance to judges who try these cases in the Crown court on giving directions to juries to dispel some of the myths and on being alert to the particular sensitivities of witnesses giving evidence on such traumatic events. We have done much more on the use of special measures in courts to make it easier for witnesses in such cases to give evidence.

All those are positive things. That does not mean that we should rest on our laurels and that we should not continue to do more, but we have to recognise that there has been significant change and we must now build on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) pointed out one thing to our Committee that had been striking over the years. I am grateful for his support and work in the Committee during his time as a member, which was absolutely outstanding, and I congratulate him on being appointed a Parliamentary Private Secretary. The Committee was struck by the statistic he raised: that some 90% of the attrition of victims and complainants in these cases comes before the case even gets to the CPS to look at. That really has to be addressed most urgently.

The other interesting statistic we found was that when a charge has been brought and the case has gone to the Crown Court, the conviction rate in rape and serious sexual offences cases is not broadly dissimilar to that for other offences of serious violence against the person—section 18s and so on. When we get these cases to court and when they are presented properly, by experienced counsel and with properly trained judges, we can get the same results as we do for other offences of violence. We really need to tackle why we are not getting to that situation in the first place. That is why Operation Soteria and the end-to-end rape review are so important.

We must also deal with specific issues on delays in disclosure, which we have all seen over a number of years in relation to such offences. The Minister rightly refers to the issue of digital evidence and mobile phones in particular. That is much more significant now, and we must get to a situation where the evidence can be downloaded. It has to be disclosed, where relevant, because there is an obligation in holding a fair trial to make legitimately disclosable material available to the defence. I have been involved in cases where the disclosure of material demonstrated that there was a genuine defence and therefore a miscarriage of justice was averted—I can think of two such cases. So that has to be done, but it has to be done sensitively and swiftly, so that the victim can get their phone and material back as soon as possible. That is the key thing: we need to invest in that and make sure it is done consistently, in the same way as we need to invest in making sure that victim support services are consistent in all the courts across the country and that the level of communication between prosecutors, police and the witnesses is consistent in the way that the latter are dealt with.

There is a suggestion in the inspector’s review of specialist rape courts, and I would be interested to see how that works in practice. A suggestion was made for that in Scotland. I am not sure where the evidence base is for that in England, but the real issue is not so much specialist courts, but the delay in listing. That is one thing we could ask the Courts Service to look at. I know that listing is a judicial function, but we need to work with the judiciary on this to give them the resources. I find it shocking that rape cases are listed as what the Minister and I will remember as “floaters”, or back-ups, where they do not have an allocated court and are there to be called on if another case collapses. It is not fair to be listing cases in this way, where victims who have to relive the trauma of a rape or sexual assault are hanging around not knowing whether they will get on that day or not. Surely all such cases ought to be fixtures.

We should also be doing more to avoid the late vacation of fixed dates for trial. As the report details, there have been too many instances where cases were adjourned more than once, with the victim—the witness—having worked themselves up to give evidence only for the case to be taken out of the list, often because there is not judicial availability or because barristers are not available. The point is that these cases have to be tried by “ticketed” Crown court judges: judges who have undergone training in handling sensitive witnesses and such cases, and who understand the issues that have to be gone through. We need to make sure that there is an adequate supply of ticketed senior Crown court judges and, where necessary, highly experienced recorders as well. We also need to make sure that there are enough experienced advocates available.

Unfortunately, I have seen evidence from the Bar Council and others of too many instances recently where cases have had to be adjourned—one or two of the cases have been well publicised, so I am sure the Minister has seen them—because a prosecutor of sufficient seniority was not available to take then on. We have to look at that in the criminal law legal aid review and its implementation, because it is a healthy, independent Bar that provides most of the prosecutors and defenders in these cases. Getting that right is important, too.

There also has to be proper remuneration to make sure that people of sufficient experience and status handle these really serious cases. There are specific things that I hope can be done. The section 28 hearings are certainly important. The one caveat I would enter is that we should keep a careful eye on how that works in practice. It may well have the advantage of getting early guilty pleas, which are particularly important in cases involving offences of this kind, as we save the complainant from having to give evidence and relive the incident, but some concern has been expressed by practitioners that when the case is contested, the impact of recorded evidence can seem more remote to a jury. That may or may not be right, but we should keep an eye on it, because we want these proceedings to work if they can.

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. We should all be supporting the “Enough” campaign, not only with rhetoric, but with action. That means investing properly in the justice system. There is much good will and expertise, but we need to make sure that there is resource to enable the system to function with consistency and to keep up to date with developments in technology and other matters in the field.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

There is, I suppose, a grim sense of bookending in this debate. We all know that we are very close to the anniversary of a particularly appalling murder—one of the most appalling crimes that I can recall. It was a grotesque breach of trust by a serving Met police officer. Most recently, though, there was the admission of guilt by the murderer of Sabina Nessa, who we now know drove miles from his home, found her at random, killed her in the most brutal and degrading way and pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey last week. There is no doubt that there is an epidemic of violence against women and girls.

I understand why the Opposition have brought this debate to the Chamber, and I respect their reason for doing so. I think it is reflected in the tone that everybody has taken so far that it would not serve well to use this debate as a political tit for tat. The truth is that, when we debate these issues, it is always the same faces who are here, and we know that it will be our collective endeavour, if anything, that will improve the situation.

I want to align myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who said that finding out what is happening and how we improve it is complex and difficult. I think that that was revealed a little bit on Monday night when we debated making misogyny a hate crime. I heard the impassioned speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and what she said about women’s safety, but, as a matter of law, she did not engage at all with the issue of whether all violence against women and girls is motivated by hatred, or whether there are other more complex causes, and how, if at all, it fits within the framework of section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which governs all hate crimes. She also could not explain why the reporting pilot that had been conducted in Nottingham had not actually resulted in any more prosecutions or convictions. I do not believe—I say this very respectfully—that there was consensus on the Labour Benches about whether it should be made an offence. Even if I am wrong about that, and there is no desire here to humiliate, it exposes the fact that there are complex questions about causation and legal framework that are not that easy to resolve. Even people whose mission is the same will disagree on the mechanics of how we get there.

Before I get into the substance of the debate, I want to spend a moment talking about what I think the Government have achieved, because it is quite easy to overlook that. I am not just going to give a shopping list of the things that the Government have criminalised, from stalking to coercive control and to revenge porn, because everybody is familiar with that and most people have participated in debates where we have talked about that. One thing that we have achieved in the past 10 years is looking at violence against women through a much more expansive lens. In the old days of domestic abuse, for example, many will recall the shorthand of “knocking her about”—think how far we have come from that. We do not even see it as just a question of violence. We view these crimes as issues of power, control, obsession, jealousy, and a desire for revenge. We recognise that coercive control is a criminal offence, even if the relationship has long since finished. We recognise that revenge porn, something that would have been the shame of the victim for many, many years, is actually the crime of the perpetrator. We have tackled toxic assumptions. It was the Mother of the House who used the phrase for the first time, “the nagging and shagging defence” that used to be frequently and successfully deployed in the criminal courts. We have also dealt with the fact that there is no such thing as consent to rough sex as a defence for sexual violence. I think that we can probably agree that we still have further to go on some of this.

The Centre for Women’s Justice has written very recently that we still have issues around culture. One thing we need to be careful about in the “she was just walking home” labelling is that we are not saying that there are deserving victims and that the woman who was out getting drunk or even looking for sex or doing something that is not seen as ladylike is not a deserving victim. That is all still there, I think.

What we are doing on rape is important. I understand the collective concern on that issue. Section 28 procedures —the ability of a victim to give evidence behind closed doors with counsel and to be cross-examined without having to wait for trial—have made a huge difference. Members of the Home Affairs Committee—I think that this only applies to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on the Front Bench—will recall that, when the chairs of the rape reviews for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales gave evidence, they did not agree on everything, but the one thing on which they did agree was how important section 28 procedures are, and I am so glad that the Justice Secretary is now rolling them out nationwide.

I also have to mention criminal justice scorecards. I am not sure whether we are using that official language yet, but, about four weeks ago, I was contacted by a young lady in my constituency who had recently been raped outside the constituency. When she approached the force where it had happened, her treatment was lamentable. The rape statistics of that force had been published and were in the public domain. When I wrote to them—a letter of complaint essentially on her behalf—pointing out their absolutely diabolical rape prosecution rates, they responded to me the next day with an extremely helpful and supportive letter, setting out what they would do and making contact with her, and I think we turned it around.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is making a most important point and I entirely agree with her. Does she agree that that links into the importance of proper, careful and sensitive investigation by the police? We will increase the rate of charging only if, in a sufficient number of cases, there is admissible evidence that affords a reasonable prospect of conviction, and it is the evidence gathering, therefore, that must be tackled. It is the failure to gather sufficient admissible evidence to give a reasonable prospect of conviction that means that a person cannot be properly charged.

[Laura Farris]

I accept that. I also accept the point that my hon. Friend made. Members of the Select Committee will recall Mary Prior QC saying emphatically that we need continuity of counsel, but the judicial listing function is detrimental to that.

There are three points on this issue.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

Again, I emphasise my appreciation for the work that Lissie Harper has done, along with the Police Federation, which has undoubtedly captured the imagination of the entire country in pressing for the change, which we all welcome. It was not an isolated incident, which is obviously agonising in itself. Although, thankfully, emergency workers are not often killed on duty, they are required to put themselves at particular risk when carrying out their duties and protecting the public. I think I speak for the whole House in expressing enormous thanks and appreciation to them for everything that they do on the frontline day in, day out to keep each and every one of us safe.

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

The Minister is absolutely right to pay tribute to Lissie Harper and to our emergency services. He also makes the point that these are not isolated incidents. Will he take on board the broader point that, although there is obviously great support for this piece of legislation, the area that has not been addressed is the difficulty that juries face in deciding whether the offence—the facts made out—is murder or manslaughter?

I hope that the Minister will revisit a missed opportunity, which is the definitions of homicide under our current law. The Law Commission and others have suggested that they ought to be revisited because they create some difficulty and uncertainty, particularly in the difficult area between the intention to kill or to commit grievous bodily harm and gross negligence at the top end. I hope that the Government will consider revisiting the Law Commission’s work on that, because other jurisdictions have different categories of homicide, rather than the perhaps now old-fashioned categories of murder and manslaughter. We might then find it easier for juries to more accurately reflect the culpability by their verdicts, which is what we want to achieve.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s observations. We touched on those matters when we spoke last week when we engaged in advance of these proceedings. I said to him that that was something that I would certainly be willing to take away and consider, and I am willing to do that. He advocates that the Law Commission looks at the issue of homicide in the round and, as I say, I am happy to reflect on and consider that matter in the fullness of time.

To return to the question of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), I am keen to provide the House with as much information as possible and to further clarify the position around it. If I understand his question correctly, it does apply to emergency workers who are off duty, but they must be acting as an emergency worker—off duty but still responding to an incident. I hope that that provides the House, in the correct terms, with the clarity that it is seeking on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Reeves]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend speaks so passionately about this issue. It is absolutely right that those in secure academies are given the support that they need, and that they receive not just a good education but the very best that is available to them. To that end, we believe that local authorities must explicitly be brought into the fold when considering who will run these academies. Although we can argue about whether there is a legal bar, the fact is that having it explicitly in the Bill would put it beyond all doubt that local authorities could run these secure academies, and that education policy would not be a barrier to their doing so.

That is a small clarification, which the Government do not appear to oppose in practical terms, but it would send a signal to potential providers not only that local authorities are technically allowed to bid but that, given their wealth of experience in this area, their bids would be positively welcomed. The failures across the youth estate have been shocking, and the Government need to bring in providers with the necessary expertise and ethos to support children in secure settings, to help to address those failings. I hope that, for that reason, the Minister can today commit to their explicit inclusion as possible providers.

Although we are in agreement with the Government on the majority of the proposals in this group and welcome them, further clarification and action on some aspects are needed. Our support here does not detract from the very serious failings in other parts of the Bill, and the failure to make its focus the very real epidemic of violence against women. If the Government were fully serious about the issues facing our society, they would make that one of the main focuses of the Bill and drop the poorly thought-out draconian measures on protests and further police powers.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am grateful for the chance to speak in the debate. This area of the Bill raises a number of important criminal justice matters, and I am grateful to the Minister for his very open approach to engaging with me and others around it. I have much sympathy with both him and the shadow Minister, in observing that there are sensible things that I hope we will broadly agree upon on most of this. I hope that I can make one or two observations on how we might take things forward once we have passed the legislation.

I have made my point in relation to the manslaughter of emergency workers, and I do not seek to repeat it, save to say that the Justice Committee has looked at the law of homicide and I think that we are in danger of missing an opportunity there. That does not mean that what is proposed is wrong, but we should be more ambitious than that, because many other common-law jurisdictions have reformed their law of manslaughter in a way that makes it more comprehensible to a jury. I looked with particular care at, for example, the judge’s directions in the PC Harper case and others. Even with the most impeccable directions it is not easy to follow now, against the factual background that we often have. We ought to be prepared to look at evidence from other common-law jurisdictions going forward.

There was an argument, of course, that the victim being an emergency worker is always an aggravating factor, but I understand the point about putting it on the statute book, given the particular value and weight that we place upon the service that these emergency workers have done. Similarly, I welcome the provision for aggravation in relation to assaults upon public service workers. I visited one of the local Co-op stores in my constituency and met some of my constituents who have been assaulted and threatened pretty appallingly by people. They do a great job for the public, and I think that we are right to give them a measure of protection too. I welcome the Government moving on that.

I will just turn to two other matters, one of which concerns IPP—imprisonment for public protection—sentences. The Minister knows that the Justice Committee is currently drawing up a report on this issue. We heard most compelling evidence on this situation, which Lord Brown, a former senior law Lord, described as an enduring blot on the British justice system. I paraphrase his words—that may not be exact—but that was the essence of it. I welcome what the Government are doing. It is a step in the right direction, but we need to ensure that those who are capable of being released safely are processed through the system much more quickly. That has been a blot on our system for too long. Resources have not been made available and all too often the provision to do the courses that were necessary for them to meet the trigger levels for release were not available. The danger was—we heard very powerful evidence on this from clinical psychologists and others—that sometimes the failure of the system to deal with the underlying issues which caused them to be subject to a IPP in the first place had now made them more dangerous to release, because they got to a degree of institutionalisation which makes it harder for them to be reformed. We need to be very alert to that.

[Sarah Champion]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for starting the inquiry. One piece of written evidence received is from one of my constituents, who is suffering under an IPP with no hope of getting out and no understanding of why he is stuck there. I fully accept and agree with what he is saying. The impact that this is having on people’s mental health, the lifelong torture that these people are being put under, is just totally unacceptable. Of course one should serve one’s time, but I cannot even imagine what having an indefinite time ahead must do to someone’s psyche.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. We heard very compelling testimony on precisely those points. That is not to say that some people who are serving IPP sentences have not committed very serious offences and that some of them, because of their background, do not present a very real threat to the public. It may well be that in certain cases it will be a very long time before they are capable of being released, if ever, but there are many others who fall below that threshold who are trapped unfairly in the system, and who ought to be capable of being looked at afresh, processed and released safely into the community, but we have not yet managed to do that. The Government’s amendment holds the feet of the Parole Board to the fire on that, which is good so far as it goes.

The other point I want to make is that we heard compelling evidence from Lord Blunkett, the originator of the IPP sentences, who accepted that it had not worked out as he had intended. That was powerful and very humbling testimony. There was also very powerful testimony from Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the former Lord Chief Justice, who has taken up this cause. He made the point that what we are doing so far is helpful. Improving the ability of people to access courses and gain the threshold for release is helpful and that is what the Government are, through their amendment, seeking to do. The need to review every case, rather than leaving them in limbo, is really important so we do not get drift.

However, there are two things we are not yet doing. We are not tackling the issue of needless recall. Recall is an important tool to have while we have a licence, but there is a real concern that in many cases the trigger for the recall bears no proportion to either the index offence which had caused the original sentence or the amount of time that might then be spent inside thereafter. In some cases, there was a real concern that recall was triggered for comparatively administrative breaches of the licence, rather than substantive ones linked to reoffending or increasing risk. I urge Ministers, when the Parole Board looks at each case as it will now be obliged to do under the legislation, to ensure that we do not have, frankly, risk-averse recalls. It is always a terrible balance to strike and I am very conscious of the burden on the Parole Board and probation officers in doing that, but we ought to ensure it is not done on a tick-box basis just to make sure we have protected ourselves against criticism—almost a back-covering exercise, I hate to say.

There is a temptation for that in the current arrangements, but we can do better than that and I hope we will. We ought to be assessing whether the breach suggests there is an ongoing risk of reoffending or a danger to the public. That ought to be the test.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank Members from across the House for their many and varied contributions to the various amendments we are considering this evening. I wish to respond to a number of the points made.

First, let me respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on IPPs. I have heard his view that the amendment does not go far enough and does not take action to help IPP offenders who are still in prison. The number of IPP offenders in prison, having never been released, stood at 1,661 on 30 September 2021, which represents enormous progress when we compare it with the peak of 6,000 in 2012. The IPP action plan, produced and regularly refreshed by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, remains the best means of providing all those continuing to serve the IPP sentence with every opportunity to show they can be safely released by the Parole Board. The action plan sets out a series of measures designed to rehabilitate IPP prisoners, including through psychology-led reviews, and improved central and regional strategic oversight of IPP progression. There is clear evidence that these measures are working, and the number of IPP prisoners has decreased. IPP prisoners continue to be released in significant numbers and have a high chance of a positive outcome from Parole Board hearings. In 2020-21, more than two thirds of IPP Parole Board oral hearings resulted in a positive outcome, either a release or a progressive move to open prison.

Despite all that, I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that, as Ministers have said during the passage of this Bill, in this House and in the other place, we are mindful that the Justice Committee in this House is currently conducting an inquiry into IPP sentences, and we look forward to hearing the recommendations of his Committee and we will certainly consider them closely. I, along with my fellow Ministers, will continue to engage with IPP stakeholders in this House and elsewhere, and we will continue to give full consideration to any options recommended. I hope that that gives him the reassurance that he is looking for as to our intentions.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am grateful to the Minister, as it does. I hope that he makes sure that we have a timely response; perhaps he can meet me once our Committee has reported.

[Tom Pursglove]

Yes, I am always keen that the Department is as timely as possible in engaging with my hon. Friend’s excellent Committee. We are always grateful for the tireless, thorough and considered work that he and colleagues do.

Let me turn to the issue of Harper’s law. Again, I was very grateful to Members from across the House, including the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for their clear, full-throated support for these changes. I was able to address one of the technical issues to provide clarity for the House earlier, and I just wish to provide further clarity, as I promised I would, on whether volunteers can be emergency workers under Harper’s law. The answer is yes, it applies to emergency workers who are engaged to supply emergency services in a voluntary capacity as well as to paid employees. It uses exactly the same definition as in the 2018 Act, and I hope that that helps to put the technical aspects of this provision on the record for the House’s benefit.

Lords amendment 107 covers the issue of secure schools. I am always conscious that I do not want to disappoint the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). We have always had a very constructive working relationship on a whole host of issues, including on the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill, which I know she will be delighted completed its Commons consideration on Friday. None the less, on this occasion, I am afraid that I cannot deliver precisely on what she wishes to see. However, I reiterate the point that, before we invite applications for any future secure schools, the Ministry of Justice will assess in detail the potential role of local authorities in running this new form of provision. The Department for Education remains committed to moving towards a school system where every school has the benefits of being part of a family of schools in a strong multi-academy trust. The DFE will set out its plans in a schools White Paper to be published in the coming months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. Lady is persistent in these matters. All I can do, I am afraid, is simply refer her back to the comments that I have already made during the course of this debate. I will happily take away—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering from a sedentary position. I am not sure whether she was here for the duration of this debate. We have covered this matter in some detail. I will gladly take away a copy of Hansard and study the points that she has raised in the course of this debate. If there is any further detail that I am able to provide, I will happily do so.

[Sir Robert Neill]

Are local authorities ruled in or ruled out?

[Tom Pursglove]

I refer to the point that I made earlier, which is that we believe there is no barrier.

Lords amendment 58 covers food standards. I hope that I can offer some comfort to the House. We are broadly supportive of the intention to confer such powers, which would be consistent with powers available to other bodies, but reject the amendment on the basis that there is further work to do before any legislative amendments are made. The current chairman of the Food Standards Agency, Susan Jebb, wrote to the Minister for Crime and Policing on 11 August 2021 expressing concern that the existing powers of the National Food Crime Unit were insufficient for their purposes. The Minister responded in October, expressing support for the request and indicated the Home Office’s intent to work with the NFCU to find a suitable legislative vehicle. In order to fully support any extension of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 powers to the NFCU, we would need reassurance that this is necessary, proportionate and legitimate and that suitable governance, accountability and oversight of investigations and complaints arrangements will be in place. There is also a lack of clarity over the necessary protocols when PACE powers would be exercised, which will need consideration with the NFCU before legislative amendments are made, but we will of course legislate at the next available opportunity.

I am also grateful to Members for their strong support for the hare coursing changes that the Government are introducing, particularly the observations made by my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), and by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), who is my neighbour, from just over the border. This issue matters a great deal. We have listened carefully to a wide range of voices, telling us just that. Hare coursing is not a quaint country tradition. It involves horrible cruelty to a much loved wild animal. It is associated with illegal gambling and other criminality. It brings serious harm to the rural areas where it takes place. Subject to parliamentary approval, we intend to get the tougher sentences in place before the start of the next hare coursing season.

I conclude by again thanking Members from across the House for their thoughtful contributions to this debate and also Members in the other place for their thorough consideration of these matters and for the engagement that colleagues have provided throughout the Bill. As a Minister coming to this rather late in the day, may I also place on record my sincere appreciation to my hon. Friends the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and for Croydon South (Chris Philp) as well as to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for all their work in getting us to this stage.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendment 58 disagreed to.

Clause 139

Secure 16 to 19 Academies

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 107.—(Tom Pursglove.)