House of Commons Justice Committee

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

Tenth Report of Session 2014–15

Report, together with formal minutes

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 11 March 2015

HC 1123 Published 20 March 2015 by authority of the House of Commons : The Stationery Office Limited £0.00

The Justice Committee The Justice Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Ministry of Justice and its associated public bodies (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General’s Office, the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers).

Current membership

Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Chair) (Conservative, Winchester) (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham) Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch) (Labour, Islington North) John Cryer (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead) Nick de Bois (Conservative, Enfield North) (Conservative, Henley) Rt Hon Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd) Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough) John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington) Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Bolton South East)

The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament:

Mr (Conservative, South Swindon); Christopher Evans (Labour/Co- operative, Islwyn); Mrs (Conservative, and The Weald); Ben Gummer (Conservative, Ipswich); Mrs Siân C James (Labour, Swansea East); (Conservative, Dartford); (Conservative, Erewash); (Labour/Co- operative, Feltham and Heston) Robert Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst); Claire Perry (Conservative, Devizes); Mrs (Labour/Co-operative, Halifax), (Conservative, Broxtowe); (Labour, Blackley and Broughton); Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk); Karl Turner (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East), and (Conservative, Hove).

Powers

The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications

Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/justicecttee and by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Nick Walker (Clerk), Daniel Whitford (Second Clerk), Gemma Buckland (Senior Committee Specialist), Hannah Stewart (Committee Legal Specialist), Ana Ferreira (Senior Committee Assistant), Ellen Bloss (Committee Support Assistant), Conor Johnson (Sandwich Student), and Liz Parratt (Committee Media Officer).

Contacts

Correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Justice Committee, House of Commons, 14 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NB. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 8196 and the email address is [email protected]

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 1

Contents

Report Page

Summary 3

1 Introduction 4

2 Our work 8 The core tasks 8 Strategy: core task 1 8 Policy: core task 2 10 Expenditure and Performance: core task 3 13 Draft Bills: core task 4 15 Bills and Delegated Legislation: core task 5 16 Post-Legislative Scrutiny: core task 6 16 European Scrutiny: core task 7 18 Appointments: core task 8 19 Support for the House: core task 9 20 Public engagement: core task 10 22 Other matters 23 Sentencing Guidelines 23 Crown Dependencies 23 Liaison Committee best practice recommendations 24 Relations with the Ministry of Justice 25 Relations with the judiciary 26

3 Conclusions 27 Relations with the public 27 Evidence sessions 27 Work planning 28 Overall conclusion 28

Annexes 29 Annex 1: Members of the Committee during the Parliament 29 Annex 2: Committee Reports and Government responses 30 Annex 3: Debates on or associated with Committee reports 32 Annex 4: Expenditure by financial year 34 Annex 5: Committee visits 34 Annex 6: Associated public bodies of the Ministry of Justice 36 Annex 7: Associated public bodies of the Attorney General’s Office 37 Annex 8: Ministerial appointments subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Justice Committee 37

Formal Minutes 38

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 39

2 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament r

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 3

Summary

In this Report we provide an account of the work we have undertaken during the Parliament to discharge the responsibility placed upon us by the House of Commons to scrutinise the work of the Ministry of Justice, the Attorney General’s Office, and their associated public bodies. Our purpose in giving this account is twofold: to enhance public understanding of our work; and to provide some pointers to our successor Committee in the next Parliament about working practices they may wish to adopt, such as on planning of work and conduct of public evidence sessions. Throughout our Report we explain the influence which we have had on Government policy, which is one of the main yardsticks of committee effectiveness.

We do not purport to give an exhaustive or chronological account of all our inquiries and other work. Instead we explain the most important work we have undertaken in relation to each of the ten “core tasks” which the Liaison Committee has recommended for departmentally-related committees, covering such matters as oversight of Government expenditure and policy, pre-and post-legislative scrutiny, and scrutiny of EU matters. Over the course of the Parliament we have attempted to fulfil all of these tasks, while endeavouring to monitor all significant aspects of the Ministry’s activities, and to oversee the work of as many of the Ministry’s executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies as possible.

In this Report we also explain other strands of work we have undertaken, including in our role as the natural parliamentary interlocutor for the judiciary, and as a statutory consultee in respect of draft sentencing guidelines published for consultation by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

We have seen it as our role to promote objective and evidence-based debate about criminal justice policy not only within the Committee but also more widely, and we believe that political and media debate needs to pay more attention to what works in reducing crime, rather than assessing that constantly increased spending on longer prison sentences is an unquestionable benefit to society. We have promoted our belief that money can be better spent on early intervention, crime prevention and strategies to deal with drug and alcohol abuse than on a policy of letting crime happen and leaving the taxpayer to pay for the consequences.

This Report explains the importance of public engagement for our Committee to be able to work effectively. This engagement takes many forms, from formal written and oral evidence to informal meetings, correspondence and other contact, including through social media. On numerous occasions we have decided on inquiries or one–off evidence sessions after receiving representations from individuals or pressure groups: examples include our inquiries into joint enterprise, presumption of death, mesothelioma claims and manorial rights.

The Report concludes by expressing our pride in having taken part in the trend of growing assertiveness and confidence of select committees in this Parliament, which has seen Chairs and members of committees elected for the first time by members of the House.

4 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

1 Introduction

1. This report contains a description of the work which we have undertaken in the 2010- 2015 Parliament, the first fixed term Parliament, now very close to its end, along with our assessment of the effectiveness of that work. We hope that our explanation of our approach to our work will improve understanding of how a select committee seeks to discharge the scrutiny responsibility placed upon it by the House, and enable others to come to their own judgment of our effectiveness. Importantly, we also hope that our reflections on our activities and achievements will prove helpful to our successor Committee in the next Parliament when it comes to plan its work.

2. Under Standing Order No.152 departmentally-related select committees are given the task of examining the expenditure, administration and policy of relevant principal Government departments and their associated public bodies. In our case the Standing Order sets out in detail that our responsibility covers:

Ministry of Justice (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland); and the administration and expenditure of the Attorney General’s Office, the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by the Law Officers).

The list of associated public bodies as it stands at the end of the Parliament is set out in Annexes 6 and 7.

3. Like all other departmentally-related committees, our standard working method is to agree on the terms of reference of an inquiry, to seek written submissions and oral evidence from interested parties on the issues covered by those terms of reference, and then to agree and publish a report containing our conclusions, along with specific recommendations for action, normally addressed to the Government, associated public bodies or other authorities. In addition, we have made extensive use of stand-alone or one-off evidence sessions as ends in themselves to ventilate issues in public concerning the work of the Ministry of Justice, the Law Officers, associated public bodies, the judiciary and others, without following up to agree reports on those issues.

4. Over the course of the Parliament we have sought to scrutinise all the major areas of policy and expenditure falling within the responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice, its Executive Agencies and the other bodies which we monitor. In the field of prisons and probation, we have held major inquiries into the Probation Service,1 into crime reduction policies2, into provision for women offenders3 and o.lder prisoners4, and into prisons

1 Eighth Report from the Justice Committee, Session 2010–12, The Role of the Probation Service, HC 519–I 2 Twelfth Report from the Justice Committee, Session 2013–14, Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated approach? Interim report on the Government's Transforming Rehabilitation programme, HC 1004; and First Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2014–15, Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated approach?, HC 307 3 Second Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2013–14, Women Offenders: after the Corston Report, HC 92 4 Fifth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2013–14, Older prisoners, HC 89

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 5

planning and policies.5 On the court system, we reported on the operation of the family courts6 and on court interpreting services.7 On legal aid we examined in depth the Government’s proposals to reduce the scope of civil legal aid when they were published for consultation,8 and we returned to the subject to consider the impact of the proposals a year after they came into effect. We undertook substantial inquiries into the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 20009 and into EU proposals for data protection legislation.10 In less extensive but still highly important work we inquired into controversial areas of law such as joint enterprise,11 presumption of death,12 mesothelioma claims13 and manorial rights.14 We followed up our predecessors’ 2010 report examining the Ministry of Justice’s handling of its relationship with the Crown Dependencies – the Isle of Man; Jersey; and Guernsey, Alderney and Sark.15 In addition to our work on major inquiries, we have made it our aim to scrutinise the work of as many of the Ministry’s bodies and the other principal players in the justice system as possible, mainly through one-off evidence sessions and through correspondence with Ministers, senior officials and organisations working in the field. We have looked in detail at the Ministry’s own fitness for purpose and performance through an inquiry into its budget and structure,16 as well as through scrutiny of the Ministry’s Annual Reports and Accounts, Estimates, and, latterly, its Mid Year Reports.

5. That, in brief, is what we have done. How we have done it is by seeking to reconcile quite pronounced differences of political principle and ideology between members of the Committee through an approach which is based firmly on consideration of the evidence submitted to us in order to create a “safe space” in which to foster rational and fundamental debate on justice policy. At the same time, we are not an academic body or a think-tank. We are elected representatives subject to direct democratic accountability and public scrutiny, with all the pressures and challenges which that brings. In our work we have combined the strategic objective of raising the quality of debate on justice with responsiveness to significant developments as they occur. On a number of occasions we have taken up subjects brought to our attention through representations made to us by campaigners, pressure groups, or individuals, whether those representations have come to us directly or via constituency MPs. There are two caveats to that: we are precluded from

5 Ninth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2014–15, Prisons: planning and policies, HC 309 6 Sixth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2010–12, Operation of the Family Courts,, HC 518–I 7 Sixth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2012–13, Interpreting and translation services and the Applied Language Solutions contract, HC 645 8 Third Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2010-12, Government’s proposed reform of legal aid, HC 681–I 9 First Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2012–13, Post-Legislative Scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, HC 96–I 10 Third Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2012–13, The Committee’s opinion on the European Union Data Protection framework proposals, HC 572 11 Eleventh Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2010–12, Joint Enterprise, HC 1597; Fourth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2014–15, Joint Enterprise: follow-up, HC 310 12 Twelfth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2010–12, Presumption of Death, HC 1663 13 Third Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2014–15, Mesothelioma Claims, HC 308 14 Fifth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2014–15, Manorial Rights, HC 657 15 Tenth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2013–14, Crown Dependencies: developments since 2010, HC 726 16 Second Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2012–13, The budget and Structure of the Ministry of Justice, HC 97–I

6 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

looking into individual cases or grievances, which can come as a disappointment to people who think we may be able to assist or advise them; and we only have the capacity to pursue a small fraction of the large number of suggestions which are made to us.

6. In addition to the overall philosophical approach described above, we have sought to maintain coherence and continuity in our work by following up on subjects of inquiry and recommendations we have made in our reports. Our report on crime reduction policies returned to our predecessors’ substantial work on justice reinvestment, looking amongst other things at the extent to which justice reinvestment principles have been adopted by criminal justice policy makers and practitioners. Towards the end of the Parliament we followed up our previous reports on the doctrine of joint enterprise and on Crown Dependencies with further inquiries into the subjects; and we held follow-up evidence sessions with Ministers to probe steps which had been taken to implement recommendations we had made in our reports on women offenders and older prisoners.

7. In their work departmentally-related select committees are enjoined by the Liaison Committee to fulfil 10 “core tasks” which that Committee has set out.17 We have had regard to those tasks in planning and carrying out our work, and they afford a sensible structure for us to account in more detail for our activities over the course of the Parliament. Chapter 2 of our Report describes and assesses the impact of our main work in respect of each of those core tasks. Inevitably much of our work shades across more than one of the tasks. Other components of our work, such as our consideration, as a statutory consultee, of draft sentencing guidelines, or our relations with the judiciary, do not neatly fit into any of the tasks, so we consider them separately. During the course of the Parliament the Liaison Committee produced a number of recommendations for select committees to adopt in their working practices18 and we refer as appropriate to steps we have taken to respond to these recommendations, drawing upon memoranda which we submitted to the Liaison Committee.

8. We include Annexes to this Report which pull together information already published on the Committee’s webpages or in annual Sessional Returns on –

• Members who have been members of the Committee for part or all of the Parliament, with their dates of membership

• Committee Reports and, where relevant, Government and other Responses to them

• Debates on Committee Reports and debates to which Committee Reports were tagged, in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber

• Expenditure in each financial year on the Committee (excluding staff costs)

• All visits by the Committee or by individual members of the Committee in a representative capacity

17 Some reframing of the core tasks took place in the course of the Parliament and in this report we consider our work against the revised tasks as approved by the House in January 2013 18 Second Report from the Liaison Committee of Session 2012–13, Select Committee effectiveness, resources and powers, HC 697

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 7

• The associated public bodies of the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General’s Office as at the end of the Parliament

• The ministerial appointments which are subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Justice Committee.

Our webpages contain much more information on the Committee’s work. They hold correspondence and other written material which the Committee has ordered to be published, and transcripts of evidence sessions, including one-off evidence sessions which did not lead to reports.

8 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

2 Our work

The core tasks

9. The 10 core tasks promulgated by the Liaison Committee all contribute to achievement of the overall aim which that Committee considers appropriate for select committees:

To hold Ministers and Departments to account for their policy and decision-making and to support the House in its control of the supply of public money and scrutiny of legislation.

Strategy: core task 1

To examine the strategy of the department, how it has identified its key objectives and priorities and whether it has the means to achieve them, in terms of plans, resources, skills, capabilities and management information.

10. In a protracted period of austerity in public finances, the delivery of core justice services by the Ministry of Justice and its agencies has undergone a radical degree of change during the course of this Parliament, under the banner of “Transforming Justice”. All the services provided by the Ministry have been profoundly affected. Alongside the Transforming Rehabilitation programme, which has outsourced a large part of probation services and introduced supervision of offenders completing sentences of less than twelve months, the MoJ has cut back expenditure on legal aid in criminal and civil cases. The Ministry has closed many courts throughout England and Wales, and is introducing secure colleges for those in youth custody. A single Family Court has been established, and Cafcass19 has been transferred back to MoJ control from the .

11. Many of our inquiries have considered the Ministry’s formulation of strategic objectives, their appropriateness, and the extent to which they have been achieved: our most comprehensive consideration of the capacity of the Ministry to achieve its objectives was in our inquiry into the budget and structure of the Ministry. This inquiry was our first major examination of the activities of the Ministry and its associated public bodies across the board, looking in depth at: the background to the establishment of the Ministry; its internal governance and structure; its budgetary provision; its financial management, ICT and commissioning/procurement systems and capacity; its relationship with its associated public bodies, other Government departments, and the judiciary; and the prospects for achievement of the Ministry’s radical long-term policies under the banner of “Transforming Justice” at a time of public expenditure retrenchment.

12. The main conclusions in our Report20 were that –

19 The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. 20 HC [2012–13] 97–I, Paras 281 to 286

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 9

• the Ministry’s structure and performance had improved since its creation, and progress had been made in integrating the Department, but many of the improvements had been from a low starting point and there had been criticisms and failures;

• the culture of a focus on policy creation had changed to an increased recognition of the importance of programme management; and the Department had developed a greater understanding of its cost drivers, although it still did not have sufficient management control of its finances;

• the Ministry had sought to bring its sponsored bodies under closer central control and make them more accountable to Ministers, and had streamlined senior management structures and reduced duplication of functions;

• it was questionable whether the Ministry had sufficient skills capacity to implement the radical change of approach represented by the greater outsourcing of delivery of services, and there was also a danger that the way payments by results would be commissioned might undermine the work of voluntary sector organisations which play a vital role in the justice sector;

• a wide range of public, private and voluntary organisations needed to work together if the wider justice system is to operate more effectively and efficiently at a time of constrained resource.

13. In our work on the Ministry’s outsourcing of criminal justice services, we have focused our attention not on whether a policy of outsourcing was desirable or acceptable in principle, but on how it was carried out, and an assessment of the quality and capacity of the Ministry’s management of procurement competitions and of its management of contracts with suppliers. There has been no shortage of problems during this Parliament, with notable examples being the underperformance of contracted-out court interpreting services,21 and the discovery of major irregularities in billing by contractors G4S and Serco for electronic monitoring of prisoners under contracts dating from the previous Government.

14. We have taken oral evidence on several occasions from the Permanent Secretary, using the Ministry’s Annual Report and Accounts as a springboard for discussion of the effectiveness of the Ministry’s structure and processes in implementing the political priorities of Ministers. These sessions have been very useful in enabling us to pursue important subjects which have arisen outside our specific inquiry work, and in ensuring that the Ministry is aware that its top official may find herself called upon to explain and justify any significant administrative decision which may be taken in the course of a year.

21 HC [2012–13] 645

10 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

Policy: core task 2

To examine policy proposals by the department, and areas of emerging policy, or where existing policy is deficient, and make proposals.

15. Building on the work on justice reinvestment carried out by the Justice Committee in the previous Parliament, the central and defining strand of our work on policy has involved a continuing dialogue with the Ministry and the National Offender Management Service on the Government’s prisons and probation policy. Our major inquiries into the Probation Service, women offenders, older prisoners, crime reduction policies (which included an examination of the Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme as it unfolded), and into prisons planning and policy, were our main contributions to this dialogue. We have consistently advocated initiatives which go beyond a reliance on custody as the default answer and instead aim more squarely at reducing offending and re-offending levels, and so enhancing public safety, by such expedients as–

• putting in place appropriate community-based services to prevent potential offenders from entering the criminal justice system and to divert them from offending behaviour;

• creating a well-resourced, credible, nationally-available but locally-responsive system of community sentences;

• establishing a financially sustainable and effective sentencing framework that can deploy community sentences on an evidential basis.

We have sought greater recognition of the fact that custodial sentences represent a very large commitment of public resources which cannot then be used to prevent crime and reduce reoffending.

16. The landscape of probation services has changed fundamentally over the course of this Parliament, but in our view many of the principles which we set out in our 2011 Report on the role of the Probation Service remain valid criteria against which to assess reforms which have subsequently been proposed and introduced by the Government. We argued then that there needed to be a better and more seamless approach to offender management, with local commissioning and closer integration of prison and probation services to meet the needs of individual offenders. On the controversial question of payment by results, which has become the cornerstone of the future delivery of probation services under the Transforming Rehabilitation programme, we considered that it could provide a mechanism for putting the system on a sustainable footing over the longer term by shifting resources away from incarceration to rehabilitation, provided the concept was tested before being rolled out nationally. We have drawn attention to the dangers of perverse incentives and “gaming” of the payment system.

17. When we returned to these issues in our inquiry into crime reduction policies we highlighted the importance of local partnerships for crime reduction and noted the

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 11

changes which had taken place in the composition of those partnerships since 2012, including the introduction of police and crime commissioners and the transfer of public health responsibilities to local authorities. But we said that two major elements were missing from local partnership approaches to crime reduction: courts and prisons. We continued to argue that a prison system which effectively rehabilitated a smaller number of offenders, while other offenders were rehabilitated through robust community sentences, had the potential to bring about a bigger reduction in crime. Additionally, we contested the traditional view that courts are purely instrumental institutions involved in processing and resolving cases, believing that an opportunity was being missed for encouraging greater innovation, with the potential to make broader systemic savings. We also argued that the Government was still viewing crime reduction too much through the prism of Home Office and Ministry of Justice areas of responsibility, and not taking a broad enough perspective, especially in terms of adopting early intervention and preventative policies in the areas of mental health, drug and alcohol treatment, which could do much to prevent people entering the criminal justice system in the first place, as well as to support those already in it.

18. As part of our inquiry into crime reduction policies we kept a close eye on the Transforming Rehabilitation programme as it evolved. In an interim report – on which our only division of the Parliament took place — we very much supported the aims of providing rehabilitative services to short-sentenced prisoners and of joining up the provision of those services before and after a prisoner’s release, aims which are entirely in line with those we have espoused for some time. At the same time we saw a real danger that the development of effectively integrated local services could be inhibited by the extent to which centralised management remained a feature of this part of the criminal justice system, particularly as most new providers will be operating across large Community Rehabilitation Company regions. One of the main drawbacks of the model adopted by the Ministry is that, where success is achieved in reducing reoffending, the savings accrued will all be disbursed to providers over a period of 10 years, rather than some or all being reinvested into early intervention, or criminal justice initiatives further upstream, as would be the case in a system inspired by justice reinvestment principles. We have consistently maintained the view that providers need to be incentivised to reinvest part of any cost savings that might be achieved into further reoffending reduction initiatives, and to consolidate local partnership commitments to reducing crime more broadly.

19. We have also consistently argued that the climate of austerity which has prevailed during this Parliament has made the case for adoption of a justice reinvestment approach more compelling. When we visited Texas in July 2013 as part of our crime reduction policies inquiry, we investigated the intriguing political consensus which has been forged there, with Republicans and Democrats agreeing that the taxpayers’ dollar was being wasted on imprisoning offenders with drug problems who could be better dealt with by community-based programmes. In a surprising development for Texas’s longstanding reputation as one of the more draconian US states, that bipartisan consensus recognizes that default incarceration of offenders is both expensive and ineffective in reducing offending rates compared with other policy approaches.

20. We do not claim that the Government has wholly signed up to the justice reinvestment inspired approach to penal policy which we have advocated. Early in the Parliament there were some encouraging initiatives, such as social impact bonds, which followed similar

12 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

principles. Youth justice policy was heavily influenced by a justice reinvestment approach, and partly as a result there has been a substantial drop in the number of young people being held in custody. In our crime reduction policies report we commended the cross- Government work which has been undertaken through early intervention to reduce crime by young people, especially through the Ending Gang and Youth Violence and Troubled Families programmes and Family Nurse Partnerships. Specific justice reinvestment pilots have also taken place, with largely positive results. In some areas criminal justice partners have enthusiastically embraced a justice reinvestment philosophy: we found this to be the case in Greater Manchester when we made a visit there in February 2014 as part of our inquiry into crime reduction policies. The payment by results paradigm being used in the Transforming Rehabilitation programme also has elements in common with a justice reinvestment approach, but with the crucial difference that in the latter case some or all savings accruing to the criminal justice system as a result of reduced reoffending would be invested in intervention and other support programmes to enhance the virtuous circle.22

21. Our work has dealt with a range of other legal and policy matters which have had considerable influence on public debate and in numerous cases have directly led to changes in approach by the Government and others. In some cases those changes have taken place because the Committee shone a spotlight on a subject by inquiring into it, and in some cases through responses to specific recommendations made by us. Examples falling under the heading of other core tasks are referred to in the appropriate place. In addition to those examples, we would draw attention in particular to –

• the wholesale recasting by the Ministry of Justice of its stewardship of the UK Government’s relationship with the Crown Dependencies, ensuring greater respect and understanding of the Dependencies’ constitutional position, which took place in response to recommendations which were made in our predecessors’ first report on the subject, in 2010

• the recommendations of our work on the presumption of death were largely implemented through the Presumption of Death Act 2013, which originated as a private Member’s bill supported by the Government

• the attention to the controversial common law doctrine of joint enterprise generated by the inquiry which we held into the subject, which resulted in publication of guidance to prosecutors by the Crown Prosecution Service and the compilation of more reliable information on the use of the doctrine by the CPS and others, even if the Government has not accepted the case for a review of the doctrine as we have recommended

• the decision by the Government not to proceed with its intention to abolish the Youth Justice Board following an inquiry and report by the Committee on the subject, extensively referred to in the debates which led to the dropping of the proposal (although our report did not express a firm view for or against abolition, it did make clear that a substantial set of safeguarding arrangements would need to be put in place if abolition took place)

22 For fuller details of these developments, see Chapter 5 of our First Report of Session 2014–15, Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated approach?, HC 307.

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 13

• greater priority was afforded by the Government to policy to deal with women offenders, including through the establishment of an Advisory Board, while we were holding an inquiry into the subject

• on mesothelioma claims, we arrived independently at the same principal conclusion as a judicial review into the Government’s decision to apply sections 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) to such claims, namely that the review carried out before taking the decision had not been satisfactory and a further review needed to be undertaken.

It will be seen that we have sought to influence the Government both positively, in seeking to persuade Ministers to take action they might not otherwise have taken, and negatively, in seeking to dissuade them from proceeding from planned action.

Expenditure and Performance: core task 3

To examine the expenditure plans, outturn and performance of the department and its arm’s length bodies, and the relationship between spending and delivery of outcomes

22. In most of our work questions about the effectiveness and value for money of expenditure by the Ministry and its associated public bodies have been inextricably linked to judgments about the justification for the legislation, policy and programmes which they are pursuing, and of the quality of their delivery of services. We have been conscious of the severe pressure on public finances over the course of the Parliament and the budgetary constraints within which the Ministry has been operating. The context of austerity and budget cuts has not prevented us from asking searching questions about the scale and advisability of the cuts which have been proposed and introduced by Ministers, about the adequacy of the evidence base which has been used as a basis for spending decisions, and about the impacts, both intended and unforeseen, of cuts which have been made. Our recently-published reports into the impact of changes to eligibility for civil legal aid under LASPO and into prisons: planning and policies each contain extended critiques of the effects of spending reductions.

23. The Ministry is not one of the biggest-spending Government Departments. Its Main Estimate resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) for 2014-15 amounted to £7.376 billion. But that expenditure, if not huge in total, is in crucially important areas of great public concern and interest: including prisons; probation; and legal aid. Most of the expenditure for which the Ministry is accountable is incurred on programmes administered by its Executive Agencies and non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs). Chief among these is the National Offender Management Service executive agency: NOMS’ programme expenditure budget for 2014-15 for provision of prison and probation services amounted to a net £3.183 billion. The other main areas of net budgeted programme expenditure for 2014-15, and the bodies overseeing them, break down as follows –

14 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

• Legal aid funding through the Legal Services Commission: £ 1.685 billion23

• Administration of the courts through Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service: a net £838 million24

• Operation of the youth justice system through the Youth Justice Board: £ 247 million

• Administration of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA): £ 116 million

• Provision of services by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass): £115 million.25

24. Our major report into the budget and structure of the Ministry examined the appropriateness of the IT and management systems through which budgetary and expenditure plans are formulated. In that report we were critical of the financial management capacity of the Ministry and some of its associated bodies, including on such matters as the late production of resource accounts, the recurrent qualification of the Legal Services Commission’s accounts, and the disclaimer of opinion issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General on HM Courts and Tribunals Service’s Trust Statement. Our report, and the Government’s response to it, were debated on an Estimates Day in March 2013.26 This was one of the relatively rare occasions when an Estimates Day debate focused primarily on financial matters raised in a select committee report.

25. When the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) produced a Supplementary Estimate in financial year 2013-14 amounting to an addition of 52% to the funding provided to the Office in its Main Estimate for the year, we obtained an urgent explanation from the Director of the SFO, David Green CB. Mr Green’s response set out the agreement which had been reached between the SFO and the Treasury to enable the former, in recognition of the fact that new major “blockbuster” investigations may arise with little notice, to make claims for advances against the Contingencies Fund which are later subsumed into the Estimates process. Our report on this subject was tagged to an Estimates motion, although it was not the subject of a debate on that day.27 This demand-led and unbudgeted form of financing is extremely unusual and will require continuing scrutiny, particularly in an office which has previously had serious management issues.

26. As mentioned above we have regularly taken oral evidence from the Permanent Secretary, and other senior officials, on the Ministry’s Annual Report and Accounts and related matters, covering expenditure issues as appropriate. We have also corresponded with the Ministry on occasion on its Main and Supplementary Estimates and associated

23 £889,000 on criminal legal aid; £741,000 on civil legal aid; £55,700 on central funds. 24 Gross expenditure of £1.566 billion minus receipts from fees, fines and other income. 25 Government Main Supply Estimates 2014–15, HC 1233 26 HC Deb 5 March 2013 col 868 27 Thirteenth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2013–14, Serious Fraud Office Supplementary Estimate 2013–14, HC 1005; HC Deb 4 March 2014 col 857

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 15

memoranda, and on the Mid Year Reports which it produced in financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

27. In our regular one-off evidence sessions scrutinising the work of bodies associated with the Ministry and with the Attorney General’s Office budgetary provision and financial management have regularly featured as topics for questioning and discussion.

28. We are grateful to both the Scrutiny Unit and the National Audit Office for the valuable and expert support they have provided in our scrutiny of budgetary and expenditure issues.

Draft Bills: core task 4

To conduct scrutiny of draft bills within the committee’s responsibilities.

29. In autumn 2012 the Government published for consultation a number of draft clauses intended for inclusion in a subsequent Children and Families Bill. At the Government’s request, several committees28 undertook pre-legislative scrutiny (PLS) of those draft clauses falling within their remits. We agreed to carry out PLS on the family justice draft clauses, which covered topics including Mediation Information and Assessment Meetings (MIAMs), child arrangements orders, the introduction of a 26 week time limit for care proceedings, and shared parenting. Most of these draft clauses were published by the Government in September, but the shared parenting draft clause, in which there was considerable public interest, did not appear until November.

30. We had to squeeze this pre-legislative scrutiny into a very short timeframe, and were aided in this by the fact that we had previously dealt with some of the issues involved in a wide-ranging inquiry into the operation of the family courts. As we made clear in our Report, there were particular difficulties for us, and for those wishing to submit their views to us, stemming from the late publication of the draft shared parenting clause, and from the lack of an impact assessment to accompany it. In the end we missed the Government’s preferred deadline by a short time. Nevertheless we consider the scrutiny to have been worthwhile, and some of our proposed revisions to the wording of draft clauses, which we set out in a type of Keeling Schedule in our Report, were incorporated into the text of the Bill as it was subsequently introduced. Staff from our Committee assisted with preparation of briefing for the evidence-taking stage of the .

31. This was the only formal pre-legislative scrutiny which we undertook during the Parliament. In the case of another potential PLS candidate, the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill, the Government preferred to establish an ad hoc Joint Committee.29 On some occasions we have considered pre-legislative proposals when at an earlier

28 The Education Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the House of Lords Adoption Committee in addition to ourselves. 29 A member of our Committee served on the Joint Committee.

16 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

consultation stage, most notably in our inquiry into the Government’s proposed reform of legal aid, on which we reported in March 2011.30

Bills and Delegated Legislation: core task 5

To assist the House in its consideration of bills and statutory instruments, including draft orders under the Public Bodies Act.

32. When, under the powers accorded them by the Public Bodies Act 2011, Ministers lay before Parliament draft orders to abolish, merge, or modify the functions, constitutional arrangements or funding arrangements of specified public bodies, the relevant select committee may, under section 11 of that Act, invoke an enhanced parliamentary scrutiny procedure, extending to 60 days the length of time before which a motion may be put to the House for approval of the draft order. We have considered the draft orders coming within our remit which have been laid by Ministers under the 2011 Act. Most have been uncontroversial.31 In one case, however, the draft order to abolish the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council (AJTC), we invoked the enhanced scrutiny procedure in order to take evidence and report on the subject. We were the first select committee to trigger this procedure.

33. In our final Report, which was made available to the delegated legislation committee which considered the draft Order and was tagged to the approval motion when that was taken without debate on the floor of the House, we rehearsed the concerns expressed to us about the abolition of the AJTC. Parliament proceeded with the abolition of the Council, but the pressure from our inquiry and Report, along with other factors, caused the Government to strengthen the arrangements which were made to replace it. In particular the independence of the new Administrative Justice Forum and its Chair as a source of advice and opinion of the working of the administrative justice system was enhanced.

Post-Legislative Scrutiny: core task 6

To examine the implementation of legislation and scrutinise the department’s postlegislative assessments.

34. In respect of formal post-legislative scrutiny work, we have looked at all the post- legislative assessments (PLAs) provided to us by the Government in order to decide in each case whether to carry out a more substantial inquiry. In one case we did embark on a major inquiry, conducting post-legislative scrutiny of a piece of landmark legislation, the

30 HC [2010–12] 681–I 31 Cf. The draft order to abolish HM Inspectorate of Courts Administration; and the draft order to merge the Director of Public Prosecutions and HM Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office.

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 17

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), which came into force in January 2005. In December 2011 the Government provided the Committee with its post-legislative assessment of the Act.32 The MoJ used four categories to judge the success of FOIA against its original objectives. These categories were openness and transparency; accountability; trust and participation in decision-making; quality of decision making. We reported our recommendations and conclusions in July 2012,33 and following receipt of the Government’s response34 we secured a debate in Westminster Hall on the subject in January 2013.35

35. Overall we broadly agreed with the Government’s analysis of the impact of the Act. We were concerned, however, by suggestions floated by the Government that changes might be introduced to the freedom of information system in response to claims that in some cases the “industrial use” of the legislation meant that the work generated by requests was proving unduly burdensome and expensive for public authorities. We were prepared to countenance some minor modifications to the regime, such as a marginal decrease in the acceptable time limit for work done to provide information above which public authorities may charge requesters the full estimated cost incurred by them. But we were not persuaded that any more substantial change was needed, such as by the placing of limits on the number of requests which could be made over a particular period by individual requesters. In the event, the Government did not follow up with any proposals to amend the Act. In this instance, the influence which we had on the Government was effective in dissuading it from taking action which we considered inadvisable.

36. We were also concerned at the credence which was being attached to the current of opinion, represented by among others the former Prime Minister Tony Blair36 and the former Cabinet Secretary Lord O’Donnell,37 that the Act was a threat to the safe space which must exist for officials to be able to advise Ministers in confidence to enable government to operate effectively. Properly applied, we considered that the provisions of the Act afforded sufficient and appropriate protection to that safe space, and that claims to the contrary were not well-founded.

37. A very different and rather more esoteric example of our post-legislative scrutiny work was into the provisions concerning offences of encouraging or assisting offences contained in Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. In this instance investigation of the assertion contained in the Ministry’s PLA memorandum that the provisions were working well revealed a situation in which much informed comment was profoundly critical of the complexity and intelligibility of the law. We had no alternative but to conclude that the Ministry’s own assessment of the operation of the law was “poor and misleading”.38 In his

32 Memorandum to the , Post-Legislative Assessment of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Cm 8236. 33 HC [2012–13] 96–I 34 Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Report: Post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Cm 8505, November 2012. 35 HC Deb 24 January 2013: Col 149WH 36 Letter from Rt Hon to Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith MP, Chair, Justice Committee, July 2012, Post- legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of information Act 2000 37 HC [2012–13] 96–II Ev 45 38 Sixth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2013–14, Post-legislative Scrutiny of Part 2 (Encouraging or assisting crime) of the Serious Crime Act 2007, HC 639, paragraph 29

18 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

response to our Report, the Lord Chancellor told us, in a further memorandum responding to critical points raised by witnesses to our inquiry, that:

While of great interest to us, authoritative interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts once legislation has been enacted by Parliament, rather than for Government.39

We cleave to the view that Parliament and Government have a direct interest and responsibility in monitoring the effective operation of legislative provisions once enacted. This is the purpose of post-legislative scrutiny as we understand it, and is a matter separate from the quite proper functioning of the courts in interpreting and applying legislation.

European Scrutiny: core task 7

To scrutinise policy developments at the European level and EU legislative proposals

38. In the final Session of the last Parliament, our predecessor Committee undertook an inquiry into justice issues in Europe which covered various topics, including the EU’s programmes and priorities for justice and home affairs and the UK’s position in relation to them, the European arrest warrant, fundamental rights, and information management and data protection.40 In this Parliament we followed this up with two substantial pieces of work on European matters. The first of these was into the EU’s proposed data protection framework legislation package, following receipt of a request from the European Scrutiny Committee for our opinion on the draft legislation. The second strand was work on the UK’s exercise of its block opt-out from pre-Lisbon policing and criminal justice measures, which we carried out in close co-operation with the European Scrutiny Committee and the Home Affairs Committee. We consider this strand of work below in relation to the core task of “support for the House”.

39. For committees of national Parliaments to make influential and worthwhile contributions to debates on the formulation of European policy and legislation, it is important that they have the right information available to them at the right time, enabling them to intervene at an early enough stage in the process. In the case of the data protection framework package we benefited from being able to do this, and in taking evidence and then reaching conclusions on the likely implications of the legislation for the UK we also benefited from scrutiny which we had undertaken on the work of the Information Commissioner’s Office, responsible for the oversight of data protection legislation in England and Wales.

39 HC [Session 2013–14] 639 40 Seventh Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2009–10, Justice issues in Europe, HC 162

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 19

40. Our Report41 covered the two components of the framework package, a draft Regulation on general data protection and a draft Directive on protection of data obtained, held and processed for law enforcement purposes. In that Report, copies of which we sent to those most closely involved in negotiation of the package in the EU institutions, we agreed that the draft Regulation was necessary, but we expressed concern that the twin- track approach being taken would cause confusion for data subjects and in particular for authorities within the criminal justice system. In these and other conclusions the UK Government was of a similar mind. It is still too soon to say how much weight our views have carried, as, more than two years after publication of our report, the legislative package remains under negotiation at EU level.

41. The Committee Chair and on one occasion another member of the Committee attended conferences or inter-parliamentary committee meetings on justice and home affairs matters organised by the European Commission, holders of the Presidency and by European Parliament committees. Details are given in Annex 5. We were also one of the first committees to appoint a member to act as an EU reporter, acting as a point of contact liaising with the European Scrutiny Committee on EU justice and home affairs legislative proposals and other documents.

Appointments: core task 8

To scrutinise major appointments made by the department and to hold pre- appointment hearings where appropriate.

42. There are seven ministerial appointments which fall to us to conduct pre-appointment scrutiny: six of them are made by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, and one is made by the Attorney General. The full list is given at Annex 8. Every time a recruitment to one of these posts has taken place we have held a hearing with the preferred candidate and produced a Report containing our view of the candidate’s suitability for appointment.

43. The most notable issues have arisen in relation to recruitment to the post of HM Chief Inspector of Probation. In one case we expressed reservations, including about whether the preferred candidate had been drawn from a wide enough field, and the Secretary of State did not proceed with the appointment.42 Following a lengthy period with an Acting Chief Inspector, the Ministry ran a new recruitment campaign, and we held a pre-appointment hearing with the preferred candidate, Paul McDowell, in October 2013, subsequently reporting our complete confidence in his ability to fill the post. However, after he had been appointed, Mr McDowell’s position became more problematical. Sodexo, a company in which his wife held a senior post, was announced as a preferred bidder, in partnership with

41 Third Report from the justice Committee of Session 2012–13, The Committee’s opinion on the European Union Data Protection framework proposals HC 572. 42 Fifth report from the Justice Committee of Session 2010–12, Appointment of HM Chief Inspector of Probation, HC 1021.

20 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

the charity Nacro, to be provider of probation services for six of the regional Community Rehabilitation Companies. His wife has also subsequently been promoted to a more senior position in Sodexo, although she is not expected to take up the post until autumn 2015. In light of these developments the Ministry posed various questions to Mr McDowell about whether satisfactory arrangements could be made to handle the conflict of interest. We also corresponded with the Ministry on the situation which had arisen.

44. The propriety of Mr McDowell’s behaviour was not in question at any point: in his application for the post in 2013 he had drawn attention to his wife’s job in a declaration of interest. That declaration was not conveyed to us by the Ministry: the guidance in force at the time did not specify that it should be, although there was no reason for the Ministry not to have provided us with the relevant information. Ultimately Mr McDowell tendered his resignation. The pre-appointment scrutiny of his successor is likely to be the first such exercise which our successor Committee will have to undertake.

45. On one occasion we raised with the Secretary of State the question of whether there should be additions to the list of posts in relation to which we undertake pre-appointment scrutiny, but we did not reach any agreement with him. We would suggest to our successor Committee that they should seek to reach agreement on the list, with or without any additions or subtractions, with the Secretary of State at an early stage in the next Parliament.

Support for the House: core task 9

To produce timely reports to inform debate in the House, including Westminster Hall, or debating committees, and to examine petitions tabled

46. Select committees make their reports formally to the House, and it is vital that every opportunity is taken to use the evidence and findings of committees to inform debate and decision in the House as a whole. We have a strong record of holding debates on our reports, both in the main Chamber and in Westminster Hall, and of drawing Members’ attention to our reports when they are relevant to parliamentary business by “tagging” them to the Order Paper. A full list of debates and tags is included in Annex 3. Our Chair has also made use of the recently-introduced procedure of making statements on publication of Committee reports to launch one in the Chamber43 and one in Westminster Hall.44

47. Our most sustained engagement on behalf of the House in carrying out work in time to inform its debates and decisions came in our scrutiny of the Government’s proposal to exercise the UK’s opt-out from 130 or so pre-Lisbon Treaty policing and criminal justice measures, and subsequently to seek agreement at EU level to opt back into 35 of them. We

43 HC Deb14 March 2013 col 508, Seventh Report, Session 2012–13, Youth Justice, HC 339. 44 HC Deb 16 January 2014 col 347WH, HC [Session 2013–14] 726

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 21

conducted this work in close co-operation with the other two Commons Committees involved, the European Scrutiny Committee and the Home Affairs Committee.

48. An account giving the full chronology of this process would be unduly lengthy: information can be found in the Reports of the three committees concerned, in particular those of the European Scrutiny Committee.45 All three committees experienced considerable frustrations and difficulty in requiring that the Government hold to its pledge to engage constructively with Parliament and to facilitate effective scrutiny. Some aspects of our co-operative scrutiny process are however worth highlighting as being of particular significance for the working practices of select committees in support of the House.

49. When the Government brought forward a motion for debate on the opt-out on 15 July 2013, an amendment tabled by our Chair and supported by Chairs of other committees included a request for each of the three concerned committees to report to the House on the matter by the end of October 2013, before the opening of formal discussions between the Government and other EU institutions. That amendment was accepted by the Government and agreed to by the House. We duly sought evidence and reported our views on the sixteen Ministry of Justice measures in the block opt-out, in accordance with that deadline.46 Like the other Committees, we recommended that an early debate on the subject should be held to enable the House to express its views on the issue, on an amendable motion which would allow the addition or subtraction of measures from the list for rejoining. When the Government responded to the Committees’ Reports, it rejected the proposal for such a debate. We then agreed a joint response with the other committees, following which the Government agreed to hold a general debate, if not a debate on the amendable motion which we had advocated.47 Subsequently the concluding debate on this process, purportedly on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), was held in the Chamber, but this debate dissolved in acrimony and recriminations when it became clear the motion put forward by the Government did not refer to the EAW.48 The inglorious conclusion to this process could have been averted had the Government engaged properly with the three committees concerned and heeded our carefully considered recommendations.

50. Whenever a public petition has been presented to the House on a matter falling within the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice we have placed it on the agenda of a meeting for consideration of whether we should take any action. We have done the same when Government observations are made on a petition. It is in the nature of petitions that they often relate to individual grievances, and we are unable to intervene to obtain redress for individuals on matters which are more properly for the legal process or for consideration by those bodies established by statute to investigate particular kinds of complaints. On some occasions we have written to the Member who presented a petition to explain related work which we have undertaken, or plan to undertake.

45 European Scrutiny Committee, Twenty-first Report, The UK’s block opt-out of pre-Lisbon criminal law and policing measures, HC 683; Home Affairs Committee, Ninth Report, Pre-Lisbon Treaty EU police and criminal justice measures: the UK’s opt-in decision, HC 615 46 Eighth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2013–14, Ministry of Justice measures in the JHA block opt-out, HC 605 47 HC Deb 7 April 2014 col 24 48 HC Deb 10 November 2014 col 1223

22 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

Public engagement: core task 10

To assist the House of Commons in better engaging with the public by ensuring that the work of the committee is accessible to the public.

51. We have taken very seriously the importance of engaging widely with the public in our work, although we recognize the reality that a proportion of our work is primarily of concern to the various groups who are affected most closely by it, whether that be legal practitioners in general or particular sections of the legal profession, offenders and ex- offenders, prisons and probation staff. We held an e-consultation in our inquiry into court interpreting services, and we have changed meeting times to accommodate witnesses travelling some distance to give evidence, as well as holding numerous informal meetings on visits. Recently, in November 2014, we went to Greenwich during Parliament Week to discuss with young offenders their experiences of youth justice, and we held formal evidence sessions in private with ex-offenders in our inquiries into women offenders and into prisons.49 In our inquiry into youth justice we took evidence from young people and from the mother of somebody who died in youth custody.50 In a number of inquiries we have received handwritten submissions from prisoners and Committee staff have typed these up to process them as evidence. Like other committees, we now use Twitter.51

52. When we receive requests from members of the public to inquire into matters, provided they come within our terms of reference we regularly consider them, and those requests can be influential on or determinative of our decisions to hold particular inquiries: our recent inquiry into manorial rights, for example, came about as a direct result of representations from individuals who had received notices of claim of such rights associated with their properties.

53. Our work inevitably involves consideration of complex matters. In terms of accessibility, we have striven to make our reports as succinct and comprehensible as possible, while reflecting the volume and breadth of evidence received. We have sought to observe a general principle that the language used in our reports should not be overly- legalistic, and that terms and concepts that may be unfamiliar to the general reader should be explained.

54. In the 2013-14 Parliamentary Session we had the most even gender balance of witnesses of any departmental select committee, with females making up 45% of our witnesses. In the 2014-15 Session, as at 4 March 2015, this figure had fallen to 30%. In our follow-up oral evidence session on women offenders we actively suggested that the Minister bring with him female representatives from the Advisory Board on Female Offenders to get their thoughts on the issues, and he did.

49 Evidence taken 18 December 2012, Women Offenders: after the Corston Report HC 92-I; Evidence taken on 9 September 2014 and 24 November 2014, Prisons: planning and policies HC 309 50 HC [2012–13] 339 51 As of 4 March 2015 the Committee had 3,530 followers on Twitter.

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 23

Other matters

Sentencing Guidelines

55. Under section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the Justice Committee must be consulted on draft sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Council. We have offered views on all draft guidelines issued by the Council over the course of the Parliament. Initially we approached this task by the standard method of taking formal oral and written evidence, but it became clear to us that this had the major disadvantage of duplicating the Sentencing Council’s own process of consultation. In the second half of the Parliament, with the Council’s agreement, we have instead held an informal seminar after the conclusion of the relevant consultation period with some stakeholders, focused on a number of points, in relation to which we have subsequently written to the Chairman of the Council. Our letters and Reports have picked up matters relevant to the structure and content of particular draft Guidelines, but we have also, through our work, pursued various general themes, such as a concern to ensure that the methodology of construction of guidelines for the sentencing process should not contribute to sentence inflation.

56. In November 2014, we co-hosted an event with the Sentencing Council in Portcullis House. The aim of this session was to educate MPs about the work of the Sentencing Council, including through a hands-on sentencing exercise for Members to try out. We share with the Council a wish to make the Guideline process and the work of the Council better known across the House.

Crown Dependencies

57. Our substantial work on the Crown Dependencies can also be classified as sui generis, and deserving of separate consideration. Our predecessor Committee’s inquiry into the subject, on which they reported in March 2010, unearthed a range of matters concerning the Ministry’s handling of the UK’s relationship with the Crown Dependencies in relation to which it felt there was a need for more sensitivity and wider appreciation of the Dependencies’ distinct constitutional position, for wider understanding across Whitehall of the need to consult with the Dependencies on policy changes which had an impact on them, and for a reduction in duplication and unnecessary work falling on the small team dealing with the Dependencies in the Ministry of Justice. Following that, our Chair made it clear to Ministers at the beginning of the Parliament that a move of responsibility for the Dependencies from the Ministry of Justice to another Department would be unwelcome and unhelpful, and it did not proceed.

58. The recommendations which our predecessors made in their report, on issues such as consultation of the Dependencies on proposed UK legislation relevant to their interests, scrutiny of insular legislation, extension of treaties to the Dependencies, and the Islands’ international personality and relations, received a highly positive response from the Government. When we returned to follow up those recommendations we found a high degree of satisfaction amongst all parties that the relationship between the UK and the Dependencies had been recalibrated in a wholly positive way as a result.

24 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

Liaison Committee best practice recommendations

59. In November 2012 the Liaison Committee published its Report on select committee effectiveness, resources and powers. That Report contained a number of best practice recommendations aimed at select committees. At a meeting in March 2013 we considered those recommendations and took a number of decisions about our working practices in the remainder of the Parliament.

60. We decided that, rather than identifying and publishing an overarching set of strategic objectives, we would continue to discuss our forward work programme on a regular basis, carrying out a mix of reactive and pro-active inquiries. We also decided to introduce a more formal means of following up our Reports and recommendations. In addition to the follow-up work into Crown Dependencies and joint enterprise which we had already decided to undertake, we agreed that we would follow up relevant reports published from the start of Session 2013-14 approximately one year after their publication, seeking evidence primarily from Ministers on steps which had been taken to implement recommendations which had been accepted by the Government. We have undertaken these follow-up exercises in relation to women offenders and older prisoners.

61. When deciding on inquiries to undertake, we have routinely considered what we hope to achieve from them, and their likely impact, when discussing scoping notes as part of the inquiry planning process. We have not however adopted the practice recommended by the Liaison Committee of agreeing a formal minute before the start of inquiries setting out what we hope to achieve, in part because to do so could give the appearance of prejudging the evidence which we receive and the conclusions which we draw from it.

62. In relation to evidence sessions, we have referred above to our record in taking account of the principles of diversity and inclusion, and of the need to cast the net wider than the “usual suspects”, when seeking written and oral evidence. In relation to the conduct of evidence sessions, we make it a priority to ensure that all witnesses are treated with respect and courtesy and given a fair hearing. It has been the practice of the Chair not to call Members to ask questions to a panel of witnesses if they have not been present for the whole of the time with that panel and he has also expected Members to stay until the end of that time if they wish to ask questions to that panel, unless there is a very good reason for them to absent themselves. We have not undertaken training in questioning effectiveness and techniques. In line with guidance on fairness to witnesses, we recently brought the attention of several individuals, including a Member of the House, to criticisms of them by a witness, allowing them a formal right to reply.

63. We have followed the Liaison Committee suggestion that within our reports conclusions and recommendations should be differentiated by setting out the former in bold and the latter in bold italics, and that it should be made clear to whom each recommendation is addressed. In some reports we have expressly indicated which recommendations are the most important. We have also followed the advice of the Liaison Committee in drawing attention where necessary to inadequacies in Government responses, for example when publishing the Government’s response to our report on the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council.

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 25

Relations with the Ministry of Justice

64. For all departmentally-related committees, it is essential that the Government Department which they monitor co-operates constructively and provides information willingly and readily, not only at the specific request of the committee but also proactively in relation to developments which take place on subjects in which it is known that the committee takes an interest. In the early part of this Parliament there were several occasions on which we felt that the Ministry was not assiduous enough in giving us advance notice of ministerial statements or of key publications: performance improved after we had raised the matter repeatedly. Ministers and officials have always been willing to appear to give oral evidence, if not always at the time which would have been most suitable for our requirements, and they have done so frequently. We have rather more concerns about occasions when we have had difficulty securing the provision of written information, for example in relation to the competition for provision of probation services under Transforming Rehabilitation, when the Ministry was reluctant to provide even anonymised statistical information on numbers of bidders in each Community Rehabilitation Company area. We have had extreme difficulty in obtaining estimates or figures from the Ministry showing knock-on costs associated with implementation of particular projects or programmes, which suggests that such estimates have not been made for significant policy changes.

65. At other times the Ministry has been regrettably discourteous in furnishing us with information relevant to oral evidence sessions very shortly before those sessions, leaving us with insufficient time to read and digest the information. This happened just before evidence sessions on Transforming Rehabilitation and on women offenders. Our scrutiny of the UK’s block justice and home affairs opt-out, discussed in paragraphs 46 to 50 above, was hampered by inordinate delay in producing impact assessments for the individual measures covered by the opt out. Most seriously of all, HM Courts and Tribunals Service warned court staff against taking part in the public e-forum which we ran seeking anonymised personal experiences of the operation of the interpreting contract. In our Report, we went as far as to say that these actions may have constituted a contempt.

66. On some other occasions the co-operation which we have received from the Ministry and its agencies has been outstanding. We would cite in particular the work which NOMS and staff at HMP Belmarsh and Isis did to enable us to hold a formal evidence session at Belmarsh.

67. In general Government responses to our Reports have been timely and their quality has been good, and even when they have not accepted particular conclusions and recommendations, they have shown evidence of detailed consideration and analysis of them, and of the evidence on which they have been based. In some instances, however, we have found responses to be alarmingly lightweight and unwilling to engage with the issues concerned: in this context we would mention in particular the responses to our reports on post-legislative scrutiny of Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, and our follow-up joint enterprise report.

68. We have had no difficulties in our less extensive relations with the Attorney General’s Office and the bodies which come under his purview, including the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office.

26 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

Relations with the judiciary

69. Our relationship with the judiciary is not formally set out in Standing Orders, but we consider ourselves to be their natural interlocutor on behalf of the House of Commons. Given our responsibility for oversight of the judicial and courts system, we request written and oral evidence more frequently from members of the judiciary than any other select committee. We have also developed a practice of taking oral evidence from the Lord Chief Justice on a regular basis, recently in connection with the report he has laid before Parliament on an annual basis under section 5 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It would be improper for us to infringe the independence of the judiciary by calling into question individual court judgments, and we are also obviously bound by the House’s sub judice resolution, which largely precludes public reference in parliamentary proceedings to matters before the courts in the UK. The judiciary is however accountable, as the Lord Chief Justice has acknowledged,52 for the effectiveness in general terms of its discharge of the responsibilities it has for the administration of justice and for the operation of the court system, which it directs, jointly with the Ministry, through HMCTS. We would also regard ourselves as an appropriate conduit for the judiciary to use should they consider there to be any issues concerning their constitutional role and independence which they would wish to draw to the attention of Parliament and the public.

52 The work of the Lord Chief Justice, evidence taken before the Committee, 2 April 2014, HC 1134.

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 27

3 Conclusions

70. Our work has covered a wide range of subjects, and we have tried various ways to carry it out, all the while bearing in mind the Liaison Committee’s dictum that “the primary measure of a committee’s effectiveness is the extent of its influence on government policy and its impact on the government department and its agencies”. That influence can be exerted directly, through the persuasiveness of recommendations addressed to the Government in reports; it can be exercised indirectly, by influencing the climate of public debate more widely. It can be readily demonstrable, as when the Government or another public body accepts and implements a committee recommendation; or it can be less immediate and obvious, as when there is a change of ministerial policy which takes place alongside or during a Committee inquiry, or some time after a committee’s policy prescriptions have percolated through a filter of lengthy public debate. In that regard, we very much hope that some of our recommendations, particularly those made in the latter part of the Parliament, will achieve traction with the Government, whatever its complexion, that is formed after the 2015 election.

71. We set out below the main conclusions we have reached from our work over the course of the Parliament. We hope these observations will prove helpful for our successor Committee in the 2015 Parliament.

Relations with the public

72. Committees must be open and welcoming to the views of all interested parties who wish to submit them: formal written and oral evidence, and less formal contacts through visits and meetings, are the lifeblood of committee work. We rely very much on representative organisations, academics, consultants and other experts, criminal justice thinktanks, interested members of the public, and others to provide us with the evidential ammunition for our work, and we are very grateful for their willingness to do so respond to our invitations to submit evidence. We have also sought to reach out to people beyond the normal providers of evidence to engage them in our work, through meetings, visits, and social media, and some of the positive results we have achieved are described in this Report. There remains more our successor committee may wish to do to strengthen its public engagement and diversify its range of witnesses.

Evidence sessions

73. Oral evidence sessions are the element of select committee work most visible to the public: they are our shop window. Our approach has always been to demonstrate fairness to witnesses giving evidence to us: on nearly all occasions they are doing so voluntarily in order to provide us with the benefit of their experience and knowledge. At the same time, evidence sessions need to challenge and probe witnesses’ evidence and views, and on occasions Ministers, in particular, must expect to be faced by robust and sharp questioning, without sacrificing a courteous and reasoned tone of debate and discussion. Our successor Committee may wish to consider undertaking training in questioning techniques, which we understand has worked well for other committees.

28 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

Work planning

74. Over the course of the Parliament we have normally planned a few months ahead, with our forward work programme comprising a mixture of lengthy inquiries, shorter inquiries and one-off evidence sessions. We have found it important to maintain some flexibility in the programme to enable us to react swiftly if necessary to events which demand urgent attention, but it is equally important not to be buffeted by a fast-paced media agenda into constantly reacting to the latest headlines. As we have already made clear in this Report, we think there is considerable virtue in systematic revisiting of reports to follow up relevant developments. This ensures that the momentum created by the debate surrounding a Committee inquiry and report is not dissipated by the passage of time, and that pressure is maintained for implementation of recommendations which have been accepted by the Government. Over the course of the Parliament we have sought to look at all the main areas of activity of the Ministry of Justice, the Law Officers, and their associated public bodies.

Overall conclusion

75. All committees develop a distinctive approach to their work, which is affected by the priorities of the Chair and members, the political climate and context in which they are operating, the scale of policy change going on in the department, and the number of issues which arouse major public concern. In our case, dealing with frequently contentious political developments and radical cuts in justice-related expenditure during this Parliament, we have nurtured a generally consensual approach by basing our work on the available evidence on the feasibility of policies and practices proposed by the Government and others. This has meant establishing the Committee as an open and critical public forum for debate and testing of policies against evidence and expert opinion, without allowing the Committee to become typecast as intrinsically in favour of, or opposed to, the Government, or to become perceived as closely aligned with any of the many vocal and articulate non-governmental organisations and campaigning groups which operate in the justice arena. Within those broad parameters, there are themes which have run like a thread through our work, some of which we have referred to already in this report, such as the importance we attach to a justice reinvestment philosophy, to early intervention to prevent some of the social and financial costs of criminality, and to good stewardship of public resources in this field.

76. This Parliament has seen a strengthening of the independence and authority of select committees, notably through the election of Chairs by the membership of the House as whole, and of other members of committees by their parties. The weakening of the grip of the Whips has led to a new mood of assertiveness and confidence for select committees individually and collectively. That has been to the good of Parliament and to informed public debate on political matters, and we are proud to have played our part in that process.

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 29

Annexes

Annex 1: Members of the Committee during the Parliament

Member Nominated Discharged

Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed) 08 06 10 (Chair)

Steve Brine (Conservative, Winchester) 05 12 11

Mr Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon) 12 07 10 10 12 12 10 06 14 08 09 14

Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham) 05 11 12

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch) 04 11 13

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North) 16 05 11

John Cryer (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead) 24 02 14

Nick de Bois (Conservative, Enfield North) 01 11 11

Christopher Evans (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn) 12 07 10 10 12 12

Mrs Helen Grant (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald) 12 07 10 01 11 11

Ben Gummer (Conservative, Ipswich) 29 11 10 02 11 12

John Howell (Conservative, Henley) 08 09 14

Mrs Siân C James (Labour, Swansea East) 12 07 10 16 06 11

Gareth Johnson (Conservative, Dartford) 11 02 13 10 06 14

Jessica Lee (Conservative, Erewash) 12 07 10 29 11 10

Rt Hon Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd) 12 07 10

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston) 06 02 12 25 11 13

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough) 10 12 12

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington) 25 11 13

Robert Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst) 05 11 12 11 02 13

Claire Perry (Conservative, Devizes) 12 07 10 05 12 11

Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Bolton South East) 12 07 10

Mrs Linda Riordan (Labour/Co-operative, Halifax) 12 07 10 06 02 12

Anna Soubry (Conservative, Broxtowe) 12 07 10 29 11 10

30 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) 21 01 13 24 02 14

Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk) 29 11 10 02 11 12

Karl Turner (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East) 12 07 10 21 01 13

Mike Weatherley (Conservative, Hove) 11 02 13 04 11 13

Annex 2: Committee Reports and Government responses

Session 2010–12 Report No Title Paper No 1 Revised Sentencing Guideline: Assault HC 637 Appointment of the Chair of the Judicial Appointments 2 HC 770 Commission HC 681–I (Cm 3 Government’s proposed reform of legal aid 8111) Appointment of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for 4 HC 1022 England and Wales Appointment of HM Chief Inspector of 5 HC 1021 Probation HC 518–I (Cm 6 Operation of the Family Courts 8189) 7 Draft sentencing guidelines: drugs and burglary HC 1211 HC 519–I (Cm 8 The role of the Probation Service 8176) Referral fees and the theft of personal data: evidence from the 9 HC 1473(Cm 8240) Information Commissioner HC 1547 (Cm 10 The proposed abolition of the Youth Justice Board 8257) 11 Joint Enterprise HC 1597 (HC 1901) HC 1663 (Cm 12 Presumption of Death 8377) Special Title Paper No Report No Joint Enterprise: Government Response to the Committee’s 1 HC 1901 Eleventh Report of Session 2010–12 Session 2012–13

Report No Title Paper No

1 Post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 HC 96–I (Cm 8505) 2 The budget and structure of the Ministry of Justice HC 97–I (Cm 8433) The Committee’s opinion on the European Union Data 3 HC 572 (Cm 8530) Protection framework proposals

4 Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Children and Families Bill HC 739 (Cm 8540)

Draft Public Bodies (Abolition of Administrative Justice and 5 HC 927 Tribunals Council) Order 2013

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 31

Interpreting and translation services and the Applied Language 6 HC 645 (Cm 8600) Solutions contract 7 Youth Justice HC 339 (Cm 8615) Scrutiny of the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of Administrative HC 965 (HC 1119) Justice and Tribunals Council) Order 2013 (Future Oversight of Administrative Justice, AJTC’s Response to the Justice Committee 8th Report of Session 2012–13, 8 Scrutiny of the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council) Order 2013)

HC 962 The functions, powers and resources of the Information 9 (HC 560, Session Commissioner 2013–14) Special Title Paper No Report No Scrutiny of the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of Administrative 1 Justice and Tribunals Council) Order 2013: Government HC 1119 Response to the Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2012–13

Session 2013–14

Report No Title Paper No 1 Sexual Offences Guidelines: Consultation HC 93 2 Women offenders: after the Corston Report HC 92 (Cm 8279) 3 Transforming Legal Aid: evidence taken by the Committee HC 91 4 Environmental Offences Guideline: Consultation HC 604 5 Older prisoners HC 89 (Cm 8739) 6 Post-legislative Scrutiny of Part 2 (Encouraging or assisting HC 639 (HC 918) crime) of the Serious Crime Act 2007 7 Appointment of HM Chief Inspector of Probation HC 640 8 Ministry of Justice measures in the JHA block opt-out HC 605 (HC 972) 9 Fraud, Bribery and Money Laundering Guideline: Consultation HC 804 10 Crown Dependencies: developments since 2010 HC 726 (Cm 8837) 11 Appointment of the Chair of the Office for Legal Complaints HC 916 12 Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated approach? Interim HC 1004 report on the Government's Transforming Rehabilitation programme 13 Serious Fraud Office Supplementary Estimate 2013-14 HC 1005 14 First Joint Report from the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and HC 1177 Justice Committees of Session 2013–14: The Government’s response to the Committees’ Reports on the 2014 block opt- out decision

32 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

Special Title Paper No Report No 1 The functions, powers and resources of the Information HC 560 Commissioner: Government Response to the Committee’s Ninth Report of Session 2012–13 2 Post-legislative Scrutiny of Part 2 (Encouraging or assisting HC 918 crime) of the Serious Crime Act 2007: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2013–14 3 Ministry of Justice measures in the JHA block-opt: Government HC 972 Response to the Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2013–14

Session 2014–15

Report No Title Paper No 1 Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated approach? HC 307 (Cm 8918) 2 Theft Offences Guideline: Consultation HC 554 3 Mesothelioma Claims HC 308 (HC 849) 4 Joint enterprise: follow-up HC 310 (HC 1047) 5 Manorial Rights HC 657 6 Robbery Offences Guideline: Consultation HC 1066 Draft health and safety, corporate manslaughter and food 7 HC 1099 safety and hygiene sentencing guidelines: Consultation Impact of changes to civil legal aid under Part 1 of the Legal 8 HC 311 Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 9 Prisons: planning and policies HC 309 10 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament HC 1123 Appointment of HM Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution 11 HC 1117 Service 12 Criminal Cases Review Commission HC 850 13 Women offenders: after the Corston Report: follow-up HC 1124 Special Title Paper No Report No Mesothelioma Claims: Government Response to the 1 HC 849 Committee’s Third Report of Session 2014–15 Joint enterprise: follow-up: Government Response to the 2 HC 1047 Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2014–15

Annex 3: Debates on or associated with Committee reports

Session Debated in Subject of an Tagged on the Launched as a Westminster Hall Estimates Day Order Paper as Report debate being relevant to a debate in the House

2010–12 First Report, First Report, Session 2009–10, Session 2010–12, Cutting Crime: the Revised Sentencing case for justice re- Guideline: Assault, investment, HC 94, HC 637, 2.2.12

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 33

21.10.10 Third Report, Session 2010–12, Government’s proposed reform of legal aid, HC 681, 29.6.11; 24.10.11; and 15.3.12 Seventh Report, Session 2010–12, Draft Sentencing Guidelines: Drugs and burglary, HC 1211, 2.2.12 Oral evidence taken before the Justice Committee on 13 December 2011, The Annual Report of the Sentencing Council, HC 1711- i, 2.2.12

2012–13 Sixth Report, Second Report, Twelfth Report, Seventh Report, Session 2010–12, Session 2012–13, Session 2010–12, Session 2012–13, Operation of the The budget and Presumption of Youth Justice, Family Courts, structure of the Death, HC 1663, HC 339, 14.03.13, HC 518-I, 24.5.12 Ministry of Justice, 2.11.12 Floor of the House HC 97-I, 5.3.13 First Report, Fourth Report, Session 2012–13, Session 2012–13, Post-legislative Pre-legislative Scrutiny of the scrutiny of the Freedom of Children and Information Act Families Bill, 2000, HC 96-I, HC 739, 25.2.13 24.1.13

2013–14 Sixth Report, Thirteenth Report, Tenth Report, Session 2012–13, Session 2013–14, Session 2013-14, Interpreting and Serious Fraud Crown translation services Office Dependencies: and the Applied Supplementary developments Language Estimate 2013–14, since 2010, Solutions contract, HC 1005; 4 and HC 726, 16.1.14, HC 645, 20.6.13 5.3.14 Westminster Hall

Second Report, Fourteenth Report, Session 2013–14, Session 2013–14, Women offenders: The Government's after the Corston response to the Report, HC 92 Committee's Fifth Report, Reports on the Session 2013–14, 2014 block Older Prisoners, opt-out decision, HC 89 16.1.14 HC 1177; 7.4.14 Oral evidence taken 11 June

34 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

2013: Transforming Legal Aid, HC 91; 27.6.13

2014–15 Twelfth Report, Session 2013–14, Crime Reduction Policies: Interim Report, HC 1004 First Report, Session 2014–15, Crime reduction Policies: a co- ordinated approach, HC 307 22.1.15

Annex 4: Expenditure by financial year

Session Committee expenses Publication costs Total

2010–12 £29,836 £94,029 £123,865

2012–13 £22,134 £97,050 £119,185

2013–14 £68,644 £45,713 £114,357

2014–15 *£11,305 **£

Committee expenses covers the cost for visits, witnesses and entertainment but not staff. *Estimated ** Figures not yet available

Annex 5: Committee visits

Session 2010–12

Destination Inquiry / Other UK/OS/REP/ES

London Probation Trust,14 September Role of the Probation Service UK 2010

Jersey, 16–17 September 2010 Dependency or Sovereignty? time to take UK stock conference

Military Corrective Training Centre, Role of the Probation Service UK Colchester, 30 November 2010

Legal Services Council, 1 December 2010 UK

Brighton Town Hall, 24 May 2011 Role of the Probation Service UK/ES

HMP Doncaster, 11 July 2011 Role of the Probation Service UK

Brussels, 8–9 November 2011 EU’s post-Lisbon JHA policy-making UK (EU) machinery and the EU’s engagement on

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 35

a range of JHA policy issues, and also the UK’s opt-in/opt-out decisions

National Offender Management Service, UK 13 March 2012

Guernsey, 15–16 March 2012 following up its previous work UK/REP scrutinising the Government’s management of its relationship with the Crown dependencies

Denmark and Norway, 23–26 April 2012 Youth Justice / Budget and structure of OS the MoJ

Ministry of Justice, 17 January 2012 UK

Session 2012–13

Destination Inquiry/ Other UK/OS/EP/ES

YOI Hindley, 29 October 2012 Youth Justice UK

YOI Feltham, 27th November 2012 Older prisoners UK

Brussels, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 Interparliamentary Committee Meeting: UK/REP (EU) Committee on Legal Affairs, The proposal for a Common European Sales Law: taking stock after a year

Stormont Castle, Belfast, 4 December Youth Justice / Women Offenders UK/ES 2012

Crown Prosecution Service, Reading, 22 ongoing scrutiny of the work of the UK January 2013 Crown Prosecution Service

HMP Styal & Adelaide House, 25 March Women Offenders UK 2013

HMP Isle of Wight, 22 April 2013 Older prisoners UK

HMP Dartmoor, 29 April 2013 Older prisoners UK

Session 2013–14

UK/ OS / Destination Inquiry/Other REP

Supreme Court, 11 June 2013 UK

Jersey, 23–24 June 2013 Crown Dependencies UK

Isle of Man, 26–27 June 2013 Crown Dependencies UK

Houston & Austin, Texas, 8–12 July 2013 Crime reduction policies: a coordinated OS approach

36 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

Guernsey, 3–5 September 2013 Crown Dependencies UK

Brussels, 21–22 November 2013 Conference: Assises de la Justice: What UK/REP (EU) role for Justice in the European Union?

Stockport, 10 February 2014 Crime reduction policies: a coordinated UK approach?

Athens (Rep Capacity), 16–17 February Meeting of the Chairpersons of the OS/REP 2014 Committees on Justice and Home Affairs

HMP Oakwood and HMP Featherstone, Prisons: planning and policies UK 28 April 2014

Session 2014–15

UK/ OS / Destination Inquiry/Other REP

National Archives, Kew, 1 July 2014 UK

Paris, 17 September 2014 Interparliamentary meeting on the EPPO OS/REP and the protection of personal data

Copenhagen & Berlin, 3–5 November Prisons: planning and policies OS 2014

HMPs Belmarsh and Thameside, Prisons: planning and policies UK/ES Woolwich, 18 November 2014

UK= OS= Overseas REP= Representative Capacity ES= evidence session

Annex 6: Associated public bodies of the Ministry of Justice

Non Ministerial Departments The National Archives Executive Agencies Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority HM Courts & Tribunals Service HM Courts & Tribunals Service HM Prison Service Legal Aid Agency National Offender Management Service Office of the Public Guardian Executive non-departmental public bodies Cafcass Criminal Cases Review Commission Information Commissioner's Office Judicial Appointments Commission Legal Services Board Parole Board Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 37

Advisory non-departmental public bodies

Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace The Advisory Council on National Records and Archives Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information Civil Justice Council Civil Procedure Rule Committee Criminal Procedure Rule Committee Family Justice Council Family Procedure Rule Committee Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody Law Commission Prison Service Pay Review Body Sentencing Council for England and Wales Tribunal Victims' Advisory Panel

Annex 7: Associated public bodies of the Attorney General’s Office

Non-ministerial departments

Crown Prosecution Service Government Legal Department Serious Fraud Office Treasury Solicitor’s Department Other

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

Annex 8: Ministerial appointments subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Justice Committee

Attorney General's Office

HM Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service

Ministry of Justice

Chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission Chair of the Office for Legal Complaints HM Chief Inspector of Prisons HM Chief Inspector of Probation Information Commissioner Prisons and Probation Ombudman

38 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

Formal Minutes

Wednesday 11 March 2015

Members present:

Sir Alan Beith, in the Chair

Jeremy Corbyn Andy McDonald John Howell John McDonnell

Draft Report (The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 76 read and agreed to.

Annexes agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Tenth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

[Adjourned till Tuesday 17 March at 9.15am.

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 39

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

All publications from the Committee are available on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/justicecttee. The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number. Session 2010–12 First Report Revised Sentencing Guideline: Assault HC 637 Second Report Appointment of the Chair of the Judicial HC 770 Appointments Commission Third Report Government’s proposed reform of legal aid HC 681–I (Cm 8111) Fourth Report Appointment of the Prisons and Probation HC 1022 Ombudsman for England and Wales Fifth Report Appointment of HM Chief Inspector of HC 1021 Probation Sixth Report Operation of the Family Courts HC 518–I (Cm 8189) Seventh Report Draft sentencing guidelines: drugs and burglary HC 1211 Eighth Report The role of the Probation Service HC 519–I (Cm 8176) Ninth Report Referral fees and the theft of personal data: HC 1473(Cm 8240) evidence from the Information Commissioner Tenth Report The proposed abolition of the Youth Justice HC 1547 (Cm 8257) Board Eleventh Report Joint Enterprise HC 1597 (HC 1901) Twelfth Report Presumption of Death HC 1663 (Cm 8377) First Special Joint Enterprise: Government Response to the HC 1901 Report Committee’s Eleventh Report of Session 2010–12

Session 2012–13

First Report Post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 HC 96–I (Cm 8505) Second Report The budget and structure of the Ministry of HC 97–I (Cm 8433) Justice Third Report The Committee’s opinion on the European HC 572 (Cm 8530) Union Data Protection framework proposals Fourth Report Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Children and HC 739 (Cm 8540) Families Bill Fifth Report Draft Public Bodies (Abolition of HC 927 Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council) Order 2013 Sixth Report Interpreting and translation services and the HC 645 (Cm 8600) Applied Language Solutions contract Seventh Report Youth Justice HC 339 (Cm 8615) Eighth Report Scrutiny of the draft Public Bodies (Abolition HC 965 (HC 1119) of Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council) Order 2013

40 The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament

Ninth Report The functions, powers and resources of the HC 962 Information Commissioner (HC 560 Session 2013–14) First Special Scrutiny of the draft Public Bodies (Abolition HC 1119 Report of Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council) Order 2013: Government Response to the Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2012–13

Session 2013–14 First Report Sexual Offences Guidelines: Consultation HC 93 Second Report Women offenders: after the Corston Report HC 92 (Cm 8279) Third Report Transforming Legal Aid: evidence taken by the HC 91 Committee Fourth Report Environmental Offences Guideline: Consultation HC 604 Fifth Report Older prisoners HC 89 (Cm 8739) Sixth Report Post-legislative Scrutiny of Part 2 (Encouraging HC 639 (HC 918) or assisting crime) of the Serious Crime Act 2007 Seventh Report Appointment of HM Chief Inspector of HC 640 Probation Eighth Report Ministry of Justice measures in the JHA block HC 605 (HC 972) opt-out Ninth Report Fraud, Bribery and Money Laundering HC 804 Guideline: Consultation Tenth Report Crown Dependencies: developments since 2010 HC 726 (Cm 8837) Eleventh Report Appointment of the Chair of the Office for HC 916 Legal Complaints Twelfth Report Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated HC 1004 approach? Interim report on the Government's Transforming Rehabilitation programme Thirteenth Serious Fraud Office Supplementary Estimate HC 1005 Report 2013-14 Fourteenth First Joint Report from the European Scrutiny, HC 1177 Report Home Affairs and Justice Committees of Session 2013–14: The Government’s response to the Committees’ Reports on the 2014 block opt-out decision First Special The functions, powers and resources of the HC 560 Report Information Commissioner: Government Response to the Committee’s Ninth Report of Session 2012–13 Second Special Post-legislative Scrutiny of Part 2 (Encouraging HC 918 Report or assisting crime) of the Serious Crime Act 2007: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2013–14 Third Special Ministry of Justice measures in the JHA block- HC 972 Report opt: Government Response to the Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2013–14

The work of the Committee in the 2010–2015 Parliament 41

Session 2014–15

First Report Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated HC 307 (Cm 8918) approach? Second Report Theft Offences Guideline: Consultation HC 554 Third Report Mesothelioma Claims HC 308 (HC 849) Fourth Report Joint enterprise: follow-up HC 310 Fifth Report Manorial Rights HC 657 Sixth Report Robbery Offences Guideline: Consultation HC 1066 Seventh Report Health and safety offences, corporate HC 1099 manslaughter and food safety and hygiene offences guidelines: consultation Eighth Report Impact of changes to civil legal aid under Part 1 HC 311 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 Ninth Report Prisons: planning and policies HC 309 Eleventh Report Appointment of HM Chief Inspector of the HC 1117 Crown Prosecution Service Twelfth Report Criminal Cases Review Commission HC 850 Thirteenth Report Women offenders: follow-up HC 314 Fourteenth Report Appointment of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons: HC 1136 matters of concern First Special Mesothelioma Claims: Government Response to HC 849 Report the Committee’s Third Report of Session 2014–15 Second Special Joint enterprise: follow-up: Government HC 1047 Report Response to the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2014–15 Third Special Manorial Rights: Government Response to the HC 1124 Report Committee’s Fifth Report of Session 2014–15