Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill]

I think my hon. Friend needs to bear in mind that the application that was made to Strasbourg was also about the circumstances of an individual case, so that is no different.

There is a legitimate criticism—one that I have voiced in the past—about the procedure adopted in Strasbourg for these applications in two areas: first, the anonymity of the judge, and secondly, the failure to state reasons. From our point of view, that would not be acceptable, but the answer is not to throw out the whole of the judicial and treaty baby with the bathwater. Thanks to the Brighton declaration that was signed by my noble and learned Friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham, it is possible to make reforms following dialogue between member states, the Council of Ministers and the judiciary of the Court. I am pleased to say that after pressure from the United Kingdom—perfectly properly—the Court itself has indicated that it will to consult on reforms to its procedure, which can only be a good thing. That is what I think the balanced position is on that issue.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

In fact, further than that, there are already proposed reforms to the interim procedure, which will come into place this year and crucially will remove the anonymity provisions and allow contracting parties such as the UK to make the argument, as I believe applies in this case, that there is not an imminent risk of irreparable damage. We can fly people back from Rwanda, and that is the argument we need to keep making.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely correct, and he and I would probably have very happily argued the UK’s case in Strasbourg on those grounds, so let us be realistic about what we are fighting against. With respect, a bit of an Aunt Sally has been set up because steps are already being taken to deal with the objectionable matters relating to rule 39s, but the principle of them is not itself objectionable.

Secondly, with respect, the characterisation of a “foreign court” is not helpful in these circumstances, because it implies something alien, which it is not the case for international law as a concept or for the Court itself. The fact that it happens to meet in a different place from the UK is inevitable because it has to meet somewhere. We should bear in mind that not only was the UK one of the driving powers behind the creation of the convention in the first place, behind the Court itself and behind much of the jurisprudence of the Court, but the UK does actually have shared ownership of the Court, along with all the other member states.

That is demonstrated not just in the treaty, but in practical ways. For example, the British members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—Members of this House and the other place—have a role in the appointment of the judges of the Court. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I served at one time on the sub-committee of the Assembly that dealt with that process, and I like to think that we did so diligently, so there is involvement in that process. A British judge always sits on the Court and is a member of the Court. Judge Tim Eicke, the current judge, is a very distinguished international lawyer, and we are very lucky to have him. Two of the recent registrars of the Court, who run its administration, have been British lawyers, and British lawyers appear regularly in cases before the Court.

This is not an alien body; it is a Court of which we have joint ownership. It is our Court, along with that of all the other member states of the convention, and it is wrong to mischaracterise it as something alien. Certainly, in all international matters, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it operates on a different plane, but the tone of comments about its alienness is, with respect, both inaccurate and somewhat offensive. It is also unnecessary for the purposes of this Bill anyway, and that is the point I want to come on to in relation to rule 39.

The amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark are otiose. They are unnecessary and, frankly, would make a difficult situation worse. As a matter of law, an interim measure under rule 39 is an indication made to the Government of the member state. It is not made to the courts of the member state; it is conveyed to the Government of the member state concerned. Therefore, it is for the members of the Government of the member state—the Ministers—to decide what to do about it.

I personally take the view that we should be very loth indeed to ignore the findings of the Court on an interim matter. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West rightly said, it runs the risk of putting us in breach of our international law obligation in that regard. However, the truth is that it is a political decision that the Ministers can take. So what the Bill in its current formulation states is actually no more than a statement of the law as it stands, and we probably do not need clause 5 in the Bill. I am not going to die in a ditch over that, because it is simply stating what the law is already, but, equally, there is absolutely no need for the amendments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark to put bells and whistles on otioseness, if I can put it that way.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Report stage
Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

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

My right hon. and learned Friend is making an important and eloquent speech. Can I emphasise the point that he makes about certainty, and return to the intervention by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) about the importance of having clarity on what the test will be and at what stage it applies? We all understand proportionality tests, and we certainly all understand classic judicial review tests, but it is important in this emerging market that people know at which stage which test applies. I appreciate the Minister saying that he will clarify that later in his speech, but I am not sure that the wording proposed by the Government gives us that clarity. Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) consider what more needs to be done around that?

[Sir Robert Buckland]

What my hon. Friend outlines is precisely what we are seeking. In making these arguments, we are not in some way the friends of big tech; we are not here to represent a particular sectoral interest. My amendment was drafted by me and by senior counsel from Monckton Chambers, including Philip Moser KC, who regularly appears both for and against big tech in these matters. I thought it right to seek some independent pro bono advice on the operation of competition law to make sure that, in developing the law in this way, we do not create entirely untested mechanisms that would—guess what?—require litigation to clarify.

The point is that we should be seeking to minimise more interpretive language that will require to be tested in the courts. That is why I take slight issue with what was said by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), whom I respect very much. In amendment 186, I seek to replace the word “indispensable” with “necessary”, because I think that is a much clearer term that everyone would understand and that would, in itself, be a high threshold for the affected company in demonstrating consumer benefit in the countervailing consumer benefit test.

I think that, rather than trying to use and develop new language, we should look back and learn from the experience of telecoms regulation. One of the problems in, in effect, handing considerable power to the new digital markets unit is that the legal landscape relating to this activity is unformed. Unlike the landscape that underpinned the Competition Act 1998, we do not have the advantage of years of EU and UK court interpretation that was then applied by guidelines issued by the CMA.

Performing Arts: English National Opera

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Monday 5th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill]

The right hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right, not least because the decision was made with no notice, no prior consultation and no ability for the ENO to go through a proper consultation process with its staff, who may be rendered redundant. I suspect that lays the Arts Council open to judicial review, but I am sure it would not want to get into that position when a compromise solution is readily available.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; I am conscious of the time. That is the most shocking aspect of this sorry saga: the suddenness of the decision, the abruptness of the withdrawal of funding and the failure to even consider a phased approach or a more modulated approach, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). Nobody wants to talk about legal action, so surely the sensible way forward is for the Arts Council to think again about the gravity of its decision and to give the ENO a fair hearing at the very least.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. and learned Friend is obviously right. The perhaps unprecedented number of interventions in this Adjournment debate from hon. Members on both sides of the House demonstrates how strongly people feel about the issue. That is the message to the Minister and the ENO: people support the ENO and say that the Arts Council should think again and find a way forward that achieves the objective.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I have sat diligently through the entire debate, and I think that the House is soberly and carefully examining an issue that is not just about Brexit or our relationship with the EU, but which goes to the heart of the exceptional nature of Northern Ireland and its position in our great United Kingdom. That arrangement was reached a century ago, whether we like it or not. The consequences of Northern Ireland’s exceptional position have made this particular issue so vexed and complicated.

I was in Government when the final withdrawal agreement was negotiated. We all remember—I certainly do with great clarity—the need for there to be an agreement with the EU for us to be able to chart a way forward, not just in terms of our withdrawal and the period of grace that we had for a year after that, but our subsequent trade agreement. For me, that is of paramount importance.

I therefore come to this debate after very careful and measured thought. As an unalloyed pro-European, I still believe in the importance of Britain’s role with our friends in Europe and the importance of maintaining strong bilateral arrangements, and I do not want to see us doing anything hastily that could jeopardise that important continuing relationship. That is why we should heed very strongly the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—he worked diligently to bring back that Executive, with great success—about the need for Franco-British bilateral discussions to proceed at pace. In my considered view, that will be how we unlock the sort of negotiation that everybody in the Chamber wants.

Hon. Members are right to talk about the need for negotiation, but the reality is that there is no negotiation. We cannot even call it a negotiation because Maroš Šefčovič, in working for the Commission, needs political direction from the EU and its member states—most notably, France—to be able to even call his discussions with the United Kingdom a negotiation. That is the reality.

Although masterly inactivity is sometimes absolutely the right way for nation states to proceed, I am afraid that that is not an option for us here. A nation should pursue masterly inactivity when it has a position of advantage and I am afraid that we do not have that, because our essential interests are under threat. We have identified our essential interests as the

“maintenance of stable social and political conditions in Northern Ireland, the protection of the 1998 Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, the effective functioning of the unique constitutional structures created under that Agreement, and the preservation and fostering of social and economic ties between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom”.

Here is the point I want to make, in the short time I have: a lot has been said about necessity, as if it requires imminent peril or an immediate threat facing us just outside the door. Nobody is saying that we face that, but necessity in this context does not require that degree of imminence; it requires a degree of real threat, and growing evidence of a real threat to our essential interests. I would argue that there is such growing evidence. Clearly north-south is entirely unaffected—the respect we are showing for the single market is clear—but there is a growing problem when it comes to east-west. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) put it very well when he talked about the prawn sandwich argument.

I have to say that at a time when there seems to be violent agreement among all the parties of Northern Ireland, and indeed among all of us in this Chamber, the full implementation of the protocol is not what we want to see. Nobody wants that. What on earth are we all arguing about?

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. and learned Friend speaks wisely about these topics, as ever. He refers to the doctrine of necessity and the tests that must be met. I think he will agree that, whether it be imminent or emerging, there has to be evidence that the high threshold is met. Does he think that, in common with the approach adopted in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, if there is evidence so pressing as to justify a departure from an international agreement, with the risks that that involves, it should be brought back to this place for the House to decide in a vote? As was then suggested in that Bill, on the evidence available, there should be a parliamentary lock on the use of that important step.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. His amendment to that Bill was adopted by this House in 2020; I thought it was a sensible mechanism to allow this House of Commons to have its final say with regard to the implementation of these measures based on clear evidence.

My point is simply that this is not a matter of law or a question of legality. There is a respectable argument that can be deployed by the British Government to assert necessity, but this is not about the law; it is about the evidence that the Government will need to marshal to demonstrate that point. The Government’s responsibility is to be a good steward of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement.

Mental Health Act 1983: Detention of People with Autism and other Lifelong Conditions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way, and for the passion and knowledge that he brings to this topic. He refers to out-of-date legislation and how things have moved on. He will know from his experience as Justice Secretary that if we thought that we were applying the same regimes in terms of detention and use of restraint to people who had been convicted of offences after the passing of 60 years, we would rightly be outraged. Should we not be rightly outraged now that this is being done to people who have committed no offence and have not had the protection of due process that those going through the justice system have?

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I have good news, because it is Government policy to update the Mental Health Act. That is the plan that I and others, when I was in Cabinet, agreed on and I know that it is what the Minister will speak about. Reforming the Mental Health Act is Government policy because, goodness me, we have work to do. Between 2006 and 2016, the number of detentions rose by a staggering 40%. We owe thanks to the work of people such as the outstanding Sir Simon Wessely, whose independent review in 2018 gave the Government the clear course that I know they are adopting and following.

I particularly welcome the disaggregation of autism and learning disability from mental health in law and the end to their being classed as a mental disorder under section 3 of the existing Act. According to the Government’s policy, there has to be a clinically established concurrent mental health condition before detention can be allowed, and there will be a 28-day limit. All that makes immense sense, and I particularly look forward to the Government’s introducing a statutory duty to provide adequate community-based services, such as supported housing. In the White Paper that the Minister introduced before Christmas, we saw really healthy and useful reference to supported housing. It is my belief that, without that, we cannot create effective community-based services.

We still do not have a fully clear picture of the current commissioning landscape across England, but we know that people are being left in NHS-funded detention, because the lack of resources for local government means there just are not enough local government-commissioned community services for people to go home, back to their families and back to their local areas. Legislative change cannot come soon enough, so I would be extremely grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could confirm the Government’s intention to bring forward that legislation, whether it will be first via the pre-legislative scrutiny process and, if so, when we can expect its introduction.

As time is short, I want to speak briefly about the Transforming Care agenda. We know that, when all agencies work together at the same pace, it is excellent, but the trouble is that we still have agencies dragging their heels or causing problems that mean people are spending longer in detention than they need to. The readmission of patients who are being discharged is another depressing example of our failure to break the vicious cycle in many cases.

We know what “good” looks like; we have the NHS England “Building the Right Support” service model and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. We know that there are pockets of good practice that the Government are actively promoting and supporting, but more needs to be done to join that up. If we are to see these figures starting to come down, consistent with the Government’s own priorities, the time for action is now.

There are, therefore, two things that the Government can do. They can not only bring forward the legislation, but fulfil their pledge to add more substance to the strategies they have outlined. The £74 million, pledged in the 2020 Budget to help with what are known as the double running costs when people with a learning disability or autism are discharged into the community, is extremely welcome. I know there are funding commitments in the NHS long-term plan to help the development of community support. However, as the recent Health and Social Care Committee inquiry noted, we still are not in the place we need to be. We still do not have that level of support that will make the discharge of patients a much more seamless and successful process. I know that ending those perverse incentives and this artificial division between the NHS and local government is part of the integration agenda, and I look forward to the White Paper that my hon. Friend will be publishing very soon, but I want everything to be joined up, in a way I was acutely conscious of when I was Justice Secretary.

I will end on this note: I was acutely conscious of the need for greater speed when it came, for example, to the approval of the recommendation of clinicians, which was the responsibility of my Department. Prior to the onset of covid, I collaborated directly with the then Health Secretary to jointly pursue the Mental Health Act reform agenda. My abiding regret is that I was not able to do more, and I want to say that I am sorry that I was not able to do more, but here I am in my place asking my friends to carry on the work, to pick up the ball and to take it further for all the people we represent and their families. By calling this debate and by making that direct request to Government to act, I hope that together we can make the necessary changes and save lives.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me first in the debate. I am delighted to make a contribution to the Second Reading of a Bill that was very much part of the work that I undertook as Lord Chancellor. I was keen to make sure that we made progress with the Bill on several grounds, the first of which was the necessary reform to judicial pensions in light of the McCloud judgment and other legal developments since the previous set of reforms to judicial pensions. The second was the important and generational issue of retirement age for judges. The previous reform to that retirement age had been back in 1995, and it was not of immediate application but took many years to come into effect, bearing in mind its adherence to non-retrospectivity. I took a different view about the way in which we should approach reform this time. I felt very strongly that any change to retirement age should have immediate effect, and that it should benefit those currently in judicial office. I make no apology for that, because with welcome changes and elongations to lifespan, health and wellbeing, I thought that we were losing many talented men and women at the height of their career. I am not going to name names, but there are many people who served in the highest judicial office who left at the age of 70, but who I felt had much more to give. Some of them were able to carry on in retirement, sitting with special dispensation, but I felt that we needed to do something generational. I very much hope that the change that we are bringing about in the judicial retirement age will endure for many years, well into the middle part of this century. We are not saying that people have to sit at 75. We are not forcing people to sit beyond the time they wish to serve, but we are giving them an opportunity to do that.

Can I deal head-on with diversity, because I considered that matter very carefully indeed when I was Lord Chancellor? I have had the privilege of serving on the judicial diversity forum, which is a committee of the Judicial Appointments Commission, ably chaired by Lord Kakkar, and we take the issue of diversity very seriously indeed. In the other place, amendments were tabled to reduce the age of retirement to 72, on the basis that there were concerns about slowing the increase in diversity, but I believe that that worst-case scenario is based on a failure to act. In other words, it is incumbent on the Ministry of Justice, the Judicial Appointments Commission and others interested in and passionate about diversity to do more to attract people of diversity to the judiciary.

In particular, many women have had career breaks to bring up their family in their 30s and 40s. At the moment, they face quite a difficult decision to return to practice, and regard a 70 age limit as inhibiting their ability to take up part-time, then full-time, judicial office. Increasing the age limit to 75 will allow more women who have had career breaks actively to consider what is a career of up to 20 years if they are to enjoy the full benefits of the pension.

We should not forget that in 1995, one of my predecessors, Lord Mackay, not only reduced the pension age but increased the time that people had to serve to take their full judicial pension from 15 to 20 years. That combined decision had quite an effect on the career opportunities presented to lawyers when considering whether the bench was for them. In other words, people really had to make up their mind in their 40s if they were serious about reaching the bench. There are plenty of exceptions—some people who have done very well in their profession could go to the bench later and perhaps take a smaller pension—but many people felt that they could not take full advantage of a judicial career because of that time restriction.

That changes with a retirement age of 75. People can come to the bench in their mid-50s and serve the full 20 years. That is a huge opportunity, not just for women but for people who come to the legal profession slightly later in their career, mainly because the financial burdens are so onerous in their younger years that they do not feel able to join it in the first place. Contrary to suggestions in the other place and elsewhere, the measure could be a spur to the Government and the Judicial Appointments Commission to do even more to attract women, people from an ethnic minority, and people who join the profession late to a judicial career.

[Sir Robert Neill]

Can I perhaps reinforce my right hon. and learned Friend’s point? He may have noted from the statistics released by the Judicial Appointments Commission that there has been a particular shortfall in appointments to the district bench and the circuit bench in recent rounds. Those are precisely the people for whom the ability to access a full pension is important. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the high-earning silk who goes into the High Court may be able to deal with a lesser amount of pension, but the people I am talking about, who are the workforce, particularly in the criminal and family courts—the senior juniors, the senior solicitors—will be under the most pressure if they are not able to get the 20 years’ full pension. That will be most difficult for them.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend makes a really powerful point. There is no doubt that the district bench is under huge pressure at the moment. We are not getting the recruits and the applications that we need in order to have a full district bench. The work is some of the most difficult and challenging in the judiciary; it is unglamorous work, but it is vital because it is the bulk, for example, of the civil and family work that goes on in our courts day after day. We have increasing numbers of recruitment competitions seeking to attract more talented people to the bench, but often the vacancies cannot be filled, because there are not enough applications. That, frankly, is a problem. That is why not only the extended retirement age but the changes to the pension will really send a signal to practitioners that the Government value the judiciary and understand the vital importance of having the quality, independent and high-morale cadre of people we need. Without them, we really do suffer as a country.

I should have declared an interest at the beginning, in that I am the recipient, potentially, of a judicial pension because of my service as a recorder of the Crown court, which finished, of course, on my appointment as Lord Chancellor. That is another story, which I will not regale the House with today, but I did have to resign from the judiciary on my appointment as Lord Chancellor. That was not always the case prior to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and I think hon. Members know my strong views about the baleful effects of that piece of legislation. I am sure that, with leadership in the Ministry of Justice, we can come back to those issues, and that was certainly my intention when I was in office. However, I parenthesise.

Let me come back to the germane issue of the retirement age. I note the concerns that the senior judiciary and immediately retired judges in the other place had about the 75-year mark. However, I would respectfully but firmly disagree with them. Some 67% of respondents to the consultation agreed with my ultimate decision, which was to raise the retirement age to 75. The bulk of circuit judges, sheriffs in Scotland and other judges considered that the position absolutely pointed in the direction of 75. With the greatest respect to senior judges, many in the senior judiciary have already made their plans and their provision clear, and I do not expect that all of them will wish to serve until 75, bearing in mind the expectation prior to the expected change in the law. Therefore, I am not so persuaded that the logjam that some fear will take place, and I see no reason why there should not be a rise in the retirement age to 75, despite the concerns expressed in the other place.

I am particularly pleased that there was unanimity across the three jurisdictions that 75 was indeed the appropriate retirement age. I took a lot of time and trouble to make sure that colleagues in Northern Ireland and Scotland were consulted. I was extremely grateful to the then Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan, for his careful consideration of the matter and for all the consultations I undertook with him, and indeed to the President of the Court of Session, Lord Carloway, who himself undertook extensive consultations with the Scottish judiciary. I was very grateful to colleagues in the Scottish Government for agreeing with the position that I sought to take with regard to the retirement age, because I thought that a cross-jurisdictional, pan-United Kingdom retirement age was highly desirable, bearing in mind the fact that atop it all sits the United Kingdom Supreme Court, with the members of that court therefore able to enjoy the same retirement age limitations irrespective of jurisdiction. That was a very important consideration that I am extremely grateful to colleagues in the other jurisdictions for agreeing to.

We have reached a position where we have come to an elegant solution: one that allows professionals to make decisions that suit themselves within that outer limit of 75 and acknowledges the reality that we see now, where the Lord Chancellor is constantly asked to allow judges to sit in retirement post 70—up to 72, in any event. It acknowledges the fact that, thanks to modern science and medicine, we have an increasingly agile and able cadre of people in their early 70s who are willing to serve. In the light of other societal changes—in the light of the fact that, thankfully, we are able to do more things at a greater age than perhaps we were a generation or so ago—I warmly commend the increase in the retirement age, in particular to the age of 75, to this House.

When it comes to the magistracy, we have suffered quite a decline in numbers in recent years. It was not so long ago that we had 30,000 volunteer magistrates—let us not forget, these are volunteers—sitting and serving in our courts. That number has declined alarmingly, and therefore it seems to me a matter of very good housekeeping for us to make sure that we can retain as many magistrates as possible while encouraging the excellent recruitment exercises that the Ministry of Justice is undertaking at the moment. The MOJ is to be commended on the vigour and focus of the exercises it is currently conducting, but without that additional help, my worry is that we are going to reach a critical position with regard to the number of justices of the peace that would undermine the viability of the system. That, frankly, would be a real problem, particularly in the family proceedings courts, where the lived experience, good judgment and common sense of magistrates is brought to bear on a variety of very difficult and complex family situations every day of the week.

This Bill was something I wanted to see even more urgently. I am glad that it is getting its Second Reading in early January: if I had had my wish, it would have received Royal Assent by now, but I understand that my ministerial colleagues in Government have to work to timetables, and that they themselves have different and conflicting priorities. However, it is an important signal that we are sending to the judiciary and to other public servants: not only that the Government take the judgments of the courts very seriously but, I hope, to make the point that any perception that this Government are somehow at war with the judiciary—that they somehow see the judiciary as enemies of the people, or think of them as an inconvenient encumbrance—is thoroughly dispelled by measures such as these.

Without a world-class, independent judiciary of quality, this country is no longer a civilised place. Without the important input of robust judicial independence, none of the jurisdictions for which we sit could call themselves world leading. It is vital that in this world of conflicting and competing calls for international investment, we have the brightest and the best from our legal profession serving in judicial office, because that is the most eloquent way in which we can express to the world the fact that Britain and the three jurisdictions are safe and secure places in which to invest, safe places in which to live, and free and fair places in which we can all be equal under the law. I can perhaps be accused of labouring the point, but I think that this sort of measure, detailed and technical though it is, embodies our commitment to that essential quality. That is why I am delighted to endorse the Bill on Second Reading and look forward to seeing it make a swift passage through the House.

Autism and Neurodiversity Research Funding

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Robert Buckland]

I will let my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) in first before my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that covid has had an impact on backlogs in all parts of the health system, including diagnosis. Having said that, there are significant advantages in the use of remote technology for people with autism and brain conditions. For them, very often the journey to a clinic, hospital or health centre is in itself traumatic and anxiety forming. I see remote technology as a real liberator for many people with autism, so the potential there is immense.

Sadly, the point my hon. Friend makes about the impact of covid is one that, without increased capacity and increased staffing, we will have to wrestle with for a number of years. On the point he makes about joined-up Government, I well remember saying on many occasions to anybody in Government who wished to listen that Justice could not do this on its own. As a downstream Department, it needed Education, Health, the DWP, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and, frankly, all arms of Government to work together to identify some of these problems at the root to prevent them from becoming part of criminal justice, but I will speak more about that in a while.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. and learned Friend is making the case most powerfully and demonstrating, as other hon. Members have said, why it is a tragedy that he is not still on the Front Bench.

I welcome the very significant initiative that my right hon. and learned Friend made in relation to this when he was the Secretary of State—something that, as he will know, the Justice Committee warmly welcomed. Does he agree that it is very important now that we maintain the momentum for this, and in particular that the moneys available to the Ministry of Justice in the spending review are put into important areas of this system that for too long, until his work, were overlooked?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee. It was encouraging to see that the revenue settlement for the Ministry of Justice over the next three years was a pretty good one, with a just over 4% increase year on year. Obviously, it is now going to be for Ministers, in their allocation process, to work out precisely what they want to spend within that envelope. I very much hope that the announcements we made as a result of the call for evidence—published as part of the autism strategy document in late July, which I cleared together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—will be followed through on.

More than that, it became increasingly clear to me, as I read the response to the call for evidence and as I followed the debate, that screening people coming into the criminal justice system and the prison system is an essential prerequisite of understanding the best way to handle them. I think a screening process for brain condition would reveal acquired brain injuries. It might reveal an undiagnosed condition—maybe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, attention deficit disorder, dyslexia even. Let us do that at this stage and work out what is going on in people’s minds, so that we can not just better manage them, but actually help them along the path of rehabilitation.

Do you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my worry is that, time and again—not just in the prison system, but in the probation service—regimes are set up and orders are made with the best of intentions, and the people with these conditions are set up to fail, because they are not able actually to access, understand or compute that in a way that perhaps neurotypical people can? That is not their fault; it is a fact of who they are and what they are. That is why we need to change the approach that we take. I do not want to see people set up to fail. I certainly do not want excuses for criminal behaviour, but I do want smart answers on ways in which we can meaningfully rehabilitate people. I have seen it happening. In Parc prison—a private prison, I have to say to those on the Labour Benches—in south Wales I was awestruck by the work being done on the neurodiversity wing. Prison officers trained in the right skills were working with some of the most difficult and complex prisoners in that estate and achieving results that might not to the naked eye look terribly remarkable but which, by the measure of the people they were dealing with, were extraordinary. We need to replicate that sort of work, which is being done in one corner of the estate, across the entire prison estate.

The wider debate is all about replicating the best practice we see across Government and local government, and across private enterprise and business as well, because I do not want this debate to be just about what the Government can do—me with my metaphorical hand out, saying, “More money please.” This is about society realising that if we are going to crack the issue and make a difference, we need carefully targeted research into what works.

End-to-end Rape Review

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Monday 21st June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am mindful of your stricture, Mr Speaker.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman very firmly about what I said? I rightly took responsibility and apologised for the overall failure that has led us to this situation. I do that as somebody who is politically responsible; I accept that without any qualification. I accept as well that resources are a matter for the Government, and I explained that, in the context of what we were left with, decisions were made back in 2010 that did indeed result in reductions. None the less, he will know as well that the issue with regard to the prosecution of rapes is not just about resources. It is about culture. It is about the way in which victims have, for far too long, been the focus of all attention. I know he agrees that that is inappropriate and that it is time for a much more perpetrator-focused approach.

When we calmly look at the figures for rape prosecutions over the past 10 or 15 years, we will see an encouraging rise from 2010 to about the middle of the decade, then a sustained improvement until about 2017-18, and then this very concerning decline that I have rightly acknowledged. That in itself tells us that something has happened here with regard to the way in which these cases are approached, and that has caused huge concern. There was a judicial review case about it that we are familiar with, which was hotly disputed between the Crown Prosecution Service and the sector, and, rightly, we waited for that to be concluded before we published this review. I say again to him what I said yesterday, which is that to in any way suggest that an increase in prosecutions and the bringing of cases should be linked to the fate or otherwise of a politician is constitutionally illiterate, dangerous, and the sort of approach that could lead to allegations of improper pressure being put on independent prosecutors.

I wonder whether, before he issued his public pronouncement, the right hon. Gentleman cleared it with his own boss. I can imagine the scene: me, as Lord Chancellor, speaking to the Director of Public Prosecutions in a way that would have crossed the line with regard to his prosecutorial independence; of course, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) was the DPP, and I am pretty sure about the answer that I would have got from him. I think that the silence of the Leader of the Opposition on this matter speaks volumes.

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

This is a very important statement, and the Lord Chancellor knows that when he makes a bid for further funding for the justice system, there is compelling evidence from the Justice Committee’s evidence sessions to support that. In relation to the current issue, does he agree that one of the most striking figures is that of 52,000 cases reported as rapes or serious sexual offences, only 2,700 found their way to the Crown Prosecution Service, which has a high percentage of then charging? Does he agree that it is critical that the evidence file is available to the Crown Prosecution Service and that victims and complainants are treated sensitively? Can we find out more about what happened to the other 50,000 that never even made it to the stage of being considered by the CPS?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee is right to point out the significant difference between the number of complaints that are made and the number of cases that reach their way to court. I have long harboured deep concerns about those early stages in the investigative process when a complainant or a victim comes forward with a complaint and then is made to make some very difficult choices, most notably about handing over a mobile phone. A young woman’s life will be on that phone. What replacement is she going to have, and how is she going to manage without such an important device? Very often that sort of Manichean choice is given, which is wholly wrong. That is why I think at the early stages of the investigation we need to do more to support victims, which is why I regard the investment in ISVAs as key to making sure that we can make a difference and reduce that cliff edge. I want to consult further on other aspects of support that we can give victims at the earliest stage to make sure that, when it comes to disclosure, the rights of victims are protected just as much as the rights of the accused.

Hillsborough: Collapse of Trials

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robert Buckland]

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

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

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

Protecting the Public and Justice for Victims

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

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

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

[Sir Robert Neill]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Buckland]

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

[Sir Robert Neill]

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

[Robert Buckland]

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

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

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

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

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

[Robert Buckland]

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

Independent Review of Administrative Law

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robert Buckland]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Robert Buckland]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am happy to assure the hon. and learned Lady that the terms of reference have been carefully couched to make it clear that we have distinctive contexts and natures in each of the jurisdictions, and that they will be considered where that is necessary. I am also content that where there are particular questions on devolved matters or of a devolved nature, the independent review will be approaching or inviting engagement from all appropriate parties. Of course, it is only the first stage in making recommendations. I can assure her that any proposals that will come forward will of course involve the fullest consultation with the devolved Administrations and, indeed, of course the fullest respect for the devolved settlement.

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

Can I welcome the tone of my right hon. and learned Friend’s statement and his very clear commitment to supporting the independence of the judiciary? That is an absolute and fundamental principle of our constitution, and should never be undermined by anyone. Can I also welcome the terms of reference of the review, which are balanced and measured in relation to the Human Rights Act and, in particular, the quality of the panel that has been appointed? I happen to have known Sir Peter Gross throughout my professional career, and he is known as both a man and a judge of the highest independence and integrity, as are the other members of the panel. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend can reassure us that they will have a completely free hand to act as they think is appropriate within the terms of reference, without any pressure on their independence from any quarter.

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee is absolutely right to highlight the impeccable credentials of the chair, Sir Peter Gross, not only as a distinguished former Lord Justice of Appeal, but of course as the judge responsible for international relations: he understands very well the issue of judicial diplomacy, which is very much at the heart of this review. I am glad that the geographical representation also includes an academic from the Republic of Ireland, because it is my fundamental belief that we need to look at the position in all parts of our islands to respect not only the human rights settlement, but the Belfast agreement.

Courts and Tribunals: Recovery

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am afraid that, as is sadly so often the case, his peroration was a direct contradiction of the reality of what is happening on the ground across the justice system. We acted from the outset to protect lives, to protect staff and to make sure that our prisons were safe, and the results are well-known. There has been considerable achievement in our prison system, and I know that he would want to acknowledge the work of staff; I am sure he would.

The same can be said about the work done in our courts. This was an unprecedented challenge. We were the first jurisdiction in the world to reopen jury trials, in late May. We are now rapidly reaching the position with regard to jury trials being heard, or guilty pleas being tendered at or just before trial, that we were in before the beginning of this pandemic.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the past in the justice system, which is why in July I announced the biggest increase in court maintenance in not 10 years, but 20 years; he can do the maths and work out the time that he had partial responsibility for the system. This is not a pure story of life since 2010; I have inherited a system that, frankly, needs a fundamental change, which is what I am doing.

The settlement that I have reached will hugely support the increase in sitting days in the year ahead. Already, before the pandemic hit, I had increased the number of sitting days, with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, from the year prior to my taking office. I was already acknowledging the pressure on the system. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that while 39,000 cases is of course a significant number, it is not the historic high that we have seen in the past. I am working to ensure that the number of trials in that particular statistic is dealt with as quickly as possible, together with all the other important hearings.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about victims. I am sure he would readily acknowledge not only the £25 million announced in the spending review for next year but the in-year funding of £15 million on victims’ services that we continue to roll out. The covid funding that has been administered on behalf of my Department by police and crime commissioners for local victims groups totals over £25 million. Indeed, the announcements I made last year rapidly and significantly increase funding for independent sexual violence advisers to levels that we have never seen before in our country. We have also introduced the revised and streamlined victims code. We are, at every step of the way, taking action to support the victims of crime. I can assure him that when it comes to domestic abuse and sexual violence, the courts are giving priority to those hearings and making sure that they are dealt with as quickly as possible.

On legal aid, again the right hon. Gentleman misses a hugely important development this year, which was the extra funding of up to £51 million for criminal legal aid lawyers via an improvement to the graduated fee scheme as part of the first stage of criminal legal aid review. We are going to embark on stage two very soon, and I will keep him fully apprised of that. He will, I am sure, note with interest that that will result in more investment in criminal legal aid in the year to come. [Interruption.] Oh yes, it certainly will. I know that it is sometimes difficult to accept positive news, but I am grateful to partners in the criminal justice system and those practising in the professions for having given an encouraging welcome to the news last week. I accept, with them, that there is a way to go, but we are now turning the corner, and I am confident that in the years ahead we can enhance, improve and build on the success of our justice system.

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

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement and welcome what he has said. I and the other members of the Justice Committee certainly wish to join in the tributes that have been paid to the hard work of all those involved in the Courts Service and the broader justice system in dealing with the necessary recovery from the pandemic.

Can the Lord Chancellor help me on a couple of points, though? First, does he accept that it will be necessary to have a multi-year settlement once this year is out of the way to maintain the progress that we need to achieve to get our courts system back to the levels of reform and improvement that we have ambitiously set out? Secondly, will he update the evidence that he helpfully gave to the Justice Committee on Tuesday as to where we are in reducing the backlog in the Crown court? Although there has been progress, he will know that the backlog prior to the pandemic was already at record levels, and that was increasing up until the latest management figures we had that went back to October. Will he give us the projection—and, in due course, the modelling behind it—as to when we will see that backlog start to reduce? None of us wants to see contested trials being listed out to 2022, as I am sure he would agree.

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First, with regard to a multi-year settlement, it would not be right for me to prejudge what the decision of the Chancellor might be on that. The important decision had to be made this year to have a one-year settlement for the obvious reasons of the covid outbreak and the fact that, rightly, there was not a fiscal event—namely, a Budget. I will leave that decision ultimately to the Chancellor. However, my hon. Friend can be reassured that the work being done within the Department is indeed looking beyond one year only and coming up with evidence-based arguments and proposals that lead on to longer-term investment. For example, he will see in the capital programme not only a welcome £105 million extra for court maintenance but the multi-year prison capital programme, which will make a huge difference in terms of modern conditions in our prisons.

With regard to the Crown courts, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the figures. The figures for Crown court statistics are populated both manually and by automation. Therefore, they take some time to fully settle down. However, I am particularly encouraged by the figures relating to effective trials: trials that end up being “cracked”, as they say, with a guilty plea on the day; and trials brought into the court by the judge just before trial, or a week before trial, where guilty pleas have been tendered. The overall figures I am looking at now through November show a very encouraging increase in that overall number, getting us much closer to the pre-covid baseline. It is not there yet, but if those trends continue, we can get to that pre-covid baseline on trials, I think, in the new year. Of course, that allows us to start to make real progress on the rest of the case load.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

As I said in response to the previous question, I do not disclose details of discussions I have with Cabinet colleagues. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and everybody else that people should be in no doubt about my steadfast defence not just of the judiciary but of an independent legal profession. We have, of course, seen criticism of lawyers throughout the ages. I respect the views of members of my profession, but we should put things into their full context.

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

I welcome what the Lord Chancellor said about defending the legal profession and I join him in that. It is an honourable profession and I have always found that those I dealt with at the Bar and solicitors generally left their politics behind when they went to argue the case for their client, which they must do without fear or favour. Equally, will he recognise that when he and I were doing an awful lot of legal aid work in practice, the former leader of the Labour party and then Prime Minister was describing legal aid lawyers as fat cats? No one has entirely clean hands on this and perhaps we all ought to moderate our language when dealing with the professions.

[Robert Buckland]

The Chair of the Justice Committee puts the matter into its fullest context. Sadly, from Shakespeare onwards, and probably before, lawyers have come in for criticism. The question is how far that goes. We live in a lively democracy and none of us is above criticism, but I say to him that in all my years in practice, I did precisely what he did, which was to leave my politics at home whenever I went into chambers or into the courtroom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks. The issue is very straightforward. If we are in a position where the EU has acted in material breach of its own treaty obligations, meaning that acts to the active prejudice of the United Kingdom are being occasioned, then we will act.

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

I also wish the Lord Chancellor a happy birthday. I calculate that I have known him for about half his life. Throughout that time, I have never had the slightest doubt as to his integrity and his commitment to the rule of law. Does he accept that the important changes that the Government accepted in the course of the Committee stage yesterday would not have happened without some pressure from the Back Benches, and without his very close personal and direct involvement in making changes to the Bill and to the test that the Government will apply. That was precisely because he, I and many others are committed to the rule of law. Ad hominem attacks to the contrary are unworthy and unjustified.

[Robert Buckland]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to remind us that personal attacks are no substitute for real debate. What he has done, and what I have sought to do, is, at all times, to make sure that we find a way through these problems. Brexit has thrown up unprecedented challenges to a Government in peacetime. I never pretended that it was going to be anything other than a difficult road. He shares that view and, through his constructive work and the work that I and others have done, this House has a lock on these matters, and, indeed, I think the way is much clearer and much more satisfactory.

Sentencing White Paper

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

It was all going so well, and then the right hon. Gentleman had to spoil it with an ill-judged, ill-timed and wholly inappropriate intervention. May I remind him that as a practitioner, for years I had to endure a Labour Government that passed with incontinence criminal justice Act after criminal justice Act, creating the chaos with sentencing reform that I am now having to deal with? With the greatest respect to him, I will take no lectures about a Labour Government who made automatic early release at the halfway term the norm for so many sentences. That is the wrong that we are righting now as a result of the reforms that we will introduce.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for how he has sensibly engaged with the important issues about the rehabilitation of offenders. I am particularly pleased by the warm welcome for the work we will do on neurodivergent conditions and disorders. That has been a long-standing passion and commitment of mine. Autism and ADHD are real conditions that affect thousands of people in our country. I have had personal experience in the criminal justice system of representing people with those conditions, and I think we can do better. That is why we will take action on that.

I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman about the cross-Government work on offender employment. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is deeply committed to increasing the number of offenders in work. We are working on plans and a cross-Government strategy. The committee is chaired by the Prime Minister, which exemplifies the Government’s deep and fundamental dedication to this bold agenda.

I welcome the other comments that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and it is in that spirit of constructive engagement that I am sure we will work together to make sense of criminal justice after years of failure, mainly by the Government of which he was a member.

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

I warmly congratulate the Lord Chancellor on an excellent and very well-balanced statement, which shows his own experience as a practitioner in these matters. A number of the themes that the White Paper addresses are ones that the Justice Select Committee has picked up on a number of occasions. I look forward to progress being made on those. I particularly welcome the recognition that protection of the public and rehabilitation of those who can be rehabilitated are not mutually exclusive. However, will he also use the opportunity of the White Paper to engender a wider debate across society as a whole about the purpose of sentencing, and the purposes of imprisonment and community sentences, to give both the public and sentencers greater confidence in the suite of measures available and create a broader-based, better-informed understanding of the complexities of the tasks that people in the justice system grapple with day to day?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Justice Committee. We all know his long and deep knowledge of the system as a practitioner. He is right to remind us of the purposes of sentencing. He will see in the White Paper a lot of reference to public protection issues—protecting the public from harm, but also protecting the public from crime. The two go together, and one is served, I would submit, by effective prison sentences, while the second is served by rehabilitation through the community options that can make such a difference with the right support.

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm and sense of impatience about the pace of change in fora such as the Council of Europe. I just need to caution him on this basis. When it comes to the use of the powers that we anticipate under this Bill, we are talking about a narrowly defined type of agreement—practical, detailed but important changes that will lead to the sort of improvements that I referred to in responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). I am sure that as he hears not just my contribution but the one made in winding up by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), he will be even clearer about the particular role that this Bill will play in the incorporation of international law.

That is very important, because concerns were raised in the other place that somehow this was a Trojan horse or an invitation to open the floodgates, to allow for the incorporation of major swathes of international treaty law into domestic legislation with minimal scrutiny. Nothing could be further from the case.

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

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Robert Buckland]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I know that we will move on to the question of what is not in the Bill and what might be later, but before the Lord Chancellor leaves the issue of improving our access to international legal agreements, he has not yet mentioned our application to accede to the Lugano convention, which many regard as critical, it being markedly superior in a number of respects to those listed on the face of the Bill. There is a concern that the Commission is currently recommending against Britain joining the convention, even though the European Free Trade Association members of that convention support it. What is the position on that? Will he assure us that the Government regard this as one of the highest priorities in our ongoing negotiations? It should not be allowed to be hijacked and held as a hostage to fortune in other negotiations.

[Robert Buckland]

I can assure my hon. Friend that not only do the Government place a very high premium upon the importance of accession to Lugano, but I personally have vested my own time in direct discussions with counterparts at the Commission and other member states of the EU. In fact, in Zagreb, at the final Justice and Home Affairs Council, I took the opportunity to discuss this at length with several other member states and, indeed, the then newly appointed Commissioner for Justice, and we had a very productive discussion.

My view and that of Her Majesty’s Government is very straightforward: the application for Lugano is a discrete matter. It is separate from the negotiations that are ongoing with regard to a future free trade agreement, and it should be treated as a separate matter. The time for ideology has gone. This is a time for us all to remember that the interests of the citizens that member states serve are paramount, and the interests of ensuring that civil judgments are enforced as swiftly as possible are clear. I call upon all interested parties to put those priorities first, and then hopefully we will see a swifter conclusion to the negotiations, but I welcome the warm support we have had from EFTA countries both prior and subsequent to our application.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

Indeed it has made some very trenchant comments about CRAG, and that is precisely why it is important that that Committee does its work on improving and enhancing the procedure. I welcome its work and we will actively engage and ensure that that is so.

The most pressing need for the delegated power is to implement what we hope to see—namely, the Lugano convention, which we have already discussed. As I have said, we still do not know the outcome of our application. It is being considered by the contracting parties to the convention, including the EU. It currently underpins our private international law relationship with Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, but could also be used to underpin our relationship with the EU after the end of the transition period. It would provide valuable certainty on cross-border recognition and the enforcement of civil and commercial judgments, as well as clarity on which country’s courts may hear a dispute.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s commitment to joining Lugano. It is important for all the reasons he has set out. There was compelling evidence given to the Justice Committee over a number of years about the importance of this. Also, is it not important that we join so that we can then, as one of the convention parties, seek to influence the development of the convention—for example, to avoid a race to the bottom in jurisdictional terms in dealing with the threat, as it is sometimes called, of the Italian torpedo? We cannot deal with the Italian torpedo until we are in Lugano to sort it out, so is that not all the more reason to reflect on putting this on the face of the Bill? Perhaps nothing would be lost by doing that.

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Italian torpedo is not a reference to the successful naval action by the Royal Navy against the forces of fascist Italy in the second world war. This is a particular device taken by parties who issue proceedings in a jurisdiction that they know will not accept control over the particular proceedings. It is, in other words, a massive delaying tactic that can cause real obstruction to the course of justice and to the resolution of important disputes, and that is why he is right to say that Lugano would be very much a beginning when it comes to the development and refinement of that type of important co-operation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) asked why we do not mention Lugano. Well, there is an obvious argument that I should have addressed, which is that, as we have not yet been able to join it, it would perhaps be premature for us to refer to it directly on the face of the Bill, as opposed to the Hague conventions, which we have joined. Regrettably, there will not be time to bring forward further primary legislation before the end of the year, should our application be approved within the next few months. Therefore, for that sad but practical reason, it would be right not to pass anticipatory legislation but rather to await the outcome of the negotiation and then to allow the use of the delegated power.

The power could also be used to implement other agreements. I have talked about mediation, and in particular the 2019 Singapore convention on mediation and 2019 Hague judgments convention. We have not yet taken a formal decision on either of those, but of course I am happy to talk more about those conventions with hon. Members during the passage of this Bill and, indeed, in the future as we decide on our final approach to these instruments.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

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

[Robert Buckland]

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

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

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

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

rose—

[Robert Buckland]

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

[Sir Robert Neill]

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

[Robert Buckland]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

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

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

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

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

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

[Robert Buckland]

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

[Sir Robert Neill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

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

[Sir Robert Neill]

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

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

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

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

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

[Robert Buckland]

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

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

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Robert Buckland]

I give way to the Chairman of the Justice Committee.

[Sir Robert Neill]

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

[Robert Buckland]

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Monday 27th April 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I know that all members of the Select Committee will wish to associate themselves with the Secretary of State’s tribute to prison staff and their work.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that although the rates of infection are mercifully much lower than expected and anticipated—we are glad of that—very great strain is none the less being placed particularly upon overcrowded, older and Victorian and local prisons, which are frequently carrying far more prisoners than they were intended for? Will he confirm that the Government will use all measures, including, where appropriate, targeted early release, to meet our legal responsibilities in domestic and European law to protect the welfare of prisoners in the state’s custody and that of staff employed to carry out their duties in safeguarding those prisoners?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, for pointing out the vital importance of maintaining HMPPS’s current approach of making sure we do not end up with explosive outbreaks of covid-19 on the estate. He is right to point out the early release scheme. It is but a part of a co-ordinated strategy that has included the compartmentalisation of prisoners to prevent the seeding and feeding of the infection, and that, together with the increased capacity we are developing at pace, plus a reduction in the overall number of prisoners in the estate, has helped us reach a position where, while we are not out of the woods, we are coping and dealing well with the threat of covid-19.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

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

[Robert Buckland]

I believe that the declaration that I make on the front of the Bill speaks for itself—

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

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Robert Buckland]

Well, I have not finished developing the point yet, but I will of course give way to my eager hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, in time.

This is a Bill on which I have made the following statement:

“In my view the provisions of the…Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.”

I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). I am not going to anticipate litigation in domestic courts or in Strasbourg, but I will repeat for the benefit of the record that it is my firm view that this Bill does not engage the provisions of article 7 of the European convention on human rights, because it relates to the way in which the sentence is administered, not a change in the nature of the penalty itself. I am grateful to him for allowing me to say that at this point.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way, because this is an important point. Will he confirm that, in coming to that conclusion and making that certification, he has taken the advice of senior Treasury counsel, and also that the case law has made it quite clear that the administration of a sentence is not part of the penalty? Finally, will he confirm that even were there to be successful litigation—which I do not believe will be the case—it would result only in a declaration of incompatibility, and could not strike down primary legislation?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that there is no power to strike down the primary legislation. I am afraid that I will not indulge him in a direct answer as to the nature of advice that may or may not have been tendered, and he knows the reasons why. However, I reassure him that all the proper mechanisms have been employed and engaged in the preparation of the Bill, and that on the basis of all the information received, I was able—with high certainty—to make the declaration on the frontispiece.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that not only has it been taken into account, but I have read it. It is a 2013 authority from the Strasbourg Court that relates to a particular set of circumstances involving the Kingdom of Spain. There have been subsequent cases both before that court and, indeed, domestically. In summary, we are satisfied, on the basis of all the information we have, that the provisions of article 7 are not engaged in this respect.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. and learned Friend is making a most compelling case for this legislation. For the sake of completeness, I am sure he will also have read and taken into account the subsequent cases in the Strasbourg Court of Abedin in the United Kingdom in 2016 and of the Supreme Court in Docherty in 2017—both subsequent to del Río Prada—which it seems to me support the Government’s contention.

[Robert Buckland]

I say to my hon. Friend, as I am sure he has heard many times in court, that his submissions find great force with the Government and we are persuaded by them.

Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

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

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

This is a short Bill—it consists of just three clauses—but its importance cannot be underestimated. It responds directly to real-life issues that we know have caused, and continue to cause, immense distress to the families of victims of serious crimes.

Despite its full and proper title, this is a Bill that we have all come to know as Helen’s law. Helen’s mother, Marie McCourt, has long campaigned for this change to the law. I want to take the opportunity—and I am sure that the whole House will want to join me—to pay tribute to her bravery, her determination and her tenacity. It is in large part thanks to her that we have reached this point at all.

Let me tell the House something about the case with which we are dealing. Helen McCourt was a 22-year-old insurance clerk from the village of Billinge, near St Helens in Merseyside. On the evening of 9 February 1988, just over 32 years ago, Helen disappeared while on her way home from work. The following year, Ian Simms was convicted of her murder and ordered to serve a minimum of 16 years in prison as part of his mandatory life sentence, but he has never revealed where Helen’s body is, and, despite extensive searches, her remains have never been found, which has compounded the misery and the grief of the McCourt family.

I have had the pleasure of meeting Mrs McCourt and her family on several occasions, often in the company of the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). Their dignity in the face of such unimaginable distress is something quite astonishing. All they want is the opportunity to lay their dear daughter to rest.

We have all lost people who are dear to us. We all know the closure and comfort that can arise from laying a loved one to rest. When we take into account the horrific circumstances of Helen’s death, a proper burial and an opportunity to say goodbye must take on a wholly different dynamic for the McCourt family and others in their position. The campaign has resulted in this legislation. We have responded to the issues raised by it to identify a solution that works within the existing sentencing, release and Parole Board framework to ensure that a failure on the part of a prisoner to disclose such vital information is rightly and properly taken into account as part of the risk assessment of the prisoner before any release. It is the least we can do to support the victims of such horrendous crime, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—who is present in the Chamber to lend her consistent support to victims, their families and those who have suffered as a result of criminality—for the close partnership working that we have in Government to deal with this important agenda.

I shall now deal with the clauses in the Bill. Clause 1 will amend the release provisions that apply to life sentences for murder and manslaughter in order to place a statutory obligation on the Parole Board to consider a non-disclosure of information about a victim’s remains when making a public protection decision—that is, a decision to release—about such a prisoner. In order for the Bill’s provisions to apply, the Parole Board must not know the location of a victim’s remains, and the board must believe that the prisoner has information about this that he or she has not disclosed to it. This is the essence of the prisoner’s non-disclosure, and it is this that must be taken into account by the board when assessing whether a prisoner can safely be released on licence.

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

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to say that the Bill is morally necessary and the right thing to do. Does he agree that this is really no more than an extension by analogy of the way in which remorse will be taken into account in sentencing, in that those who admit guilt and give full assistance to the police are regarded as more likely to have accepted their guilt? That is true in relation to the approach of the Parole Board too, and this is therefore just a simple extension of the fact that someone who has done their best to accept what they did, even in the most awful of crimes, may be less of a threat to the public in the future than somebody who makes a blanket and wilful denial and is therefore likely to be much less reformed and much less safe to let loose.

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, like me has much experience in the criminal justice system. He will know that deciding whether remorse is real or feigned is sometimes a difficult judgment for a court to make. He makes his point very well.

I think it is right for me to deal at this stage with the concept of whether we should have gone further and introduced a rule of “no body, no release”. Tempting though that might be—and I listened carefully to the arguments—there is a danger that if we proceed too far along that path, we could inadvertently create an artificial incentive for people to mislead the authorities and to feign co-operation or remorse. Of course, in another context, we see the dangers that are inherent in what I have described as superficial compliance with the authorities. There is a fine balance to be maintained, but I think that the Bill as presented maintains it in a way that is clear, that increases public confidence in the system and that makes it abundantly plain to those who are charged with the responsibility of assessing risk that, in the view of this House, this issue is of particular public interest and public importance when it comes to the assessment that is to be made.

I was dealing with the essence of the non-disclosure, and I would add that the Parole Board must in particular take account of what, in its view, are the reasons for the non-disclosure. This subjective approach will allow the board to distinguish between circumstances in which, for example, the non-disclosure is due to a prisoner’s mental illness, and cases in which a prisoner makes a deliberate decision not to say where a victim’s remains are located. This subjective approach is fundamental to the proper functioning of the Bill. It ensures that the non-disclosure and the reasons for it—in other words, the failure by the prisoner to say what they did with the victim’s remains—are fully taken into account by the board when it comes to decision making. It is then for the Parole Board, as an independent body, to decide what bearing such information has on the risk that a prisoner may present and whether that risk can be managed safely in their community. It reflects the established practice of the Parole Board, as included in its guidance to panel members in 2017, but it goes a step further in placing a legal duty to take a non-disclosure into account. This, as I have already mentioned, is part of our intention to provide a greater degree of reassurance to victims’ families by formally setting out the guidance in law.

I turn now to the second part of the Bill, which deals with the non-disclosure of different types of information by offenders. This has been prompted by the horrific case of Vanessa George. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) in his place. Vanessa George was recently released by the Parole Board after serving 10 years in prison, following conviction for multiple counts of sexual abuse against children at the Plymouth nursery where she worked. She also photographed the abuse of those children in her care and sent the images to other paedophiles. This was a horrific case, which those of us who had young children at the time, me included, remember all too graphically. Vanessa George’s crimes have caused widespread revulsion. Her abuse of the trust placed in her by the families of the children she was meant to care for and protect is shocking. Their pain has been compounded by the fact that the children she photographed cannot be identified from the images, and that she has refused to disclose their identities to the authorities. All the families involved have been left in a truly terrible limbo, not knowing whether their child has been a victim.

Again, we are seeking to respond by stipulating in law that such appalling circumstances must be fully taken into account by the Parole Board when making any decisions on the release of such an offender. Clause 2 of the Bill will amend the release provisions that apply to an extended determinate sentence that has been imposed for the offence of taking or making indecent photographs of children and, as in clause 1, we will place a statutory obligation on the Parole Board to consider the non-disclosure of information about the identity of a child or children featured in such images when the board makes a public protection decision, including one to release the prisoner. The provision will apply when the Parole Board does not know the identity of the child or children in such an image but believes that the prisoner is in a position to disclose it and has chosen not to do so. It is this non-disclosure and the reasons for it, in the view of the Parole Board, that must be taken into account before any release decision is made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend speaks with much experience as a counsel who has prosecuted and defended in cases involving serious offences. He is absolutely right to remind us that it is the function of sentencing either to reflect remorse and give credit for a plea of guilty, which is a mitigating factor, or to reflect an aggravating factor such as the complete non-co-operation that we sometimes see from offenders in this position. Indeed, he knows that that is properly reflected in the sentencing guidelines where applicable, and that in offences of this nature, the court uses schedule 21 as a starting point when it comes to the gradations of seriousness in the offence of murder. This allows judges to move up, as well as down, from that starting point.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a fair point. Is not that reinforced by the fact that the sentencing judge in the Vanessa George case specifically referred to the gravity—“indecency”, I think his phrase was—of her non-disclosure? Is it not only logical that the Parole Board should be able to take equal regard when considering release?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Indeed, that was an aggravating factor that was specifically taken into account by the sentencing judge.

I was drawing a comparison with clause 1. As with clause 1, the provision is already standard Parole Board practice in that panels routinely take such circumstances into account as part of their decision making, but I believe that the issue of non-disclosure of vital information is of such importance—and causes such distress to families and victims—that it must be addressed in statute.

This is a narrow Bill, but it has wide implications. It ensures that a failure or refusal to disclose specific information on the whereabouts of a victim’s body or the identity of child victims of indecent images is always taken into account by the Parole Board. A murder such as that of Helen McCourt and the depraved crimes of Vanessa George are not things that people can easily move on from, but the ability to lay a loved one to rest or to find out for certain whether children were abused may offer the families and young victims themselves an opportunity to find at least some closure and to address the long-lasting effects of such horrific crimes. I very much hope that the Bill will attract support on both sides of the House and can enter the statute book as soon as possible. The acute distress that such cases cause cannot and should not be overlooked.

Streatham Incident

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s approach to this, because most of us recognise that the exceptional nature of this threat may require exceptional measures. However, can he help us as to precisely which rehabilitation measures the perpetrator of this attack was subject to while in prison? Will he consider again the remaining aspects of the Acheson review regarding much more assertive management of these particularly complex and dangerous prisoners within the system, from the start of their sentence?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice. It would perhaps be wrong of me to go into specific detail as to the regimen that applied in prison to this offender. I would make the general observation that the terrorist cohort is complex and difficult to assess, and if there is not engagement by individuals with the programmes on offer, the assessment of risk becomes a much more complicated exercise. I simply say that bearing in mind the exceptional nature of the terrorist cohort, exceptional approaches are needed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am very much aware of the important devolution aspect of this issue. It is about more than devolution, of course—the Scottish legal and judicial system was never devolved because it was always separate, and even when we did not have a Scottish Parliament, it had a separate legislative framework that was legislated for in this House. I fully understand the balance that needs to be kept and I take on board the hon. Member’s comments.

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

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair in this Parliament, Mr Speaker. I very much welcome what the Lord Chancellor said about the independence of the judiciary. That is fundamental to this country’s international reputation and we should set at rest any suggestion that that should ever be compromised. Given the wide-ranging nature of the commission, will he also consider that it may be beneficial to have, serving as members of the commission, experienced former members of the judiciary who have the integrity and independence of thought that would increase public respect and regard for the outcome that we all wish to see?

[Robert Buckland]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent honour, which is thoroughly deserved after a lifetime in public service, both here and in other elected assemblies. His suggestions are well made. I am already having a number of discussions with ministerial colleagues and thinking very deeply about the range of expertise and individuals that we need, and the diversity of that panel, so that we make sure that the commission, or the committee, is in the best possible place to gather evidence and come up with measured, sensible reforms.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I think that everybody—whichever part of Government or our country they might come from—will probably be aware of my public pronouncements about this matter. I will keep saying it again and again and again, as long as it is necessary to do so.

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

Consistent with the Lord Chancellor’s speech at the opening of legal year, will he confirm that there is no place for political involvement in the appointment of judges and no question but that the rulings of the courts must be observed by all?

[Robert Buckland]

I am more than happy to confirm all those points, made so ably by the Chair of the Justice Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Will the Lord Chancellor confirm that the Government have no plans to change the right to trial by jury in serious criminal cases?

[Robert Buckland]

I am happy to confirm that.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I give way to the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice.

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

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. I, too, have seen examples like the one that he quoted, and I particularly welcome the provisions in clause 75 relating to the prohibition of cross-examination by the abusive party. As the Bill goes forward, will he and his colleagues particularly bear in mind the legitimate improvements proposed by the Law Society and others in this field? They include a proposal for the proper remuneration of, and a proper system for instructing, the representatives instructed to carry out the cross-examination, in the interests of justice. Will he also consider whether examination in chief could be included in certain circumstances—for example, when the alleged abusive party seeks to call the child of the relationship in support of their case? That, too, can cause real distress.

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about his experience, the issues that we can tease out in Committee and how far we need to go.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend has considerable experience of criminal practice, and he has dealt with many cases of great seriousness. He is right to draw to my attention the specific case of his constituent. We can deal with this problem in other ways, and I will outline those to the House as I develop my remarks. Indeed, I hope specifically to answer the queries that have properly been raised by right hon. and hon. Members.

[Robert Neill]

May I supplement the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk)? The Minister refers to the difficulties of putting oneself in the position of the sentencing judge, but no one is likely to have been better placed to understand those difficulties than the former Lord Chief Justice, when he made his observations in the course of a judgment in the Court of Appeal. We know that there are circumstances—for example, when a sentence is reviewed for other reasons—when the court will, for reasons of good public policy, embark on that difficult exercise. Although this issue must be borne in mind, there is precedent for demonstrating that it is not an insuperable obstacle.

[Robert Buckland]

I agree that in the appellant procedure there will often be that check and balance, but this is slightly different. This would be a change in the law and legal framework to alter the position from the one that applied when the offender was sentenced, to the position now. Whether we like it or not that is a departure, and we must be careful to avoid setting inadvertent precedents.

We must be able fully to reflect on the assessment of risk that was made by the learned judge at the time of sentencing. In other words, how does a court properly assess the length of a determinate sentence—that, presumably, is the aim of right hon. and hon. Members—and decide whether or not to take the further step of imposing a life sentence, which might be appropriate in some very serious cases? I do not pretend that these issues are easy, but neither is it a matter that the Government should do nothing about. Other measures we are taking are already yielding significant results, not just in reducing the number of prisoners held under this regime, but by ensuring that more eligible prisoners can be considered as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), Chair of the Justice Committee, mentioned the remarks of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who spoke not just about changing the statutory provision, but about changing the test for release, which is important. I think he would concede that the test for the release of prisoners held under this sort of regime must be as consistent as possible, bearing in mind the different classes of prisoners who are held in custody either on minimum terms or subject to parole.

We must take great care not to create too many different tests that could mean that one group of prisoners could be treated in a different or more favourable way than another group. I do not say that the argument has no merit, but there are difficulties in creating potential inconsistencies. It is beholden on me, both as a lawyer and now in this position of great responsibility, to ensure that the unforeseen consequences that occurred with this policy making do not repeat themselves thanks to any change we may make.

Let me develop the point about the ways we can best support prisoners to show that they can safely be released—that is the solution that stares us in the face regarding so many people in that position. As the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) laid out well, ensuring public protection from violent and sexual crime must be paramount, and our continuing efforts to rehabilitate prisoners subject to this regime are bearing fruit. We have seen a dramatic fall in the IPP prison population over the past years, and the figures cited by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), and others, are correct. It is a dramatic fall, although I accept that there is still a significant cohort, and we must also not forget that a number of IPP prisoners have been recalled—I will come to that in a moment. However, progress is being made in the right direction.

In January 2016, more than three years ago, a joint HM Prison and Probation Service and Parole Board action plan was drawn up to deal with IPPs. Initially it was primarily focused on improving the efficiency of the parole process, because at that time there was a significant backlog in listing oral hearings for IPP and life-sentence prisoners. As a result of receiving additional resources and changing some of its processes, the Parole Board and the public protection casework section of the Ministry of Justice made progress, and their combined effect was to eliminate that backlog. Simply having a more efficient system resulted in a significant improvement to the pace with which IPP prisoners were released. Following those improvements, the plan was expanded to include a greater focus on those prisoners who, even with a much more efficient parole system, needed additional support to reduce their own risk and secure a release decision from the board.

What was done? A central case file review, by senior psychologists, of IPP prisoners who had not made the anticipated progress achieved considerable success. Out of 1,365 completed reviews, 233 prisoners in these most challenging cases achieved release, with a further 401 achieving a progressive move to open conditions. We have put in place enhanced case management for the most complex cases, so that a multidisciplinary team can work together to remove barriers to progression.

The joint IPP action plan has also overseen further improvements to the process and, perhaps most significantly, we have opened three new progression regimes, building on the success and the outstanding reputation of the first such regime, which was established at Warren Hill. Those sites operate a staged regime of increasing freedom and responsibility, allowing evidence to build on offenders’ ability to manage their own risks. The rate of release from a progression regime is higher than the average release rate across all Parole Board hearings, which is something that, I think, all right hon. and hon. Members will welcome.

As comprehensive as the plan and the opportunities it provides to IPP prisoners is, the decision actively to engage with efforts that promote rehabilitation, and so demonstrate that there can be safe release back into the community, must ultimately be for each individual prisoner. In my view, that is why Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service change programme, in delivering a new offender management model, is fundamental, not only for IPP prisoners but for all offenders. With increased staffing, and the introduction of the key worker role in all prisons, staff will be better equipped, and given more time, to work with individuals who may not be engaging in the way they need to do to reduce their risk.

We are aware that some prisoners may well have become demoralised, with no fixed date of release and the prospect of a further parole hearing currently not holding much hope for them. Here, the key worker will need to get alongside the prisoner and build hope from the foundation of a strong relationship, encouraging them to grasp the opportunities that are available.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 1 April, be approved.

The purpose of this draft instrument is to include inquiries established under the Inquiries Act 2005 as “excepted proceedings” in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. That will enable those types of inquiry to consider the spent convictions of individuals. This legislative change was requested initially by Sir John Mitting, chair of the undercover policing inquiry, and I will pause now to pay tribute to his predecessor as chair, the late Sir Christopher Pitchford. Sir Christopher was a distinguished member of the Bar, a High Court judge and Lord Justice of Appeal, who sadly died in the middle of this inquiry. He is much missed by all of us who knew and respected him as an outstanding lawyer of his generation.

Sir John stepped into the breach and is conducting this lengthy and serious inquiry. The reason for the request he has made is that information on individuals’ spent convictions is important for the purposes of the terms of reference of the inquiry.

The inquiry is examining undercover police operations conducted by English and Welsh police forces from 1968 onwards, including whether the police were justified in launching undercover operations against a group. To give full consideration to this, the inquiry needs to be able to consider the convictions of members of the groups; however, given the historical nature of the inquiry, many of these convictions will be spent, and therefore not disclosable under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The statutory instrument will give Sir John’s inquiry the ability to consider spent convictions. The change is vital for the inquiry to successfully fulfil its remit, and hon. Members will be aware that there is a high and appropriate level of public interest in this inquiry. Although the undercover policing inquiry is a particularly clear case of an inquiry where spent convictions are relevant, the amendment will allow any inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to admit evidence of spent convictions and cautions, but—this is important—limited only to where that is necessary to fulfil the terms of reference of that inquiry. It is likely that other inquiries may in future need to consider spent criminal records.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I appreciate his reassurance that the test is of necessity. Can he assure me that the same approach is intended to be taken by the chairman of the inquiry, as, for example, will be taken by a judge in determining the test of necessity and also relevance to the topic matter of an inquiry? Relevance is the normal test in court. Can he assure us that necessity will include that as well?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is the Chair of the Justice Committee and a barrister of long standing at the criminal Bar. He is absolutely right to talk about the test of relevance. It is not the purport of any inquiry ambit or the function of any inquiry chair to adopt a floodgates approach to the disclosure and use of spent convictions. In the other place, the noble Baroness Barran put it very well when she set out to their lordships a flowchart of the way in which a particular decision about the use of spent convictions would be taken. She said:

“The first question is: does the individual have spent convictions, yes or no? If the answer is yes, are they relevant? Will they be treated anonymously? If they apply for anonymity, will that be agreed to? Further, even if it is not anonymous, is the hearing held in private or in public? If it is held in private, could the information then be published?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2019; Vol. 797, c. 1792.]

I thought that that was a clear exposition of the framework within which a decision maker would carry out their function when it comes to spent convictions. In other words, that is the sort of filter that I think meets the concerns not only of Members in the other place but of Members in this House.

I was talking about future inquiries, and was saying it is likely that other inquiries may need to consider spent criminal records, as these can be key to determining whether authorities have acted reasonably in assessing and responding to risk. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 affords offenders protection from having to disclose their convictions and cautions, once those convictions and cautions have become what is termed “spent” under the Act. That is the point at which the offender has become rehabilitated. The exceptions order to that Act lists activities or categories of jobs where those protections are lifted so that offenders, if asked, need to disclose their spent convictions.

The primary rationale behind the exceptions order is that there are certain jobs—positions of public trust, for example, or those involving unsupervised work with children—where more complete or relevant disclosure of an individual’s criminal record may be appropriate to mitigate risks to public safety. The exceptions order is not limited to employment purposes, although that is its primary use. The amendment proposed here is not employment-related, but related only to the consideration of evidence of spent convictions and cautions in inquiries that are caused to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I am looking again at paragraph 7.6, and I think its purpose is to illustrate other examples of inquiries that have been set up pursuant to the Inquiries Act 2005. I will go on to explain that, because that does not cover every public inquiry. I will give the House a few examples as I develop my argument. In this case, the ongoing independent inquiry into child sexual abuse is used as an example of a 2005 Act statutory inquiry that may need to consider criminal records in the course of its deliberations. It is therefore a useful illustration of another inquiry that was set up because there was a strong public interest to be served and one would benefit from not having to undergo what would otherwise be a rather cumbersome and lengthy process of looking at the admission of evidence on a case-by-case basis.

As we know, the independent inquiry is taking considerable time, and it would be in the wider public interest for its work to be sped up in this way.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) talked about the register; as he knows, sex offenders are required to sign that on conviction. That public document is recorded and kept just as a conviction would be. From memory, how long an offender has to stay on the register will depend on the seriousness of the offence. Some very serious child sexual offences will, of course, rightly require life registration, so the matter will remain on public record.

The hon. Gentleman was a Member when that Act was passed; he might have a better institutional memory than mine when it comes to the debates that led up to that. My experience of it was as a practitioner and recorder, having to make sure that defendants complied with the requirement. The sex offenders register is not a court order but a statutory obligation that follows automatically on conviction.

I come back to the exceptions order, whose primary use is for employment purposes. The amendment that we are discussing is not, of course, employment related: it relates only to the consideration of evidence of spent convictions in inquiries caused to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005. Although a number of judicial proceedings are exempt from the protections of disclosure—in those proceedings, there is no restriction on considering or basing conclusions on spent conviction information—inquiries made under the 2005 Act are not currently exempt.

Examples of proceedings that are exempt include circumstances ranging from solicitor and police disciplinary proceedings, to proceedings relating to taxi driver and security licences. We feel that the work of inquiries set up under the 2005 Act is necessarily of such public interest and importance that they must have the ability to consider all the evidence relevant to their work. To extend that ability to these inquiries, we must amend the exceptions order.

The draft instrument is necessary to amend the order to enable inquiries caused to be held under the 2005 Act to admit and consider evidence of convictions and cautions that have become spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, where it is necessary to fulfil the terms of reference of that inquiry; the word “relevance” again comes very much into play.

We recognise the importance of the 1974 Act, which offers vital protections to people with convictions. We improved those protections in 2014, reducing the amount of time that most people with convictions had to wait before their convictions became spent. As I mentioned in responding to the intervention made by the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), we are considering proposals for further reform to the 1974 Act following the recommendations made by various reviews in recent years, including those carried out by the Justice Committee, on which the right hon. Gentleman serves.

There are demanding criteria for inclusion on the exceptions order. Our proposed inclusion would be the first addition to the order in three years. As I said, the amendment proposed here is not about employment; it relates only to the consideration of evidence of spent convictions and cautions in judicial proceedings—namely, before inquiries caused to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005.

Understandably, their lordships raised concerns in the other place about granting all inquiries the right to consider spent convictions and the effect that would have on individual rights. I want to make it crystal clear that we have proposed to extend this power only to a limited number of inquiries; as I said, we are talking only about inquiries set up under the 2005 Act, so non-statutory inquiries, such as both the Butler and Chilcot inquiries on the Iraq war, would not be covered by this legislation.

This legislation applies only to inquiries where considering spent convictions is necessary to fulfil their terms of reference. An inquiry’s terms of reference are set by the Minister, in consultation with the chairman of the inquiry. That provides an element of individual consideration of whether the exception should apply to each inquiry that ensures that this will not apply indiscriminately. Frankly, considering spent convictions will not be necessary for the vast majority of inquiries. In other words, the measure already has a limited application.

Our view is that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure that individual rights—the issue that concerned their lordships—are preserved as far as is necessary. Under section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005, inquiries are caused to be held by a Minister when particular events have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern, or there is public concern that particular events have occurred. As such, inquiries by design are held only where they are in the public interest, so any limited interference with an offender’s article 8 right to private life under the European convention on human rights would be necessary and proportionate.

Article 8 enshrines the right to respect for private life, but that is a qualified right. Subsection (2) provides that there shall be no interference with that right except such as is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic wellbeing of the country, or else for the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Section 19 of the 2005 Act has specific regard to these rights, in as far as they ought be protected, but it does so in a way that enables the inquiry to fulfil its terms of reference and consider matters necessary in the public interest. In that way, the 2005 Act directly reflects the qualified nature of the right to privacy.

[Robert Neill]

The Minister is being most generous, but will he help me? He asserts, in terms, that if the inquiry is set up under the Act, it automatically triggers some of the exemptions to article 8. What is the remedy, however, if a person who is to be called as a witness by the inquiry is aggrieved and wishes to challenge the finding of the inquiry chair to admit the evidence of a spent conviction? Would there be a judicial review in the ordinary way?

[Robert Buckland]

There would be a judicial review. That point was considered carefully in the other place. I readily accept and deal full on with the potentially onerous nature of having to bring a judicial review to challenge proceedings. But as I have said, the filter system that any chair would have to operate is considerable. There are safeguards and guarantees in respect of anonymity and publication that provide the sort of safeguard that, if misapplied, would quickly and obviously attract criticism when a higher court came to scrutinise the decision process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

That is precisely right. Someone summoned to give evidence to a statutory inquiry would be obliged to come forward. With all due respect, it seems to me that it is a false point that should not weigh on us.

The second point is that even when people are summoned there is still a safeguard. It seems to me that the safeguard of the application of the test of relevance, in what is after all an inquisitorial process, as opposed to the criminal, adversarial one, is proper and appropriate. I am concerned about the potential cost of somebody having to seek a judicial review, because that process is lengthy and difficult.

[Robert Buckland]

One of the great functions of this debate is to tease out some of the issues. Before public inquiries are published, is there not a Maxwellisation process whereby individuals who might be referred to in a way that is potentially adverse to their interests are notified? Is that not another safeguard?

[Robert Neill]

It is indeed; my hon. and learned Friend anticipates the point I was about to move on to. A series of steps and procedures have to be gone through in relation to a statutory inquiry, and that puts the person concerned on clear notice that the issue may become relevant and may be raised. They then have the opportunity to make representations before the chair of the inquiry. Should the ruling go against them, there is then the fall-back position of a judicial review.

Out of a sense of fairness, and taking an approach of equality of arms, if someone is summoned to give evidence before a statutory inquiry and it is likely that a spent conviction is going to be considered as being admissible and argument is going to take place on those grounds, that person, if they are not otherwise legally represented already, ought to have the ability to be legally represented. I urge my hon. and learned Friend to consider, where appropriate, with those in his Department who deal with matters of legal aid, that that person, if they are not represented either as part of a class or group or because of their own means, should have access to legal aid to argue before the inquiry whether the spent conviction should be admitted. It involves a very small sum of money because in practice it is likely to happen only on a limited number of occasions.

That would be an appropriate additional safeguard from the point of view of equality of arms. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will take that point away. Subject to that request, it seems to me that the safeguards are met. It is better to deal with this matter with one piece of legislation rather than to come back on an ad hoc basis.

I hope that this discussion also reminds us all of the advantage of having legally qualified inquiry chairs. Non-statutory inquiries that do not have legally qualified chairs have sometimes spiralled out of control because the chairs are not adept at dealing with, for example, the admissibility of evidence or case management generally, in the same way as a judge is able to. Perhaps that lesson can be taken away, too, but that should not stand in the way of our supporting a useful and proportionate statutory instrument, having weighed up all the pros and cons, as we have in this debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important and sensitive point. I should add that the prison chaplaincy service provides invaluable support for many prison officers who are struggling. I will meet him about this issue. The current figures record deaths in service. Clearly, the issue of mental health and people taking their own lives has to be addressed.

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

May I start by welcoming my hon. and learned Friend to his post? I think this is the first question time that he has taken in his new role.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that we not only pay the highest tribute to the dedication and professionalism of the men and women of our Prison Service, but recognise that the pressures that they face come in no small measure from the difficulty of establishing secure regimes and stability within our prisons? Will he take on board the recommendations of the Justice Committee—in particular, our suggestion for a workforce strategy across the whole of the Prison Service?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I pay tribute to the work of his Committee. We have seen welcome increases in the number of prison officers, and that will help with stability. Retention rates are very important. I will certainly study very carefully the recommendations of his Committee, and work with him and other Members to make sure that we achieve our common goal.

Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, negotiations will carry on in the Council tomorrow, and I think it would be idle speculation for me to try and anticipate what might be agreed. Some people take offence at the word nebulous; I do not. [Interruption.] I really do not. What I have tried to do, at all stages of this process, is to find a way forward and to seek a solution. It is in all our hands, and I say that in a spirit of friendship and co-operation to all hon. Members.

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

It seems to me that the Solicitor General is simply giving the House a reality check as to the position that we have been put into by Members who voted in various ways. But is not the situation in law that, although it might be necessary to participate in elections—which neither he nor I nor, I think, most of us want—as a matter of law, the outgoing European Parliament exists until the moment that the new Parliament is created, and therefore there are certain things that could take place, such as ratification of any agreement, until the point that the new Parliament meets; also, the argument that British presence might impugn the new Parliament would not exist if we have left by that time?

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think he is absolutely right about the way in which the European Parliament is constituted. It is due, I think, to rise on 18 April, but it does not cease to exist—it does not dissolve in the way that we do. That is important in terms of ratification, because section 13 of the withdrawal Act that we passed obviously includes that requirement as well.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the answer I gave. The Attorney General will be here on the next sitting day. He will make a statement and answer questions. Then the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members can form a judgment on whether the motion that was carried by this House has been satisfied. My argument is that the Attorney General will meet the spirit and intention of the motion passed, but preserve the important constitutional convention relating to Law Officers’ advice.

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

The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the shadow Secretary of State, said during his speech:

“I wanted the Government to see the good sense in putting the legal position before the House, for all the exceptional reasons that have been set out”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 194.]

Accepting that, is that not precisely what the Attorney General intends to do and will be able to do on Monday?

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, is absolutely right. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is more familiar than most with the position of the Law Officers and their role within the constitution. I would have expected him to do better.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I am sorry. I need to press on.

Clause 3 converts the text of direct EU legislation, as it operates at the moment immediately before we leave the EU, into our domestic law. Such existing EU law is currently given legal effect in our law via section 2(1) of the 1972 Act. Without clause 3, those laws would no longer have effect in domestic law when we leave and repeal the 1972 Act. Again, that would leave holes within our domestic law. More specifically, the clause converts EU regulations, as well as certain decisions and tertiary legislation, into domestic law. It also converts adaptations to instruments made for the EEA. The clause is necessary to ensure that we fully keep existing EU laws in force within the UK.

In general, these instruments, or parts of them, will be converted only if they are already in force before exit day, meaning that an EU regulation set to come into force six months after we leave will not be converted into UK law. However, some EU instruments will be in force but will apply only in a staggered way over time, with different parts applying at different times. In those circumstances, only those parts that are stated to apply before exit day will be converted.

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

I might be anticipating the Minister’s later remarks, but does that not leave us with a possible loophole when we have participated in the preparation of measures that have not yet come into force and we might regard as thoroughly desirable, but we cannot by any means bring them into force?

[The Solicitor General]

I will deal briefly with my hon. Friend’s amendment 356. As I was saying, we have some examples here, such as the EU’s fluorinated greenhouse gases regulations, which are stated as applying from 1 January 2015. They include prohibitions on placing certain substances on the market from specific dates, several of which fall after exit day. With respect, however, his amendment could create further confusion, because there needs to be one standard cut-off point at which the snapshot of law is taken, and that is why exit day should apply. When it comes to measures affected by the cut-off point, we will do whatever is necessary before exit day to provide certainty for business, including by bringing forward further legislation, if required, to cater for those particular situations. If I may return to develop—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I will not give way any further.

It is our policy that we will not be a member of the EEA or the single market after we leave the EU, so introducing an obligation to produce a report on membership of the EEA, as new clauses 9 and 23 seek to do, is simply unnecessary.

I will now try to deal fairly with the Scottish National party amendments 200 and 201, which the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) spoke to. While we do not accept that the amendments are necessary, I welcome the chance to set out clearly the meaning of clause 2. Amendments 200 and 201 seek to provide clarity on precisely what is meant by “passed” in the context of the clause. Some have questioned the effect of clause 2 in relation to an Act that may have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, but which has not yet received Royal Assent when the clause is commenced.

We do not believe that there is an ambiguity. Clause 2(2) states that “EU-derived domestic legislation” is an enactment. As enactments can only mean something that has received Royal Assent, an Act of Scottish Parliament that has only been passed cannot fall within this definition, and it would therefore not be categorised as EU-derived domestic legislation for the purposes of the Bill. The reference to “passed” in clause 2 is therefore a reference to the purpose for which the enactment was passed, not the fact of whether it was passed. I hope I have been able to shed light on that area for the hon. Gentleman, and I invite him to withdraw the amendment.

Turning now to Plaid Cymru’s amendment 87, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Arfon, we do not accept the premise that lies behind the change. In trying to circumvent the provisions of clause 11, the amendment pays no heed to the common approaches that are established by EU law or to the crucial consideration that we—the UK Government and the devolved Administrations—must give to where they may or may not be needed in future. What is more, it undermines our aim to provide people with maximum certainty over the laws that will apply on exit day. The amendment would also be practically unable to achieve its underlying aim. The enactments that it takes out of retained EU law would also be taken outside the scope of the powers that this Bill confers on the devolved Administrations to allow them to prepare them for exit day. It would hamper their ability to address the deficiencies that will arise, and it would leave it likely that the laws would remain broken on the day of exit.

The process of making the statute book work for exit day is a joint endeavour between the different Governments and legislatures of the whole United Kingdom. This is an important project that entails a significant workload before exit day, which is why we are actively engaging with the devolved Administrations to build up a shared understanding of where corrections to the statute book would be needed. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

I hope I have dealt with the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice.

[Robert Neill]

When the Minister talks about bringing forward a package on Report, do I take it that the amendment in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) is intended to be in that package?

[The Solicitor General]

I am always happy to engage with my hon. Friend and with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). I know the spirit in which they tabled the amendment, and I look forward to the dialogue to come.

I commend clauses 2 and 3 to the House.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

That is absolutely right, and it is critical. With respect to the Minister of State, that is why I do not think the financial services sector will take much comfort from his rather high-level dismissal of these proposals earlier.

Let me just say what these two amendments, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), seek to do. They seek to give a general interpretive tool to assist the transposition process. We all accept that that has to happen in that domestication into the statute book. They would interfere with the powers to make regulations conferred by clause 7, but they would reduce the need for regulations. I should have thought that it was preferable not to have to operate by regulation if we could avoid it. If we have a known and established interpretive code, that will save the need to make lots of regulations under clause 7. However, it would also, as the Minister rightly observed, provide a backstop, and that would deal with gaps that are identified but that are not picked up in the transposition process. That is what subsections (A1) and (A2) of amendment 357 would achieve.

These changes draw on rules of interpretation that, as I indicated in my intervention earlier, were proposed by the International Regulatory Strategy Group. That body is co-sponsored by the City of London corporation and TheCityUK, and I am indebted to the Remembrancer’s Office of the City of London corporation for the drafting of these amendments—it takes the credit for the ingenuity.

[The Solicitor General]

I absolutely take the spirit in which these amendments are made, and I am grateful to the Remembrancer’s Office, but does my hon. Friend not agree that we need to be cautious? He thinks that this general interpretive approach will, of itself, amend deficiencies, but does the fact not remain that we would still have to amend deficiencies in legislation, even with these otherwise helpful-looking provisions?

[Robert Neill]

I do not disagree with the Solicitor General about that, but I suggest that it is not an either/or scenario. I very much hope that he will indicate that he is prepared to continue working with me and the authors of the amendments to take this forward. I see that he nods his assent, and I am sure that we can find a constructive means of doing so.

Let me explain why this is important. The first of the rules, in subsection (A3), would confine the territorial scope of the retained EU law to the UK. That would put it on the same territorial footing as domestic law, therefore ensuring that as a general principle, retained EU law would no longer enable or require people or businesses in the UK to do, or to stop doing, something in an EU country. It is perfectly logical from that point of view.

The second rule would ensure that reference to a member state in an EU law that has been domesticated was taken, post Brexit, as a reference to the UK. That would ensure that domesticated EU law would in fact fully apply in the domestic sphere, removing any ambiguity on that point. That will be necessary in a large number of instances to avoid the situation in which the UK will, in effect, be treated as a third country for the purposes of its own laws where retained EU law is currently framed by reference to the whole EU. That would be an absurdity, and we are seeking to remove that risk.

The third rule, in subsection (A5), would transfer all the functions exercised by EU bodies to the Secretary of State. I take the Minister’s point that not all those will necessarily be exercised by the Secretary of State. It is not prescriptive in that way—it need not be, and we can talk about that—but it would deal with the many instances where such functions are transferred to an appropriate Secretary of State as well as providing, again, a legislative backstop to cater for circumstances where the alternative arrangements had not been put in place in time, so that there is no cliff edge in that regard.

The fourth rule deals with the many situations where domestic authorities are required, either outright or as a precondition, to exercise their own functions to deal with EU bodies or authorities in member states. What does that mean in practice? It covers, for instance, cases where the UK body has to notify, consult or get the approval of an EU body before taking a particular course of action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

That is entirely right. That rule would preserve the flexibility to co-operate with European partners and to trade into the European markets—regulatory equivalence will be critical to achieving that—and it would do so without the risk of facing any inappropriate legal constraints on the UK’s own operations once we have left.

I am not suggesting that the answer to everything is in this amendment. It is tabled in the spirit of wanting to work with the Government as we move forward, but it does go a long way towards delivering, in a relatively simple manner, the objective of having a functioning statute book on exit day.

Amendment 358 deals with what those who worked on this perceive as a potential gap concerning the interpretation of domesticated EU law. Clause 6(3), as has already been observed, will preserve the effect of case law laid down before exit day. Clause (6)(2) will provide discretion, and we have talked a lot about taking that into account. I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) regarding her amendment on that point. Again, this amendment does not provide the whole answer, but it raises serious issues that need to be looked at, and I hope that Ministers will do so.

[The Solicitor General]

For the sake of clarity, I think that my hon. Friend will find that schedule 8(25) contains enough scope for other documents of the type that he mentions to be considered by the courts. I hope that I have given him enough reassurance on that point.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to the Solicitor General for that clarification. Perhaps he could confirm that he is happy to meet me and we can discuss that. [Interruption.] He says that he is of course happy to do so. I am grateful to him for that very constructive response, and characteristically so. That will enable us to deal with things like negotiating texts, which we sometimes know of as the travaux préparatoires within the EU context. [Interruption.] Again, the Solicitor General confirms that that is the sort of thing that we can discuss.

Why is that important to the International Regulatory Strategy Group, and why is the group central to this? Its membership includes virtually all the significant representative institutions of the London financial community: the stock exchange, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe, the Association of British Insurers, the British Bankers Association, the City of London corporation and major commercial organisations such as Credit Suisse, Aviva, Allen & Overy, Allianz, Fidelity, HSBC and Lloyds. The list includes all the key underpinners of the City’s operation.

We need to take those important matters into account, and I am grateful to the Solicitor General for his willingness to meet and discuss them. I commend to him and other Ministers the observation made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) about the Francovich cases. It clearly cannot be the Government’s intention to remove people’s opportunity to seek remedies for wrongs that were done prior to our departure. My right hon. Friend raises a critical issue, and it is important to get this right.

I hope that Ministers will observe that the guidance in clause 6(2) is clearly not sufficient to meet the concerns of our senior judiciary and that they have said as much. When Lord Neuberger, a distinguished President of the Supreme Court, says that, ironically, the discretion is so wide that it puts judges at a degree of risk of political attack, he has to be taken seriously. Several right hon. and hon. Members have praised the quality of our judiciary, and I totally agree with them. We ought to listen very carefully when our judiciary say that, as a matter of protection against malicious attack of the sort that they have suffered in the past, they look to Parliament to safeguard their ability to function independently in cases that are quite politicised.

[The Solicitor General]

I am listening with care to my hon. Friend. Will he accept from me that there is another danger, namely that by using too many prescriptive words in the Bill, we could fetter the discretion of the courts in a way that they would find equally unacceptable? There is a balance to be struck here.

[Robert Neill]

There is, and that is why it is all the more important—perhaps unusually so—for Government to talk quietly with the judiciary to find out what they are saying. They cannot compromise their independence, but those of us who are in touch with them want to make sure that the Government understand the root of their concerns. I am sure that there is a constructive way forward on that.

I know that the Solicitor General will be aware of the problem, because it was referred to in the Justice Committee’s report in the last Parliament. I also draw his attention to the concerns raised by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the recently retired Lord Chief Justice, in the evidence that he gave only a couple of days before he retired from that post. He gave a pretty clear steer on the sort of thing that could be helpful and posited various types of language. I hope that the Solicitor General accepts that we need to look further at the matter, and I hope that we can do that constructively as we take the Bill forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

Again, the hon. Lady asks a general question about the merits of particular cases. If indeed there are grounds—for example, a judicial review procedure might be appropriate in particular cases—that application can be made. The important point in the context of this question is whether we can do more for families and bereaved relatives. I think we can, and the precedent set by the horrific events at Grenfell will allow us all to learn important lessons: that families have to be put first.

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

Can the Solicitor General help us on the practicalities? What discussions has he had with the Bar Council and the Law Society as to how an independent advocate or advocates might be identified; what levels of remuneration will be available, so as to ensure that there is proper equality of arms in representation; and by what means families will be able to give proper and fully discreet instructions?

[The Solicitor General]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is vital that we get these details right as we develop the policy. It is clear, certainly to the Government, that having quality advocacy so that the right documents are obtained and a proper challenge is made at all stages of the process is important, and it is what we seek to achieve. Therefore, fulfilling article 6 has to be at the heart of this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I assure the hon. Lady that the allocation of resources for the prosecution of fraud has increased within the CPS. There are now over 200 specialist fraud prosecutors, not just here in London but across the country in important regional centres, and that number is set to increase to 250 in the months ahead, so the CPS is really placing an important priority on this.

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

Does the Solicitor General agree that the work of the Crown Prosecution Service in this area is very much complemented in cases of really serious economic fraud by the work of the Serious Fraud Office, which has been transformed under the leadership of David Green, resulting in the recovery of over £500 million of ill-gotten gains? Does he agree that the model of the Serious Fraud Office does this country great credit and will be of increasing value to us in future?

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Justice Committee. He is right to highlight the recent successes of the SFO in collecting millions of pounds for the taxpayer as a result of deferred prosecution agreements. I think the Roskill model, which brings together investigators and prosecutors in one unit, works very well.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

It is a pleasure to deal with the second group of amendments. It is a large group, which some hon. Members have described to me as “unprecedented”. I would not be so bold as to say that, having served a mere six years in this place. I concede, however, that the group is considerable. That perhaps reflects the huge and legitimate interest of Members of all parties in these particular parts of the Bill.

Parts 2 and 5 of the Bill were debated at length in Public Bill Committee. The Government have listened to what was said in those debates and we have brought back a number of amendments in response. These changes will strengthen protections for parliamentarians; enhance the safeguards for targeted thematic warrants; and provide greater assurances in respect of the obligations that might be placed on communications service providers.

Before I come on to the detail of the Government amendments, let me say a few words about one of the most important issues that we will discuss in this group: the authorisation of warrants.

When the Government published the draft Bill in November last year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the intention that warrants for the most sensitive powers available to the security and intelligence agencies would be authorised by the Secretary of State and approved by a senior independent judge. This would maintain democratic accountability and introduce a new element of judicial independence into the warrant authorising process. This double lock represents the most significant change in our lifetimes to the way in which the security and intelligence agencies exercise their vital powers. This is ground-breaking, innovative and important in striking a balance between the public interest in protecting our citizens and the interests of privacy. There is a range of views in the House on the question of authorisations, and I am sure that we will have a productive and weighty debate on these matters this evening.

The amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) seek to remove the reference to judicial review principles. The House will be aware that the Joint Committee that considered the draft Bill said that it was “satisfied” with the wording of the Bill and that judicial review principles would

“afford the Judicial Commissioner a degree of flexibility.”

That flexibility is important. It provides that judicial commissioners can undertake detailed scrutiny of decisions where appropriate, but it does not oblige judges to undertake forensic scrutiny of even the most straightforward warrants, because to do so would be unnecessary and would threaten the operational agility of the security and intelligence agencies.

In our debate on the first group of amendments, we had a mini-debate—we might have strayed slightly off piste—on the language that should be used in relation to the scrutiny that we want the judicial commissioners to deploy when considering their part in the double-lock mechanism. However, I believe that the manuscript amendment provides precisely the assurance that Opposition Members were seeking in Committee and in subsequent correspondence, and I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras and other Opposition Members for agreeing to it. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for his involvement in these important matters. I believe that we now have an amendment that will satisfy the concerns of all hon. Members and provide the robust safeguard that we were all looking for. The wording that the parliamentary draftsmen have come up with ties in the privacy provision that we debated in the last group of amendments and puts this matter right at the heart of the Bill. We now have a robust double lock that will maintain the important distinction between the Executive and the judiciary. As I have said, this is truly ground-breaking.

I shall speak to the other Government amendments as quickly as I can, to ensure that other hon. Members can be accommodated in the debate. New clauses 9 and 13 will deliver on our commitment to strengthen the safeguards around so-called thematic warrants—that is, those targeted warrants that apply to a group of suspects rather than to an individual. They will introduce a new requirement that major modifications to warrants—adding the name of a gang member, for example—must be notified to a judicial commissioner as well as to the Secretary of State.

Amendments 97 and 54 will strictly limit the operation of modifications, making it clear that a warrant targeted at a single suspect cannot be modified to expand its scope to target several suspects. This builds on the assurances that I gave in Committee, and the provision will now be on the face of the Bill, should the amendments be accepted. New clauses 8 and 12 make it clear that modifications that engage the Wilson doctrine or legal professional privilege should be subject to the full double-lock authorisation.

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

I am grateful to the Solicitor General for recognising the importance not only of the Wilson doctrine but of legal professional privilege. Would he accept that Government new clause 5 ought to be capable of embracing legal professional privilege within the overarching public interest in protecting privacy? Will he also continue to work with the Bar Council and the Law Society to ensure that we monitor the practical application of the protection of legal privilege in these matters?

[The Solicitor General]

I am extremely grateful to the Chairman of the Justice Committee, who speaks with knowledge and experience on such matters. He will be glad to know that Bar Council representatives, whom I recently met, have kindly undertaken to come up with further proposals by which the issues that took up so much time in Committee might be resolved. I will be meeting representatives of the Law Society this very week. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that those particular proposals were not crystallised prior to today’s debate, but there will of course be more time. If clear proposals come forward—I am sure that they will—they can be subject to full, proper scrutiny in the other place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Gentleman rightly points to the fact that the actual number of convictions continues to increase, which means justice for more and more victims. It is right that the Crown Prosecution Service brings cases to juries, and, of course, it is a matter for juries to determine whether a suspect is guilty. Increased funding for the rape and serious sexual offences units means an improved early engagement with the police so that the experience of victims becomes a better one, and we have tried and tested evidence that the experience of victims is vital if we are to make improvements.

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

Part of improving the evidence of victims is surely through the increased use of live links, which we are already seeing, where victims do not physically have to come to the court building to give their evidence. The report published this week by the CPS inspectorate and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary recognises that. It says that, in some areas, the scheme is doing very well, but, in others

“the courts and the CPS were not comfortable with live links even though the video technology was available.”

What more can be done to spread consistency in its uptake?

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight that important report. In places such as Kent, best practice is clearly being demonstrated. With regard to national training, which is happening now, we will see more and more use of live links from victims’ homes and other safe places to avoid the terrible ordeal in many cases of victims having to come to court to give evidence in the courtroom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to him, as he is retiring from this place, for his assiduous work on this and other issues over the years. He rightly says that it is important for the reputation of this country that cases are brought, under either the new Act or the old Act. We must not forget that we have had a number of key successes in non-Bribery Act cases that predate the passage of this legislation, most notably the prosecution of Smith & Ouzman Ltd for bribes paid to Kenyan officials in relation to the electoral processes. We have had a number of successes, which we should celebrate.

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

Does the Solicitor-General agree that part of the SFO’s success in recent years in these matters stems from the rigour that David Green, QC, has brought as its director, because of his experience in private practice? Is that perhaps a lesson for future appointments to other senior prosecuting bodies?

[The Solicitor-General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, and I join him in thanking the director for the hard work he is putting in to ensure that the SFO performs well and improves its progress. On the previous question on resources, may I just say that the availability of blockbuster funding means that the SFO has the flexibility to prosecute cases as and when they arise and meet the threshold test?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

The right hon. Gentleman and I share a passion for ending this scourge. It was important that the prosecution was brought and the number of referrals continues to increase—we did not have any referrals before 2010. That shows that both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are taking the matter very seriously. The message must be sent out to everybody that those who indulge in this form of abuse will be subject to the law and to prosecution.

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

May I welcome the Solicitor-General’s recognition of the importance of dealing with the psychological intimidation of witnesses, which, as those of us who have prosecuted a case of this kind will know, can be every bit as difficult as physical intimidation? I congratulate him personally on the initiatives he has taken in this matter and the work he has been doing.

[The Solicitor-General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. It was important that we fill the loopholes in the law. We now have the stalking and harassment legislation introduced by this Government and legislation on coercive control. We are doing everything we can to deal with the scourge of emotional and psychological abuse.

UK and Gibraltar Prosecuting Authorities

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Solicitor-General]

We are not aware of any prosecutions, but I will look into the matter further to give the right hon. Gentleman cast-iron information. I will write to him, if I may, on that point. I am grateful to him for helping to reinforce the consensus that exists in the House about the good criminal prosecution and investigation work that goes on in Gibraltar.

[Robert Neill]

Following on from that point, perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will confirm my own experience at the Bar, that very often jurisdiction as to where a prosecution takes place is but a small part of the bigger picture. Frequently, assistance given by authorities in one jurisdiction may lead to prosecutions elsewhere. The important test, with which Gibraltar completely complies, is the prevention of crime and the capture of criminals.

[The Solicitor-General]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The delicate network of interlocking mutual legal assistance is vital if we are to have a truly international approach to the fight against crime, which nowadays often exists in many jurisdictions and crosses many boundaries.