Arrests and Prison Capacity

Debate between Robert Neill and Chris Philp

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this important debate, which touches upon not only public safety but the whole way in which our justice system operates, is best dealt with in a calm fashion? It is perfectly reasonable to adopt contingency measures, which we hope are often not needed, but the most important thing is to ensure that all parties in this House commit to a consistent and sustained investment in all aspects of the criminal justice system, because we cannot decouple policing from the courts, prisons and the whole of the process. That is the sensible debate that the country needs to have.

[Chris Philp]

My hon. and learned Friend, as always, puts it very well. He is quite right that investment is important. That is why there are record numbers of police officers. It is why 20,000 prison places are in the course of being constructed, 5,900 of which are currently operational and 10,000 of which will be operational by the end of next year. It is why more money is being put into the Crown Prosecution Service. It is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is here on the Front Bench, is ensuring that legal aid is properly resourced, as is the criminal Bar. Those are all extremely important initiatives to ensure that the public are protected. The ultimate measure of public protection, of course, is the overall level of criminality, which, as I have said once or twice before, has halved since the Labour party left office.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Chris Philp

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady is raising an important and reasonable point. I have carefully read her moving letter on this issue. We are getting advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and will act on this as soon as we can.

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

T10. I have been contacted by a number of medical professionals working for us in the NHS who are trying to get extensions to their skilled worker visas. They have waited for months, but emails and telephone calls to the Home Office are going completely unacknowledged and unanswered. Surely people who are doing a service to this country should at least have a dedicated hotline, so that they know where they stand.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Chris Philp

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

We are continuing Nightingale courtrooms. We are also saying to the judiciary, critically, that there will be no constraint on Crown court sitting days this current financial year; the judiciary can list as many cases as they are physically able to. On Crown court numbers, clearly, jury trials and pandemics do not mix very well, but thanks to the steps taken, we have seen the corner turned just recently—in the last few weeks. Crown court case numbers are beginning to edge down for the first time, and we are committed to making sure that continues.

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

I welcome the Minister’s last point, because the Director of Public Prosecutions told the Justice Committee two weeks ago that case loads in the Crown court are currently at 95% of physical capacity, making allowance for the Nightingale courts, but that the Crown Prosecution Service’s total case load has increased by some 53% since February 2020. Does the Minister agree that that must mean that, to keep the backlog reducing in a sustainable fashion, we must have long-term, continued investment in increased court capacity, but also in judges and recorders, in court staff available to hear and try cases, and in CPS staff to ensure that they are ready for trial on time?

[Chris Philp]

The Chair of the Justice Committee is, as always, right in his analysis. We need to ensure that the capacity exists and, for the reason he mentioned, 1,600 extra staff have already been hired for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. He also mentioned Crown Prosecution Service capacity. I think its budget recently went up by about £80 million to enable 400 additional prosecutors to be hired.

In relation to judicial capacity, we will shortly bring forward measures to increase the mandatory retirement age for magistrates and judges from 70 to 75, which we hope will retain the most experienced judges who will be able to sit and hear these cases. In relation to physical courtroom capacity, we have clearly invested enormously in technology to enable remote hearings and, as I mentioned, about 20,000 a week are taking place. In addition to that, we have the 60 Nightingale courtrooms. When social distancing is relaxed—nothing has been confirmed, but we have a reasonable expectation that it will be in the near future—a reduction in those requirements will enable more courtrooms to be used safely than is the case today, which will also greatly assist court recovery.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Chris Philp

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

The extra investment is important and should be recognised, and Nightingale courts can make an important addition to court capacity, but does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that most Nightingale courts are not equipped to handle custody cases and therefore many of the most serious trials? Is not the long-term solution sustained investment, over a period of months and years, to make sure that all available physical Crown courts sit the maximum number of days that they can safely sit, and to ensure that there are resources in terms of judiciary, support staff and a safe environment for court users, to make sure that that can be done? Is that not the top priority?

[Chris Philp]

As he is so often, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee is correct. Often when a Nightingale court is set up, it does not have the required custody facilities, but it does free up space in our existing Crown court estate, which does have custody facilities, and allow more Crown court or jury trials in which the defendant is remanded to take place in existing facilities.

Crown court sitting days are very important. We have been clear that in the current financial year Crown court sitting days should not impose any constraints on listing and sitting cases. The situation for the coming financial year, starting in April, is the subject of discussions between my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, but it is fair to say that we are expecting a substantial increase in Crown court sitting days.

Serious Criminal Cases Backlog

Debate between Robert Neill and Chris Philp

Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The shadow Justice Secretary referred to the number of cases outstanding in the magistrates courts: 460,000. What he neglected to mention to the House was that, after the first lockdown, that peaked at 525,000 and has come down since then by 65,000 as the case load reduces relentlessly, month on month, and as our system recovers.

The right hon. Member mentioned waiting times. Of course we do not want to see very long waiting times, but I can tell him that the clear majority of remand cases that had their first hearing in November will have their trial by July of this year, and the clear majority of bail cases will have their trial heard by December of this year. He mentioned the report, which I have read carefully. Its authors, who do not inspect Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, did not engage with HMCTS prior to finalising it, which was regrettable.

The right hon. Member mentioned witnesses and victims, who are at the heart of everything that we do. Vulnerable witnesses, where it is appropriate, can give evidence under section 28 recorded well in advance of the trial, in order to avoid issues with forgetting particular evidence. I strongly encourage the CPS, defence, judges and other court users to use that section 28 facility.

The right hon. Member mentioned the number of cases outstanding in the Crown court. He claimed that before the pandemic the system was in bad shape. He mentioned the 39,000 Crown court cases outstanding in March of last year before the pandemic. What he forgot to mention was that when Labour left office in 2010 it was not 39,000; it was 47,000—considerably higher.

The right hon. Member talked about cuts. I anticipated that he might, so I looked up the HMCTS budget, which in 2011 was £1.65 billion. It has gone up by £200 million to £1.85 billion. He asked about the number of courtrooms and court centres. As I said, we now have 290 operational covid-safe Crown court jury trial rooms—significantly more than we had before covid. As I said in my first answer, in the magistrates court the outstanding case load has been declining relentlessly month on month, every month since August, and in the Crown court disposals exceeded receipts, so the lines crossed, for the first time in the full week before Christmas.

The right hon. Member asked about covid safety. Of course, Public Health England and Public Health Wales have signed off our courts as covid-safe. The number of HMCTS staff testing positive is in line with what we would expect in the general population; it is no higher, and no lower. Lateral flow testing is available at local authority lateral flow testing sites. We are exploring whether we can roll it out more fully.

Finally, the right hon. Member asked about the record of this Government on criminal justice. The most authoritative source of data is, of course, the crime survey. It is the only Office for National Statistics approved set of crime statistics. Crime in the last 10 years under this Government has fallen from 9.5 million offences down to about 5.6 million—a 41% reduction—according to the crime survey. Those numbers speak louder than words. Our record is a good one.

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

The Minister is right to pay tribute to the work that is being done by all those in the system under very difficult circumstances. It is right, too, to recognise the investment that has been made to deal with this, but I am sure that he will also accept that for the backlog to be reduced to acceptable levels, disposals in the Crown court in particular will have to exceed receipts for a sustained period of time.

The Minister will also know that there are a number of serious organised crime cases with multiple defendants coming into the system, which will put in additional strains. Does he therefore agree that to make the system sustainable going forward we will need sustained and continued investment at higher levels than we have seen before for a number of years to come? Will he recognise that that is the case that all of us who care about the system, regardless of party, need to make to the Treasury and elsewhere?

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, for his question. He is of course right: we need to have sustained levels of disposals exceeding receipts. We got there just before Christmas for the first time during the pandemic following a heroic effort, but he is right that it needs to be sustained. We are making it clear that the resources needed to achieve that will be made available. In the current year, Crown court sitting days will not be any constraint on getting cases listed. Subject, obviously, to the usual discussions with the judiciary, we anticipate a very significant increase in Crown court sitting days in the next financial year to achieve the objective that he rightly and properly calls for.

Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Chris Philp

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

This Bill—Helen’s law, as we have come to know it—amends the release provisions that apply to offenders who do not disclose information relating to cases of murder, manslaughter, or taking or making indecent images of children. As Members are aware, it places existing Parole Board guidance on a statutory footing to ensure that parole board members must consider, when making release assessments, any non-disclosure of information relating to a victim’s remains if they were murdered, or the identity of the victims of child sexual abuse.

I once again pay tribute to the tremendous work done by the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) in campaigning for this Bill. He was inspired by his constituent Marie McCourt, whose daughter, Helen, was tragically murdered. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), many of whose constituents were abused by Vanessa George. Without their tireless work, this Bill would not be progressing through Parliament. I extend to them, once again, my congratulations and thanks.

The Government agree entirely with the spirit and intent behind Baroness Kennedy’s amendment but have some issues with its practicality. Essentially, what it seeks to achieve is already achieved by other means. The first part of Baroness Kennedy’s amendment requires the Parole Board to take responsibility for contacting the victim, but there is of course already a victim contact service as part of the National Probation Service, which has responsibility for precisely that. We think it would create duplication and possibly confusion if two different bodies had the same responsibility for contacting victims.

Their lordships expressed some concern about the effectiveness of the current operation of the victim contact service. In particular, their amendment calls for communications with victims and their families to be done on an opt-out basis so that the family gets contacted automatically, and the contact desists only if the family or victim says, “No, we don’t want to hear anything further.” A pilot of doing exactly that has been running across many parts of the country, although—in response to an inquiry from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—not currently in Devon and Cornwall.

I am pleased to tell the House that, subsequent to the House of Lords’ consideration of this matter, a decision has been taken to roll out that programme nationally as part of the new victims code, which we expect will come into operation in early 2021. We intend to lay before Parliament a negative statutory instrument before long to give effect to that. That is precisely what the other place called for in its amendment. Subsequent to their lordships’ debate, it has been decided to progress and do that, so that part of the amendment is being done already. Their lordships might take some credit for prompting us, but it was something that we had been trialling previously, and we intended to do that. I hope that assurance that it will be done gives Members on both sides of the House a great deal of reassurance, happiness and contentment.

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

My hon. Friend will know that when the Justice Committee looked at these issues after a great deal of publicity and some court cases, our inquiry shared many of the concerns of the other House about the effectiveness of the victim contact scheme. Can he assure us that appropriate organisational changes, and additional resources where necessary, have been put in to ensure that the scheme can discharge these important duties adequately?

[Chris Philp]

I thank the Chairman of the Justice Committee for the work that he and his Committee have done in this area, which has been very thorough and useful. I think we do accept the point that he has made, as have the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and others, that the victim contact scheme can be improved.

I have had discussions with the Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who has responsibility for prisons and probation. She has asked me to pass on to the House her undertaking to meet and speak to the Victims’ Commissioner about improving the victim contact scheme. We will also be happy, either in the same meeting or a separate one, to Labour Front Benchers, including the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) and, if he wishes, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), as well as the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and for St Helens North and their constituents if they wish to join the meeting, to discuss any concerns they may have and any ideas they may have for further improvements to the victim contact scheme. I am happy to put that commitment by the Minister of State on the record this afternoon.

This Bill has progressed thus far with cross-party support. It has been worked on very constructively by those on the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench, as well as by those on the Back Benches. Indeed, it would not have got here without their work, as I said earlier. I hope we can continue in that spirit of cross-party unity on this topic.

Given that the victim contact scheme exists already and the opt-out changes will be made shortly, and given our commitment to work with the Victims’ Commissioner and others to further improve the victim contact scheme, I hope the House will join me in respectfully rebuffing—perhaps that is the word, or perhaps gently pushing back—the amendments that their lordships have sent in our direction.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking the Minister for his comments and the tone in which he has conducted this debate? It is much appreciated by those of us on the Opposition Benches, I can assure him.

I start by paying tribute to the tireless campaigning of victims’ families, and in particular the campaigning of Marie McCourt and the families of those abused by Vanessa George. They have begged successive Governments to time the release of serious offenders in a way that is more responsive to victim circumstance. Supported by my hon. Friends the Members for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), they have changed the law for the better.

Observers of this House from the outside may think it is quite normal for people to bring forward legislation from the Back Benches and get it all the way through both Houses, but it is very unusual. In fact, I think I am right in saying that both the Minister and I have attempted in the past to introduce legislation from the Back Benches. In his case, it was to tackle industrial relations in utility companies and in mine it was to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and both of us met with undignified failure. They have succeeded where we unfortunately failed.

Those families will make a significant difference to the lives of victims’ families for generations to come. They did so knowing that it would not materially impact their own situation. They did it to save others from the torment they have endured, and we are grateful to them.

As the House is aware, the first part of the Bill implements Helen’s law. Motivated by the case of Ian Simms, it forces the Parole Board to consider the non-disclosure of key information during the release decisions of people convicted of murder or manslaughter. The unwillingness of murderers to disclose such details is a source of merciless and unrelenting anguish. That is equally true of the young victims of Vanessa George, who was convicted of sexual assault and making and distributing indecent photographs of children. She was released from prison last year, despite never naming the children she abused. The second part of the Bill guarantees the same protections for victims in such cases.

It is unforgivable that our system has not better reflected the needs of those bereaved by such horrific crimes over previous decades. For far too long, victims and their families have been treated as an afterthought in the criminal justice system. They were described as such by the victims’ commissioner for London, Claire Waxman, in a recent interview. The Bill delivers two new key statutory rights to victims and their families. I hope the Government will continue with this direction of travel apace, because, despite repeated pledges, they have still failed to bring forward the long-promised victims law, which would offer a comprehensive set of rights and protections to the victims who so desperately need them. Such a law is desperately needed now more than ever, given the increasing rate of offences for which no one is ever brought to justice because of the victim and witnesses dropping out due to various different issues. We have pledges aplenty from the Government; we need more action.

There is far more left to do to address the systemic challenges facing victims in the criminal justice system. We on the Opposition Benches will continue to press the Government on this issue and work constructively with them when the opportunity arises, as we have done today. We will campaign unfailingly until comprehensive rights are guaranteed by law for those victims who need them the most. This Bill marks one very positive step forward, and the Opposition proudly support it on its convoluted pathway from the Back Benches to the Front Bench and through both Houses of Parliament. We now look forward to the difference it will make for victims and their families.

Lords amendment 1 was proposed in the other place by Baroness Kennedy of Cradley and seeks to address the asymmetry in offender and victim rights, wherein offenders receive regular communication from the authorities—a luxury that most victims will only ever dream of. This cannot continue, and Baroness Kennedy’s amendment represents an effort to tackle the injustice. However, we are happy to have agreed with the Minister, over the course of recent weeks, commitments regarding the future of the victim contact scheme. As a result, we will not seek to divide the House on the amendment.

I want to thank the Minister and put on the record the open-spirited way in which he has engaged with me and Members from all parties as we have approached today’s debate. First, we accept his argument that the creation of a victim database would replicate the work of the victim contact scheme. Victim liaison officers perform a vital role in keeping victims and their families up to date on the release process. That extends to those affected by the shocking crimes under discussion in respect of the Bill. There is scope to improve the scheme further, and the Government have pledged to review it as part of a broader reform of probation. It is vital that the tragic cases to which the Bill applies are given substantial consideration in any such review.

Secondly, we welcome the Government’s intention to introduce an opt-out system as part of the victim contact scheme. That will help to ensure that families of victims are empowered throughout the criminal justice process, extending support to more of those in need while protecting the right to withdraw from the contact process should that be desired.

Finally, we welcome the commitment to involving the Victims’ Commissioner in any review of the victim contact scheme. In her letter dated 7 August, the commissioner laid out her thoughts on how to make the scheme more responsive to victims’ needs, including by changing it from a transactional service into a package of end-to-end support and considering the benefits of co-location with victims’ services. The Government must work closely with the commissioner to consider the viability of her proposed changes.

I thank the Minister for inviting us on the Opposition Benches to contribute to any future review; it is generous of him and welcomed by us. We look forward to working with him on this issue and finding solutions to the challenges of how we ensure that families can easily update contact details over time. It is important that our political system, and those who work within it, come together when broad agreement can be found. Not only is this how politics can better reflect most people’s experiences in their daily lives, but it is a way that we in this House can demonstrate our respect for the suffering of victims and their families by coming together and putting their needs ahead of any others.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Chris Philp

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) on the Opposition Front Bench. I have a lot of sympathy with what he said, and I hope the Minister will address the points he made, because we want to be constructive. We all support the overall thrust of the Bill, but my concern, as Chair of the Justice Committee, is that we do not do anything—albeit inadvertently and for good reasons—that undermines the checks and balances that are a normal part of the criminal process.

That is why the change in the burden of proof in relation to TPIMs needs more justification put behind it. Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, is highly regarded in this field, and the Minister has quoted him with approbation on a number of occasions. In this instance, he does not regard the case as being made out. If the Minister takes a different view, with respect, we need something more substantial as to why that is the case. There may be good reasons, but it cannot be done on a purely speculative basis. It cannot be on the basis that it may be useful to have this wider test. It might engage some people outside the jurisdiction in ways that we cannot currently in terms of gathering evidence and intelligence, but that case has to be made. Having voted on two occasions to increase the burden of proof to where it currently is, I would like to have a pretty clear sense that there is a compelling reason for reversing those decisions—and there may be, but I think the Minister owes it to us to set that out, and we need Mr Hall to set out why he comes to a different view. We may be persuadable, but it is important that the case is made and that the House understands that.

I accept that there is an overall three-year time limit on the working of the Bill, but I am concerned that, without a time limit, the TPIM will become the default mechanism and more like a control order. We surely all ought to recognise that, wherever possible—wherever proper, admissible evidence can be obtained and proceedings can be safely and securely brought—if people have done the vile things that we are talking about, which pose a real criminal threat to the security of this country and its people, the normal and proper course ought to be to prosecute through the normal due process. An alternative means of dealing with this should only be undertaken in the most exceptional circumstances. I can see that there may sometimes be such circumstances, but again, that case needs to be spelt out.

The third issue that I wish quickly to deal with is polygraphs. The Law Society takes the view that the suggestion of the use of polygraphs in some of these circumstances is more to persuade people psychologically —that is the phrase it uses in its briefing—against breaching the orders. That may be valuable in itself, but we ought to be wary of the limits of polygraphs’ usefulness. There are mixed views in academic, scientific and legal circles about the reliability of polygraphs. I do not have a fixed view about them, but I think we should approach their use with caution and proportionality.

[Chris Philp]

rose—

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am always happy to give way to my hon. Friend and near neighbour.

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend and south London neighbour is kind for giving way. Let me reassure him on his point about the limits of polygraphs. We understand and accept that they have limits, which is why a negative polygraph result on its own can never result in a recall to prison or licence conditions being deemed to have been broken. All a negative polygraph result could do is prompt further investigation by other means, which I hope provides him with the reassurance he seeks.

[Sir Robert Neill]

That is a very helpful reassurance for today’s purposes, and I am grateful for the spirit in which the Minister said that. It is an important point, and I am glad that he takes this on board. Sometimes, for the best of reasons, there can be a mission creep with these measures, which could lead to a broader spread of their use in the criminal justice system, and that would be a matter of concern. If he says that the use is very specific, I accept his word on that, but it is important that we continue to keep this under review and do not have unintended mission creep. As we all know, it is often easy to present perfectly benign and reasonable reasons for doing something that departs from the normal checks and balances, but it then becomes entrenched and permanent and spreads.

In that spirit, I take the Minister’s assurance, but he will understand why it is important that that issue is debated and that reassurances are given that the overall integrity of the justice system will not be affected by these changes. That has dealt quickly with the issues that I sought to raise. It was perhaps a record brevity, but I hope that brevity does not reduce the import of the issues raised.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Chris Philp

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill]

That is an interesting point, but, with respect to my right hon. Friend, it is a wholly different consideration. There has been much debate on this point. The Select Committee has looked at it and urged that for certain offences, such as assaults on prison officers, there is often a compelling case, as a matter of public policy, for that to be charged as an additional offence, rather than be dealt with under the prison disciplinary rules, as is frequently the case. I am with him on that, but perhaps that is as far as we should take it today.

I have one final point about retrospectivity. Some learned commentators have raised concerns on the basis of the European Court decision in the case of Del Río Prada, but that case at most raises a tangential or speculative concern that there might be retrospectivity. The briefing from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law—I have a lot of respect for that centre, so it is right that I address it—says that arguably this could be regarded as falling foul of the principles; it does not come down hard and fast in that regard. The decision came after a particularly convoluted history of changes within the Spanish judicial system, which is utterly different from what we are doing. Subsequently, there have been decisions by the Strasbourg Court, in the case of the application of Abedin against the United Kingdom, and by the Supreme Court in the UK, in the case of Doherty, where the line of reasoning was much more consistent with the traditional stance we have taken ever since the House of Lords decision in the case of Uttley, which was that the changes to remission and early release provisions were part of the administration or execution of a sentence, not part of the penalty. That seems such a well-established principle that we ought to have confidence that we can act upon it in this case.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

I wholeheartedly concur with my hon. Friend’s analysis, but I just wanted to add one point. The Del Río Prada case touched on how concurrent sentences were calculated, which is wholly different from the matter before the House today.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In legal parlance, I would say that is the most material consideration in distinguishing between those cases and the ones we are dealing with here. I hope that, having considered all those points, the House will be reassured on retrospectivity.

As other hon. Members have observed, it is important to recognise that this is a specific piece of legislation dealing with a specific and discrete problem; it does not mean we should not act urgently to deal with the broader issue of how we deal with this type of terrorism, which has developed in recent years; how we contain those who are deeply radicalised in prison; and how we prevent further radicalisation in prison—there is some concern that the Streatham attacker might still have been receiving radicalisation material while in prison. We need to look urgently at that and at the threat, which many of us have come across, of hard-line terrorist prisoners seeking to further radicalise more vulnerable inmates within the prison estate. That is an issue that Mr Acheson, who has been referred to favourably by many in this debate, addressed. I am glad to hear the Lord Chancellor has been in touch with Mr Acheson.

I share the view of the shadow Minister that Mr Acheson has a good deal more to give to this discussion. Things have moved on since his 2016 report, and he was a most compelling witness when he appeared before the Justice Committee in a previous Parliament, so it might be that we would like the benefit of his views again. I hope the Government will engage directly with him to see how, within the new context, we can continue to take on that and other expertise.

It is also right that we build upon the good work being done by the chaplaincy service in the form of the specialist imams. We have not perhaps given enough credit to the work of prison chaplaincy generally and of the specialist imams, who have a very difficult task to fulfil but do it most admirably. That is the impression I have got from those I have met. What more can we do to give them greater professional—pastoral, if you like—practical and professional support? This is an important area. I hope the Minister will confirm that we intend to continue that work and say what we can do to make sure that the many terrorist prisoners being held in high-security prisons like Belmarsh, near me in south-east London, are being held in a way that does not pose any further threat to staff, in terms of attacks—an issue that Mr Acheson dealt with—or any threat, either physically or in terms of further corruption, to other more vulnerable inmates with whom they might be serving.

In conclusion, this is an important Bill, and I hope the House will speed it through, but there is much more work to do. I will finish, though the Lord Chancellor is not now in the Chamber, by concurring with the shadow Minister on one final point: I, too, have been frustrated, as Chairman of the Select Committee, at the revolving door of Secretaries of State and Ministers who have appeared before us over the years, and I very much hope that the Lord Chancellor will stay in office very successfully and for many years. His handling of this delicate matter, including yesterday, has given him as good a claim as anyone to his office—and I, too, hope that that has not done too much damage to his career.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Of course, the Government and Parliament think carefully about retrospection and rightly take a circumspect view. Several changes to sentencing have been made over the past five or 10 years, including the introduction of extended determinate sentences, whereby release at two thirds of the way through a sentence is a matter for the Parole Board following an assessment of dangerousness by the sentencing judge. Sentences for offenders of particular concern were extended a short time ago to include terrorist offenders who do not have an EDS or life sentence, and SOPCs include a Parole Board assessment at the halfway point. A great deal has been done in the past few years in this area, but the two recent cases, including, of course, the one in Streatham just a week and a half ago, underline the need to go even further than before, which is why this Bill is before the House today.

The number of offenders affected is small. As the Lord Chancellor said in his excellent introduction, only 50 offenders are involved, because all the rest are covered by other sentencing types. Even a small number of offenders, however, can cause a high level of harm, as we have seen, which is why it is important that we go further with today’s Bill. The next such offender is due for release by the end of the month, and that is why we are acting so quickly to ensure that legislation is in place prior to that release.

I thank Members from across the House, including the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), and the SNP spokesman, for the constructive and supportive tone of their speeches. This is a good example of Parliament working in a cross-party way in the national interest, and I am grateful for the approach they have taken today.

Some of the questions raised today touch on wider issues in this area, one of which is the question of resources, raised by the hon. Member for Torfaen in his opening speech. I confirm to the House once again that another £90 million will be spent on counter-terrorism policing next year, bringing the budget to £900 million. That very significant increase in resources was announced just a short time ago.

We clearly need to do more on the prison estate. Between 2017-18 and 2019-20, the prisons budget has increased from £2.55 billion to £2.9 billion, a 15% increase, and over the last three years there has been a welcome increase in the number of prison officers serving in our prison estate from 18,003 to 22,536.

Of course, we are also investing in the quality of the prison estate. The next financial year, which starts shortly, will see an extra £156 million invested in the prison estate’s physical condition, in addition to a £2.5 billion programme to build 10,000 additional prison places over and above the 3,500 currently under construction at Glen Parva, Wellingborough and Stocken.

[Sir Robert Neill]

The Minister is making a good speech, and I recognise the various measures the Government are taking to invest in the prison estate and in staffing. On the point made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), does the Minister also recognise the importance of a comprehensive policy to ensure the retention of experienced prison staff, as well as the recruitment of others, because they have particular skills and knowledge that are valuable in this field?

[Chris Philp]

The Chair of the Justice Committee makes a good point. It is important to retain experience in the prison officer establishment. Prison staff have long expertise and long experience, and the Prisons Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), is acutely aware of the importance of retention.

Many hon. and right hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), have drawn attention to the importance of a comprehensive deradicalisation programme in prisons—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) also made that point in his excellent speech. We are acutely conscious of the importance of that and of the need to do more. We have the theological and ideological intervention programme, the healthy identities programme and the deradicalisation programme in place, and I am sure there is more that needs to be done in those areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) touched on that in his speech, and I know the Prisons Minister would like shortly to take up his offer of a meeting to discuss exactly these issues.

Of course, it is equally important to make sure these offenders are properly monitored after release, whether on licence or otherwise. The TPIM regime was strengthened in 2015, and we always have multi-agency public protection arrangements where necessary. As we saw, those arrangements were effective in the case of Sudesh Amman. After he began his behaviour, it was a matter of seconds before the police were able to intervene, which is an example of MAPPA working well in practice.

In the few minutes remaining to me, I will address the question of retrospection, touched on by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). It is our very firm belief, based on legal advice, that these measures do not contravene article 7. They do not constitute a retrospective change of the penalty, because the penalty is the total sentence. The penalty is the sentence handed down by the judge at the point of sentencing and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) elaborated, a wide body of case law says that changing the early release point does not change the penalty. In fact, early release ameliorates the penalty—it reduces the penalty—so changing the early release point does not add to it. The Uttley case makes that clear, as do other cases that have come before the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.

I do not think the Del Río Prada case, in which the Kingdom of Spain was a respondent, is directly germane because it concerns the calculation of concurrent sentences and a change in how concurrent sentences are handled, which is obviously not the matter before the House today. The Government are clear that the Bill does not contravene article 7 and does not constitute a retrospective change to the penalty; it simply constitutes a change to how the sentence is administered.

Let me touch briefly on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), which I suspect we may debate more fully in Committee shortly. We do not believe that a “notwithstanding” clause is necessary, because we do not believe article 7 is contravened by this legislation—we can debate this more. We are also not wholly convinced that a “notwithstanding” clause would derogate our treaty obligations under the ECHR.

Procedure for Appointing Judges

Debate between Robert Neill and Chris Philp

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, in my first appearance as Minister in a Westminster Hall debate. I add my congratulations and thanks to those that other Members have offered to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who secured this timely debate.

I will begin by directly addressing the hon. Gentleman’s question about the independence of the process we have adopted to appoint members of the judiciary. I and the Government as a whole fully support the position articulated by the Lord Chancellor, that judicial appointments should be wholly independent and separate from any interference by politicians of any kind, including any form of parliamentary oversight. Speakers in the debate, including, of course, the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), have powerfully and eloquently made the case for that approach. If judges are to act impartially as interpreters of the law that Parliament enacts, they cannot be subject to any form of political interference, including at the moment of their appointment. I join the Lord Chancellor and other Members who have spoken in stating clearly that the American system of Supreme Court confirmation hearings, and even elections for some judicial positions, would be wholly inappropriate in this country. It would undermine the principle of judicial impartiality that has prevailed in all four corners of the United Kingdom for so long. I hope that straight away I can give Members reassurance on the critical question in the debate.

The Lord Chancellor has been extremely clear in his comments, both those he made by the modern means of communication, Twitter, in the immediate aftermath of the various judgments that we have discussed, and those he made on the opening of the English and Welsh legal year last Tuesday. I attended that event in Westminster Hall, a few feet from where we are, and in his opening remarks the Lord Chancellor made it clear to the entire assembled judiciary that he would stand in defence of their independence and impartiality. That message was heard loud and clear. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has acknowledged, a couple of hours ago in the main Chamber, in response to a question from the Chair of the Justice Committee, the Lord Chancellor reiterated his and the Government’s unequivocal support for the principle of judicial independence and the independence of the judicial appointments process.

That process was established and put on a statutory footing in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. As has been said, prior to that the Lord Chancellor exercised the power on advice from civil servants, but since the Act was passed the Judicial Appointments Commission has made recommendations, which the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals approve. However, the Judicial Appointments Commission is essentially the body that makes the recommendations and whose voice is decisive. I join the Chair of the Justice Committee in thanking Lord Kakkar, the commission chairman, for his work and that of his fellow commissioners—both lay and lawyers.

On at least two occasions in recent years the work of the Judicial Appointments Commission has been examined. A House of Lords Committee scrutinised the process in 2012, and during the passage of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 a great deal of work was done, looking at the process by which the judiciary are appointed. Recommendations were made and they were enacted in the 2013 Act, which amended the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. They included transferring responsibility for the selection of deputy High Court judges to the JAC. JAC lay commissioners were also allowed greater involvement in more senior judicial appointments above the High Court, including chairmanship of the panel to select the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Supreme Court. The latter is done in rotation with their counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) will be pleased to hear. The process under which the JAC currently operates is a good and effective one. It received significant scrutiny in 2012 and 2013 and I can confirm that the Government have no intention of altering the process.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), drew attention to the fact that England and Wales is an international jurisdiction of choice for many litigants whose cases do not directly relate to the United Kingdom. I know less about Scotland in that respect, and would be happy to hear about it. Such litigants choose to use our courts because of their reputation for impartiality, effectiveness and sound decision making. There could be no greater vote of confidence in our courts system than the fact that so many people from around the world choose it. I add my thanks to those that the hon. Lady expressed to all the judiciary, from the magistracy to the Supreme Court, for the work they do to uphold the rule of law and for being a beacon of impartiality and sound judgment around the world.

Some hon. Members raised the topic of the composition of the judiciary, including the retirement age. That is currently 70, but it was older in the past. The Chair of the Justice Committee drew attention to the fact that many capable members of the bench, at all levels, retire while still exercising their functions at a high level and with the benefit of many years’ experience. I saw that at my local Crown court in Croydon. The chairman of the bench there had retired at the age of 70 a year or so ago—in his prime, I would say. The Government and the Ministry of Justice have heard the message from several quarters this afternoon and have listened carefully. We are considering the comments carefully and I suspect that we will consult on the matter before too long.

[Robert Neill]

I welcome what the Minister says, which gives me the opportunity to pay a personal tribute to His Honour Judge Warwick McKinnon, an old professional and personal friend who retired as resident judge at Croydon. I am also glad that the Minister mentioned the magistracy. Constituents of mine who were fine, experienced bench chairs had to retire at 70 when they still had much to offer.

[Chris Philp]

I concur with both comments. I would also like to thank Judge McKinnon, who is a constituent of mine as well as a former chair of the bench. I agree that my comments on age apply as much to the magistracy as to the judiciary more generally—the court judges. As I said, I think my hon. Friend can look forward to a consultation on the topic before too long.

Several hon. Members raised the matter of the gender balance and ethnic composition of the bench, and I entirely understand why those points were raised. The proportion of newly appointed court judges from BME backgrounds is 11%, which compares to slightly over 15% of the population as a whole. Currently 7% of court judges and 11% of tribunal judges are, as the hon. Member for Bolton South East said, from BME backgrounds.

As for gender balance, as the hon. Lady said, 27% of High Court judges are female, and that figure rises to 32% across the courts more generally and 46% in tribunals. Also 56% of the magistracy are female and about 50% of court judges under 50 are female; that is an encouraging sign. Qualifying those remarks, I would say that we rightly expect more senior court judges to have decades of experience at the Bar, so appointments today reflect the Bar 30 or 40 years ago, when diversity was not what we would like, and there is a measure of unavoidable time lag. That does not mean that we should not take proactive and active steps—we should. We should encourage the JAC and work generally to improve diversity in the magistracy and the courts. The figures are moving in the right direction and improving, but I am sure we can do more. As a newly appointed Minister I will certainly consider what active steps can be taken in that area.

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate, to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for securing it, and to other hon. Members for attending. Those include the now very famous hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West—

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Neill and Chris Philp

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman’s arguments are ones that the legal community often advance, whether in this arena or others, to justify very high levels of legal and judicial intervention, which is often very expensive. We need to maintain a sense of proportionality, lest legal costs and expenses get out of control.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Philp]

I shall in just a moment. I have seen figures suggesting that 47% of the pay-outs made by insurance companies for these relatively minor road traffic injuries get consumed by legal fees. If such a high proportion of pay-outs is being consumed by expenses, it suggests to me that the entire system is out of proportion, and that some reform is therefore needed. I give way to the Chair of the Justice Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not making the best case on the Government side that I have ever heard. Does he accept that lawyers act in the interests of their clients and that when they do, they are bound by professional obligations? Is not a better point that we should assist people through the system by working up a very good and accessible online portal, which the Minister has sought to do, so that we find the means of balancing cost with people’s ability to seek access to justice? I gently say to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) that that is perhaps a stronger point that the Government have been able to advance. The Minister has taken care to delay the implementation of aspects of the Bill in order to get the online portal up and working, and I suggest that that might be a more fruitful area to consider.

[Chris Philp]

I am always delighted to take advice and guidance from such a distinguished, learned and experienced Member as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). He adds further weight to the case by drawing attention to the benefits of the online portal, which I hope could be used to further simplify such matters and enable claimants to manage them, rather than having to rely on lawyers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Clearly the number of injury claims made via an insurance company is not related to the number of police officers on the street. The hon. Lady mentions the slight but welcome reduction in the number of whiplash injuries. Over the same period, the number of claims to insurance companies for back injuries has increased, so the total number of claims is down only very slightly over the last couple of years, and is still dramatically up over 10 years, which is clearly a more meaningful period. When the two are taken together, therefore, there has not been a significant reduction.

[Robert Neill]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Philp]

How could I possibly resist my hon. Friend?

[Robert Neill]

The House will know about my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned claims management companies. Would he agree that some of the concerns about balancing access to justice with discouraging fraudulent claims—we all agree about them—would be met by continuing to revise and strengthen the regulation of claims management companies, which are not regulated to the degree that solicitors are, and in particular by bearing down on the employment of paid McKenzie friends—non-qualified, quasi-lawyers who are particularly rife in the claims management sector? Will he work with me in persuading the Government to move swiftly to ban them?

[Chris Philp]

Once again my hon. Friend makes a very good point—two very good points, in this case. The operation of claims management companies, which have been actively engaged in encouraging the public to commit fraud, has had an extremely negative effect in this area. I want an outright ban on them making cold calls, but I am slightly concerned that even if the Government take all the action that he and I would like, these people, being extremely adept in such matters, would adapt their behaviour to circumvent the legislation and regulation. For example, they might start making cold calls from outside the UK’s legal jurisdiction, as we saw following the ban on referral fees that came into force two or three years ago. Insurance companies were banned from receiving referral fees from claims management companies, but some insurance companies and claims management companies sought to circumvent the ban by setting up what they euphemistically termed “alternative business structures”, whereby the claims management company effectively remunerated the insurance company via an equity stake rather than a referral fee. I am therefore concerned that even if we take all the action we can, these often rather dubious characters will find new and ingenious ways of circumventing the legislation.