Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Public Bill Committee, 11 March 2014.
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
Before we begin our proceedings, I have to make a few preliminary announcements.
First, please could electronic devices be switched to silent? Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The notice period for amendments is three working days. Starred amendments—those that have been tabled with inadequate notice—will not normally be called.
Today, the Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper; debate on this is limited to half an hour. We will then consider a motion to report written evidence and one to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of oral evidence sessions; I hope that we can take these motions formally. Assuming that the second of the motions is agreed to, the Committee will sit in private. Afterward, the witnesses and members of the public will be invited into the room, and our oral evidence session will begin.
I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name.
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
Copes of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee room.
Examination of Witness
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
I welcome our first witness. Will you introduce yourself, please?
Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)
To start things off, may I ask about your opinion on the secure estate? In particular, there has been some discussion about reasonable force. When, in your view, is force reasonable and when is it not?
Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)
That is very helpful. I have heard some interesting arguments—we will probably come to them later—that one problem with providing a secure college for young people, where there is an educational focus rather than a prison focus, is that it may make it more attractive for judges to send people there. Presumably the counter-argument would be that if we made them really unpleasant, fewer young people would go there. What is your comment on this issue?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
Thank you for coming today. There is a lot of evidence that a very high proportion of adults in prison have learning difficulties. Could you speak a little about children, and the support that they need if they have special educational needs? What do they need to flourish in this sort of environment?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
What sort of training and skills should the staff have to be able to help those children to flourish?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
A final question. I think that the maximum time that the children and young people are likely to be in this facility for is 79 days. Do you think that moving them is likely to perpetuate their chaotic lifestyles and disrupt attachment even further?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
As I understand your evidence, I think we have got to the stage where, sadly, no one disputes that there will be a limited number of cases in which children or young people have been involved in offending on a scale that means that there has to be form of custody. That has always been the case, in your career, and in my career before I came here.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
We understand that. Sometimes within that secure regime it will be necessary, as a last resort, to use a degree of force. I think your view was that it is generally not to be done for coercion, but it is legitimate to use it if there is disruption of such a kind that it is either a threat to other individuals or it makes the running of the establishment impossible. That is the sort of level that we are talking about.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
I agree with you. As you said earlier, a lot of the environment relates to the quality of the staff, and what we agree is the complex range of interventions that these young people have. I do not know whether your experience is like mine when I was a legal practitioner, but sometimes you need a critical mass, in terms of the professional expertise of the staff and the level of training that can be given, which you cannot always achieve in a small establishment. I sometimes found that it was difficult in smaller establishments to achieve that greater awareness, and to bring in that range of expertise. Is that not something that we need to take into account when deciding on the best way, and on the optimum size for these establishments?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
It is a matter of fact and degree. It is not so much the legal framework of the regime; it is the way that it is operated by the people who are there, largely.
Mike Kane (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, in my first intervention. I hope I have got the etiquette right. I agree with the Secretary of State that the figure of 69% of young offenders reoffending is far too high. Do you think the secure college will have any impact on the rate of reoffending by young people?
Mike Kane (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)
I completely agree. The relationship between the trainer and the offender in any such institution is critical. As a former outstanding teacher myself, I know that those relationships are based on character depth and discipline. I would die with a 79-day school year; I do not know how you establish those relationships in that period of time. The Secretary of State also mentioned that we do not have that expertise in the public sector and we will have to go to the private sector to get it. Does that expertise to run the educational side of this exist in the public sector at present?
Mike Kane (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)
Is there any other model that you have seen on the continent or in the world that works like this?
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
Recent figures demonstrate that by far the largest number of children in custody are male. What assessment has been made of the impact on women and girls who will go into these institutions? Do you think there will be a particular impact?
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
Have you considered what sort of special measures might be needed to ensure that girls can be looked after in an appropriate way in a secure college?
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
I am going to stop this session at exactly 9.30 am.
Dan Jarvis (Labour, Barnsley Central)
I will ask you briefly about the most effective way of delivering education to offenders, but I want to return to the question that Mr Neill asked about scale. What do you think is an ideal size for a secure college?
Dan Jarvis (Labour, Barnsley Central)
In terms of the most effective way of delivering education, you mentioned an example in Spain, but you said that your particular experience and expertise relates to this country. Are you able to recommend a model of best practice, or to give an example of how it is being done well in this country?
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions of this witness. I am sorry to be so precise. I thank you on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
We shall now hear from the Magistrates’ Association, the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Criminal Justice Alliance. First, please will the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
I want to follow up on the issue of secure colleges, since we have just been discussing them. I read the Howard League’s briefing. On the issue of how effectively we are going to use staff, it seems to me that one of the problems is that we have some very dedicated speech and language therapists, for example, who are having to be peripatetic at the moment. Could one of the advantages of a secure college be that we could have a permanent presence of specialists in place, which would allow a day-by-day rapport to be built up with individual young people who need intensive help?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
If there is a consolidation of some of the other, smaller units, surely there will be a ploughing back into the system of the revenue that would have been spent on that. With careful design will come some of the benefits you rightly raise. For example, there will be a cohort of young men with, let us say, SLT needs, and another cohort with attachment disorder. Would there not be more prospect of day-to-day involvement than—with the best will in the world; I am a great supporter of SLT services—with the peripatetic approach? Sometimes, once a week will not be enough for the young people we are talking about.
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
So the intensive work is vital, is it not, because of the brevity?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
The Children and Families Bill will do a lot, I think, to try to bring together services around young people. Everyone in the room agrees about the importance of early intervention. However, there will still be a cohort who slip through the net whose needs are not identified at an early age and who end up in the criminal justice system. The point is that there will still be a small—reducing, I hope—number of young people who will need such intensive help. If it is administered and done correctly, is not this more concentrated approach potentially more helpful to the young people who end up in the criminal justice estate, as opposed to a more pick-and-mix approach, which can happen now?
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Bolton South East)
As you rightly said, there will not be a lot of money for the secure colleges that are being proposed. It is not clear at the moment whether they will be segregated by gender. Bearing in mind that 95% of the children in question are male, would it be appropriate to have both genders together in the same institution, given the psychological, social and other backgrounds of the children?
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Bolton South East)
Leading on from the challenges that occur in these secure colleges, a proposal is to be debated about using reasonable force in secure colleges to ensure “good order and discipline.” How do you see that working in reality and what do you think “reasonable force” means?
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Bolton South East)
I have a final question on this part and I will not ask any more questions after that. What do you think about the situation facing young women and girls—children aged 12 to 14—in secure colleges?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Good morning. I want to follow up briefly on the earlier questions. The ratio of female to male in our secure estate for children is one in 20. Is that because males are 20 times more likely to offend or are we more reluctant to send young women and young girls to these kinds of institutions? Perhaps you can answer that first and then we will see.
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Thank you—that is useful. We will make a note of that.
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
No. Why is it that, as we heard from our previous witness, girls who are in the system seem to be having more extreme experiences than their male counterparts? Is it because it gets very extreme very quickly? What could we do to help?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Finally, presumably you would think that giving them more opportunities for education, however that is achieved, is a positive.
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
But combining the two is not, in itself, a bad thing.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
I have got three questions, the first principally to Mr Monkhouse. The aim of clauses 24 to 28 is to simplify the process in the magistrates court. That comes out of the document “Transforming the Criminal Justice System”, in which the Government say that they want a system
“which is faster and right first time”.
It certainly looks as though it will be faster, but is there anything in this that makes you think it will not be right first time? I am thinking particularly of the fact that we have got the bare minimum of magistrate cover, going down from three to one, and we have also got decisions taking place in settings other than a formal courtroom session. Do you have any concerns about decision making having to be revisited—or, indeed, about transparency of justice?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Clauses 29 and 30 require the court to impose the charge to pay for part or all of the costs of the hearing. If this is an additional charge going on to other financial penalties and costs, how do you see this working? Given that you will be dealing with defendants of defined means, is it likely that you will simply have the same cake and you will divvy it up more between the different types of penalty that you impose? If so, can you see much point in it?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Frances Crook, you have given us a brief that deals with some of your specific objections to the changes in part 4 to judicial review, but if these changes go through unamended, how will that make a difference to the way the Howard League operates? You do not have to refer to any judicial reviews of the Ministry of Justice that you are taking at the moment—I do not want to upset the Minister too much—but more generally, how will it affect you?
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
I should probably start by making a declaration, which I hope will cover the entirety of the proceedings: I am a former prosecutor and legal aid lawyer and I am still owed money by the state, so I have a vested interest. Will the legal aid Minister please organise the backlog? Four years on and I still have not been paid for a number of criminal cases—don’t worry, that’s standard. Also I wrote a book called “Doing Time” of which, amazingly, a few copies are still available in the shops—all proceeds go to charity not to me, I hasten to add—which addressed a number of these issues.
I start with quick yes or no question: do all three of you agree that the single magistracy proposal is a workable and feasible option?
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
Ladies?
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
Okay. Without characterising or criticising in any way the Howard League, which I know very well, or the Criminal Justice Alliance, is it a fair comment that your views are strongly influenced by your fundamental desire to see fewer people go to prison?
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
I am with you, but I want to have a context. A fundamental ethos of the Criminal Justice Alliance is to reduce the prison population.
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
We can argue and discuss the reasons, I accept. Similar points would apply to the Howard League, surely.
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
I understand that. I want to come back to you, Frances, on the point on which you were originally questioned by Robert Neill. You seemed to suggest, and I want to be clear that this is what you are really maintaining, that having irregular once-a-week training, rather than regular intensive training, would be a better proposition. I suggest that the opposite applies: that if you take a young offender, you wish to give them the intensity of training, education and rehabilitation for the limited amount of time that you have such a person in your institution, whatever its merit or otherwise, rather than have a random once-a-week operation.
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
You should try representing them; it’s harder.
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
No one is disputing that you need an holistic approach and a range of interventions to deal with the vast majority of young people, male or female, who are in these institutions. I want to press you on the point that if the fundamental purpose is changing the character and behaviour of the individual through mentoring and education, that is best done on a relatively intense basis, even though that may not constitute non-stop education, as in a normal classroom. I suggest that you do need a more intensive training regime.
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
On localisation of prison services, I do not think a single person in this room would disagree with you. Regarding the persons involved, do you agree—I accept that it is a broad principle—that what matters is not necessarily the amount of money that you spend, but the quality of the leadership, the mentors and the individuals carrying out the programmes?
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
In reality, the broad principle is that it is no different from a school, which we all see in our constituencies. If it has a bad head and governors, similar comments would apply. Clearly, all of us would want to see better quality leadership and mentoring.
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
Would you agree that there is scope for increased involvement of organisations such as the Shannon Trust, the St Giles Trust and others in an institution of the sort that the Government are thinking about?
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
I am cutting you short not out of rudeness, but because I am about to be cut short. I have a couple of quick questions.
Simply, would you prefer—I am asking the two ladies here in particular—girls to be held in a separate prison?
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
Specialist provision and not be together? Even though—I just want to run this by you—that would mean that they might be far away from their family environment?
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
Can I ask both ladies briefly: are we right not to go back to IPPs?
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
My last question is about judicial review. [ Interruption. ] Not at all. I must disagree with you on judicial review. There should be financial risk relating to the application. When I took legal aid judicial review applications, the state assessed the merit of the case. If you believe that you have a case with better than 51% prospects of success, or you have such a strong and passionate belief that you must get involved in the case irrespective of the prospect of success, should you not have a financial risk that you should pay for that?
Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)
If your case is so good, why do you not get a protective costs order?
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
Mr Opperman, we are not in court; we have only an hour, not three weeks. We will move on.
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
I have some quick questions on some points that came up earlier. I want to ask you all—although you may not have an opinion—whether you think the proposed secure colleges will be cost-effective and a good use of public money?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
As the proposals stand, do you think there will be sufficient skills in the college? You mentioned children being kept down, but do you think that the wide range of skills required are present in the proposals?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
So the idea is to put more money into local authorities—that is the way we should be going.
Is there any recent research on whether children excluded from the education system have ended up in the criminal justice system?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Could you expand on where it is?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Could you be a bit more specific?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
And it is more cost-effective than a secure college?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
I do not want to put words in your mouth, but would you describe a secure college as an old-style borstal?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
So what were they like? Effective or not effective?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
In your opinion, were they effective?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Thank you. May I move on to the single magistracy, which you mentioned, Mr Monkhouse? Are you satisfied that people who appear before a single magistrate will have had legal advice on their case? You mentioned uncontested DVLA cases, but we all have colleagues who have ended up in a difficult position because of simple DVLA issues.
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
I am slightly concerned about uncontested cases that may suddenly turn into something more difficult. It is up to the magistrate to do that. Do you envisage there being many collapsed cases?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Has an impact assessment been done on that?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
It used to be the clerks.
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Thank you. You know that the Home Department has conducted the Ellison review into the Stephen Lawrence case. Will that review have an impact on the simple cautions? Should we wait for a further review before we move to simple cautions?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Thank you.
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
We will finish this session at 10.30. I have a number of Members who still want to ask questions, so I would appreciate brevity.
Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Kenilworth and Southam)
On the subject of youth detention, I am not sure whether it was part of the case put by any three of you, but want to be absolutely clear: are you saying that all of those young people currently accommodated in the custodial estate could properly be accommodated in secure children’s homes, or do you concede that some other type of institution is necessary for at least some of those young people in custody?
Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Kenilworth and Southam)
Thank you.
Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Kenilworth and Southam)
You may be right, but that was not the question I asked. I was simply asking whether you think that a secure children’s home is suitable for all those who are sentenced to detention in the youth estate.
Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Kenilworth and Southam)
Thank you.
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
I should like to bring the panel back to the simple cautions. Will the restrictions that are being proposed have an impact on the flexibility to do things such as restorative justice?
Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)
Mr Monkhouse, how much information do you get on what happens to your sentences? Whether they are about reoffending after particular types of sentences or in the context of the court charging proposals, what fraction of the money that you charge ever comes back?
Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)
And on court charging in particular, do you get any information at all about how much is ever repaid? Do you have any way of assessing how much of the money charged for this could ever come back?
Dan Jarvis (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Ms Salmon, what impact, if any, will the creation of secure colleges have on the sentencing of young offenders?
Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)
Mr Monkhouse, you spoke of transparency in the magistrates court. That is very important. But in your experience in low-level cases where you have non-payment of TV licences, where people have three extra points added to their licences, how many members of the public or journalists turn up to hear the papers being read?
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allocated for. I thank them on behalf of the Committee.
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)
Thank you all for coming. We have had some interesting discussions about what the proposed secure college would look like and the current provision. In your view, if you had a completely free rein, how would you design a youth justice system, particularly the secure estate element of it?
Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)
Do you all think that the education and training provision that is available at the moment is fit for purpose?
Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)
Following on from what you have said, it would appear that young people who enter institutions have either been failed by, or failed within, the current education system. The things that you are saying about the need for that wider education—it is about emotional as well as academic education—would lead one to think that that would be better delivered in a larger institution, but that seems counter-intuitive to what those young people need. The question is: how do you deliver that package in a smaller institution, or do we need to go down the road of having a larger institution where all those things can be delivered? Who should be delivering them?
Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)
Just one quick question. The proposal is for a unit for 12-year-olds upwards. What do you think should be the divide in terms of the age groups of young people together?
Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)
I am thinking not so much just about the education, but also about the environment.
Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)
What should that age split be?
Lee Scott (Conservative, Ilford North)
May I start by complimenting New Rush Hall school? I am slightly biased because it is in my own constituency, where I have visited it. The work you do there is tremendous, and I would like to put that on record.
You have all mentioned the importance of smaller units. The point has just been made about smaller units with different year groups, as would happen anyway in an educational establishment, and the separation of boys and girls, as happens in the more adult population of Peterborough prison, which houses males and females, but they are kept separately. With those provisos, would you agree that the small units offering a home and family environment that you want could work within a larger establishment if the right mechanisms are put in place?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
I have been to a local authority secure unit. I think they are fantastic and, Miss Gibbs, I am grateful that you have put very clearly that education is going on at a very high standard in the secure units. I am struggling with what benefit, other than purely a punitive one, the panel thinks there is from creating one of these very large secure units. I think the word “college” is a bit of a misnomer; it is not about education. What benefit do you think is likely to come from this?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
Is there any evidence that a prison of this scale will reduce offending rates or change behaviour when they come out the other end?
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
I wonder whether I can move the discussion on to the slightly different issue of automatic release. Does the panel think that the current system of automatic release for dangerous offenders gets the right balance between rehabilitation and ensuring that the public are protected from serious harm?
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
Yes.
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
Would you like to say that it should not be seen as an automatic right?
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
I suppose, philosophically, you could say that it is also important that the public feel that justice has been done, and that is another important part of the process.
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
Are there any more questions for witnesses? If not, that brings us to the end of our business this morning. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses.
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
Our first witnesses this afternoon are speaking on behalf of the Public and Commercial Services Union and the Trades Union Congress. We have until 2.30 pm for this panel of witnesses, but there may be a vote during that time, in which case we will have to take that time out of the time available for these witnesses. I hope that I have the co-operation of the Committee in understanding that and perhaps being a little briefer. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Bolton South East)
Good afternoon. I want to ask you about what you have heard about judicial review changes. What is your view regarding the change proposed in the Bill and its effect on the TUC?
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Bolton South East)
You are probably aware that, when someone applies for a judicial review, it is not the case that every time you put in an application, it will go before the full court to be considered; you have to go through the first process to get the leave to seek judicial review. Therefore, any sort of rubbish or weak cases would be sifted out, and only cases that a judge has looked through and said, “There is something here for further consideration” will go forward to be considered for judicial review. From your experience of when you were involved in such things, when employment law cases happen, how many millions of working people in this country will be affected by a possible decision in judicial review, especially if the decision is positive?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
I would like to change track a bit, if I may, and talk about the criminal court charges. The Bill makes provision to cover some of the costs of criminal courts from offenders. What implications do you think that will have for the Courts Service?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Do you know what the split is between those whom you just described and the others to whom charges are applied? I think £1.9 billion is outstanding in uncollected debts and fines. How many of those fines fall into the category that you are describing, and how many have just not been collected?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
I think that whenever a fine is applied you request information about household income. Are you saying that it is not necessarily forthcoming?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Do you think the fact that such a high proportion of charges is outstanding undermines public confidence in non-custodial justice?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
If the collection of those penalties were contracted out, what would be the objection? They could perhaps find out more information and do that service better to rebuild confidence.
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
So is your only objection that the companies who are contracted to do this would have access to different information?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
No, I accept that, but if the overall package is more efficient, is the objection that someone might make a profit out of this?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Thank you.
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
I want to turn back to judicial review. You alluded to a couple of cases that either or both of you have taken in the public interest. Could you expand on the types of public interest cases that you have taken to judicial review and where you have been interveners? In your answer, could you address clause 53, “Interveners and costs”?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
The Government’s argument seems to be that judicial review is being misused for political—with a small p—or campaigning purposes. I guess that organisations such as yours do mind when they say that. Do you recognise that as the way in which judicial review is used by the trade union movement at the moment? If not, what purposes do you and, in the case of the TUC, your member organisations use it for?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
People keep bringing up examples of judicial reviews that are against the Ministry of Justice. I am sure that is just a coincidence, but in view of the time, let me move on and ask Miss Burtt some questions about the Courts Service. You have said—I do not think anyone would disagree—that collection is hard. I got an answer from the Minister today saying that in the last calendar year, only 22.7% of distress warrants were collected in full. You have given—
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Certainly.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
I did not know that, but thank you for pointing it out.
The point that I was going to make is this. You touched on the difficulty of collecting more money if you impose additional charges, as this does—that is something we heard about from the Magistrates Association this morning—but in your submissions you also raised a query about whether having a single magistrate could make the situation worse in terms of knowing what financial penalties to impose. Can you say a bit more about that? Also, you make the point that if it is appropriate for fixed penalties, then we already have fixed penalties. What do you think about those changes to the magistracy?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Finally, you have given some of your in-principle objections to outsourcing or privatising collection. Do you see any operational problems? Clearly, the actual methods of collection are changing all the time—we have a completely new compulsory charge in this Bill. At a time when that is happening, are your members—whether in the public sector or, in future, the private sector—finding operational difficulties in collection?
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
Order. We have come to end of the time allocated to ask questions of these witnesses. I thank them on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
We will now hear evidence from the Prison Reform Trust and the Prisoners Education Trust. We have until 3.15 pm for this panel, so time is limited. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Dan Jarvis (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Ms Lyon, what impact will part 1 of the Bill have on the criminal justice system? I am thinking, in particular, of the impact it might have on the Parole Board.
Dan Jarvis (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Do you think, based on your experience, that £85 million is a realistic budget to deliver a 320-place secure college?
Dan Jarvis (Labour, Barnsley Central)
It was just in more general terms: do you think the figure of £85 million is a realistic amount to deliver what is within the scope of the Bill?
Dan Jarvis (Labour, Barnsley Central)
We are short of time, so I just have one question for Ms Champion, which relates to some issues that we discussed earlier in terms of the provision of education. What do you think it would be realistic to achieve, given that on average a young person will spend 79 days in a young offenders institution? What can be achieved during that period of time?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
Can I concentrate you on that transition? What requirements would you want to be in place? If, for example, a young person is in a secure unit, they breach their terms and they end up in this giant prison, in terms of continuity of care and how that is handled for the 79 days going in and coming out, what would you want to see put in place and who would be the right people to be putting that care package in place?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
Who could or should have that oversight to make sure that it happens and that it is accountable? We heard earlier that the Children’s Commissioners were the only people who were going into prisons. Would it be them? Who would be responsible?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
Looking at the skills and the qualifications of the day-to-day staff and the specialist staff, what skills and qualifications should they have?
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
In the impact assessment, the Government predict that the changes introduced in clauses 1 to 5 could result in an increase of 1,000 prison places and an increase of 1,100 Parole Board hearings a year between implementation and 2030. Do you consider that those views are accurate and have you given consideration to what you think the implications for the prison service are of the predicted rise in population?
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
Have you made an assessment of what you think the numbers might be?
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
Thank you.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Ms Lyon, you have interesting figures on income levels and debt problems with offenders and ex-offenders in the context of additional charges being imposed by the criminal courts. I am not sure whether you are saying that you endorse the comments of the hon. Member for South Swindon in talking about means being properly investigated. Is your argument that these charges should not be imposed at all, or that it is reasonable to impose them, provided that a proper means assessment is done?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
I take the point. At the end of your briefing, you briefly mention judicial review and specifically mention clause 50. Is that something that your organisation has had experience of? What is your experience and why are you worried about clause 50 and the judicial review provisions in particular?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Is your organisation involved in the challenge to the changes to legal aid for prisoners at the moment?
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
There are no further questions, so I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel of witnesses and hear evidence from the Victims’ Services Alliance. We have until 3.45 pm for this panel.
Examination of Witness
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
Do you agree that the Bill puts victims first?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
You mentioned terrorists and sex offenders. Should the list be longer than that?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
Victims are very supportive of restorative justice. Do you think the Bill does enough to embed it, or are there things in the Bill that might challenge the use of restorative justice?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Good afternoon. I want to talk a little about the criminal courts charge, but first, could you tell us how successful you think the victims surcharge has been?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Why do you feel unable to comment on the collection?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Okay, but from the tone of your voice, I would say that you were expressing some concern about the collection.
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
To move on to the criminal courts charge, do you think that that would be a useful additional charge? Do you think it would have any effect on deterring reoffending or encouraging people to plead guilty at the point at which the case might go to court?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Okay. I suppose that, before we make a judgment on that, we would need to know the numbers involved and whether we are designing the system for the minority who do not pay because they cannot or do not have the means to, or whether it is for the majority. I think we should always bear that in mind.
Are there any other provisions that you would like to have seen included in the Bill from a victim’s perspective?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Finally, I asked the previous panel about whether they thought the level of non-collection undermined the way in which victims saw non-custodial sentences. Leaving aside the collection aspect, if in principle fines and penalties are not collected, do you think that that undermines victims’ faith in the system?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
So if the levels of collection went up, you think that would improve confidence?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Do you mind how that is collected?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
I want to ask your opinion of the current regime on simple cautions. Have you had a chance to look at the relevant clause in the Bill? What is your view on that?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
May I develop the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock was making about the way in which we assess the means of defendants? I have not yet declared an interest, but I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. From my experience, the gathering of information relating to the means of defendants can be an entirely anecdotal test. In other words, we are not actually getting the information early enough or comprehensively and authoritatively enough to assess their means properly. That, I believe, is leading to poor enforcement. Can you, from your perspective and experience, share any thoughts with us about how we can better assess the means of defendants before we impose fines or charges on them?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
Yes. If we were to introduce a system whereby defendants were required to make a statutory declaration, with consequences for misdeclaring their incomes—for example, criminal sanction—do you think that that would help to incentivise people to tell the truth about their means?
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for his evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
We have until 4.30 for this panel. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
Could both of you tell us which bits of the Bill you welcome on behalf of your members, and which bits you are more concerned about?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
Has Shelter been an intervener?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
What would the implications of the Bill be for Shelter specifically?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
In reality, could you afford to take the risk of making the interventions?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
I should like to pick up on something that I have asked other witnesses about, namely the criminal courts charge. Do you consider that the charge will deter offenders from reoffending, and encourage offenders to plead guilty at an earlier point in proceedings?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Would you like to comment on any other aspect of the courts charge—perhaps on how successful the victim surcharge has been, and whether you think it has had any impact from the point of view of your organisation?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Are there any other matters related to charges and penalties that you would like to see improved under the Bill, and which would have an impact on your organisation?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
I have a few questions for Mr Gallagher. May we go back to the case of TG and Lambeth? How was that case funded?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Right. It went to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
You mentioned the role of Freshfields, which was in relation to it doing some research for you, was it? I think you said that it surveyed local authorities about the link-up between social services and housing.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
I was referring specifically to your costs in the intervention, your legal costs. I am assuming that under the current rules, you bore your own costs of the intervention.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
But you did not have to pay any other costs.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Was that also covered pro bono by Freshfields?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
If you were at risk of paying the costs of the other party on the intervention, presumably you would have to pay that yourself or prevail more on your benefactors.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
You said that you were going to mention two of your intervention cases. Was the other one the under-occupation case?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
You mentioned the issue of financial transparency and said that you are happy with that. Do you think there would be any risk of your backers, as it were, then becoming liable for costs in those circumstances?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Yes, and so do you normally have the benefit of protective costs orders when you go into these matters, or is it simply that you are assured under the current rules that you are only at risk in relation to your own intervention?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
But you said none the less that you have concerns about that. On the intervention cases you have talked about, have there been cases in which Shelter has been an applicant itself?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
You are a representative of perhaps the best-known body in your field. Have you discussed Part 4 of the Bill with any other organisations in the housing field? Do you know if there is a general view about this? Are you expressing a general view of the charitable or housing sector or is this your own view?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Ms Maxted, I understand your point that there will be certain types of offender who are not likely to be discouraged by a criminal courts charge. Equally, the victim surcharge worked well and I suppose the logic would be that, if it works in some cases, it is a useful tool to have in the box. Is that so?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
And it may well be that acquisitive crime and so on might be a different type of consideration.
Professor Gallagher, in judicial review, you accepted transparency in relation to the funders of intervention; would you agree that that must apply to all interveners, regardless of whether they are private or public sector, or whatever? You cannot have one law for one and not for another.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
That is where we are there. We discussed earlier concerns, which I know you share, about changes in the test for bringing judicial review. The point was made to us that this is to ensure proper procedure and proper decision-making processes. On the other hand, you make the point that frequently you and others will intervene because you think there is an issue of wider importance at stake, and sometimes the court agrees. Therefore, the issue becomes something of a test case.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Against that background, if, for example, a small local authority is one of the parties to the case, is it fair that they should be put at risk of the costs of what may become a much larger case through no decision of their own?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
There might not actually be an advantage. I imagine that your organisation—I know it does—exercises considerable care. There have been a number of instances, however, where others have intervened for essentially commercial purposes.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Or for political purposes. Is it not right that they should have to bear in mind the discipline and the constraint that they may be at risk of costs?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
All of us as lawyers would say that, generally, if you commence litigation or become involved in litigation, there is a risk on costs. Why should you be exempt from that in the position of an intervener?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
And if you happen to be the local authority concerned, that is tough luck?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
I suppose judicial review and intervening is about the public interest and getting it right if Parliament has got legislation wrong and it needs to be corrected. Is that the purpose of judicial review in your view?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
I think we have covered the fact that you think, as a solicitor who acts for Shelter, that judicial review is important for society as a whole. Is that the case?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
You mentioned some cases that you were involved in. Have there been any cases where, say, though interventions, public policy has changed as a result of your involvement?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
You have mentioned some of the clauses in the Bill. Could you give us your opinion on the changes relating to judicial review and whether and how they will affect the rule of law?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Given the case of Corner House and the strict tests that may be applied at the discretion of the court on protective costs orders, do you think there needs to be a change?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
One final question: I do not know if you were aware of Lord Pannick’s address to the Bar conference. Do you recognise these quotations about judicial review from the Justice Secretary, who talked about hiring “teams of lawyers” who turn judicial review “into a lucrative industry“? He also said it was,
“a promotional tool for countless Left-wing campaigners. So that is why we are publishing our proposals for change”.
Do you recognise that comment on judicial review?
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
I want to seek clarification before I talk to you about what I wanted to ask about. The hon. Member for Walsall South asked whether you felt it was right and proper that decisions of Parliament should be judicially reviewed, and you said yes, that is absolutely right. Are you really suggesting that parliamentary decisions should be judicially reviewed at any stage, because that would be awkward, would it not, in terms of putting unelected judges above Parliament?
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
I just wanted to be correct. The question was put to you about parliamentary decisions.
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
I wanted to ask about automatic release. First, you were speaking on behalf of the Survivors Trust when you said that that was one part of the Bill that you welcomed. Do you feel that the proposals in the Bill go far enough for what you want?
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
So you are saying that there is a move in the right direction to control automatic releases, but the victim should have more input in the parole board’s decision.
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
But you welcome the fact that the parole board will have a more active role, and every prisoner who is going to be released will have to appear before a parole board. It is not automatic.
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
Do you have views on measures to end automatic release after 28 days for recalled prisoners, who are considered highly likely to breach their licence conditions? Do you think the new provision will help victims?
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
For any particular reason?
Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton)
Do you want to say anything about any of these measures?
Dan Jarvis (Labour, Barnsley Central)
I have one question for Ms Maxted. Earlier in your evidence, you said that you welcome the provision in the Bill to outlaw rape pornography. May I push you for a bit more detail? Is it your view that the clause in its current form is fit for purpose, or can it be improved in any way?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
On that point, like you I welcome the inclusion of that provision in the Bill. I want to build on what my colleague just said. Do you think that other aspects of violence against women should be included in the definition? Does current legislation adequately protect children from being abused and prevent images of child abuse, or should child abuse be a specific offence in the clause on the possession of extreme pornography?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
You mentioned consent. Presumably, just as you cannot consent to rape or to child abuse, that would be your justification.
Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Kenilworth and Southam)
My colleague Angie Bray, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton, asked you earlier about the provisions that changed the nature of a fixed-term recall and the circumstances in which that would be given. I wanted to clarify that for you and give you another chance to talk about it. I think you were slightly blindsided by it. Let me try to help you a bit.
The provision in the Bill would change the rules so that if there were a decision to be made about whether someone should be recalled to prison for a 28-day fixed term or indefinitely, one reason you could decide under our provisions to recall indefinitely, rather than for the shorter period, would be if you considered it highly likely that the individual was going to breach again if they were let out. In those circumstances, would you agree that would be welcome to victims because they would perceive that there would be additional reassurance over the recall decision?
Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Kenilworth and Southam)
Thank you.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
I would like to make a further point, if I may. I was slightly surprised at the beginning when you said that you did not have a particular view on clause 50. As you said later, the decision-making process in homelessness applications is sometimes central to the issue and one would want to encourage, as I am sure you would agree, good decision making by a local authority in that respect. There is also little option for any other route of appeal.
Others, who have not given evidence yet, such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England, have made the point that in areas such as planning, where there is not the opportunity to appeal adverse decisions, judicial review is a very useful tool—in fact sometimes the only tool for the citizen. I wonder whether you want to say anything more about clause 50.
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel from the Law Commission.
Examination of Witness
David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)
We have until 5 pm for the panel. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
I want to look at the provisions around contempt of court and misconduct by jurors. There have been lots of stories in the press about how social media have changed the way that jurors get information about particular court cases. Will you give a broad outline of your experience of this and say whether the Bill goes anywhere close to dealing with it?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
I have a couple of follow-up questions. First, you gave quite a high percentage for those who had looked for things on the internet and then might have breached the rules; I think you said 7%. Is there any evidence that, by doing that, they have changed the outcome of a particular set of proceedings?
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Does the provision differentiate between searching and looking for information, deliberately trying to access it, and stumbling across it by accident? I assume that that provision must have always existed, because you could turn over a newspaper and see a report about the case that you are sitting on. But with things like Twitter, where stuff is forced to your phone all the time, you might receive a comment that you had not gone looking for.
Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
So you are generally happy with the clause in the Bill as it stands?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Professor Ormerod, feel free to put this matter in writing if that is easier. You made clear in your submitted note that some of the clauses in part 3 arise from the commission’s reports and some do not. The ones that do include clauses 37, 38, 40 to 42 and 47. Sometimes when reports are translated into legislation, something gets lost in the translation. Have you any concerns that you want to raise in relation to those clauses, which are broadly your clauses, if I may put it that way? If you wish to put that in writing, so be it.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Thank you. That is very helpful. In relation to clause 44 you alluded to the fact that it was a relatively widely drawn clause. Others have gone further and said that perhaps it is simply too broad and somewhat oppressive, in the sense that it appears to put quite an onus on jurors to envisage what conduct might be prohibited. Do you have any concerns specifically? I think the case you talked about would have been caught by your formulation, “intended not to try”, and demonstrated that. That seems a rather clearer definition. Would you have preferred that to be the basis of this type of clause?