Justice Committee
Oral evidence: The work of the Lord Chancellor, HC 883
Tuesday 22 November 2022
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 22 November 2022.
Members present: Sir Robert Neill (Chair); James Daly; Paul Maynard; Dr Kieran Mullan; Karl Turner.
Questions 1 - 129
Witness
I: Rt Hon. Dominic Raab MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.
Witness: Rt Hon. Dominic Raab MP.
Chair: Welcome to this session of the Justice Committee. Welcome to the Lord Chancellor. We are grateful to you for coming to give evidence to us.
First, we will deal with the declarations of interest, as we always do. I am a non-practising barrister and a former consultant to a law firm.
Karl Turner: I am a non-practising barrister. I have also practised as a criminal solicitor for some time. I don’t practise as either now.
James Daly: I am a practising solicitor and a partner in a firm of solicitors.
Q1 Chair: Lord Chancellor, thank you very much for coming back—and welcome back.
Having been reappointed, with a short gap, what are your priorities?
Dominic Raab: Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure to be back here. It is my fourth tour of duty at the MOJ and one of the great privileges is to come and give evidence before your Committee.
I know we will touch on the financial position, and that creates challenges, but my priorities remain the same as I have talked to you about before. In fact, I always carry them with me. We have the legislative priorities—the Bill of Rights, and then there will be a victims Bill and a prisoner Bill, which will deal with our parole reform. Both of those are key legislative priorities.
We have all the work that we are doing on prisons—both the prison build and also the massive agenda, now, to get offenders off drugs through abstinence-based rehabilitation. I think that is one of the things that has really shifted since we last spoke.
On getting offenders into work, there has been a big step change in the approach of prisons—I can talk a bit about that. That is showing up in the data for offenders getting into work, but there is also a lot more to do.
I would also add to the very top priorities violence against women and the RASSO agenda. Again, we have seen convictions increase by about two thirds over the last year, but there is a lot more for us to do. Those, I would say, are an illustrative example of the very top priorities.
Q2 Chair: That is very helpful. Let us touch briefly on the financial situation, if we might. The autumn statement does not change the Department’s budget, but it does mean that you are going to have to absorb the inflation costs within the existing sum. What do you think the impact of that will be on services?
Dominic Raab: I have not done the specific allocations, but I think it was timely and useful to start with the priorities, because that tells you the areas that I will want to protect and safeguard as a priority.
Overall departmental spending, bearing in mind we are an unprotected Department, will grow by an average of 3.7% per year over the SR period. We will have to find efficiency savings to manage the inflationary pressures and of course that is not known precisely at the moment, either. After the SR period, the day-to-day spending will continue to grow in real terms, but more slowly than previously planned, at 1% a year in real terms until 2027-28. The capital spend will increase as planned for the next two years, and then be maintained, in cash terms, for the following three years; and I will need to do the allocations. We are going to have to find some savings to absorb the inflationary pressures, but I am confident that we can do it in a way that protects our core priorities.
Q3 Chair: Do you have a sense, yet, as to where those savings might be, or is it too early to say?
Dominic Raab: Some people do a percentage slice across the board. I am not going to do that. I didn’t do it when I was Foreign Secretary with the ODA budget. I would much rather set out the core priorities where I want to minimise the impact, and that I want to safeguard and prioritise, and then see what the choices are; so the allocations process is very important for us, but I am confident that we have enough flexibility in the overall budget to keep driving forward what is an ambitious reform agenda.
Q4 Chair: Do you think the capital programme will be adequate to deal, for example, with pressures on the condition of the courts and prisons, and so on?
Dominic Raab: I always make the argument that, if you do not make sure that you have the provision in place for that, it is a false economy anyway, because you lose sitting days; you lose prison places. That is ultimately what happens. They fall out. So it is going to be a challenge overall, but I am confident we will do that, and of course we have a substantial prison build agenda going forward. That has obviously been unsettled by the inflationary impacts not just on our spend but on contractors, and things like that. I am still confident.
If you look at the progress we have already made—Five Wells, Fosse Way and HMP Full Sutton, major refurbishments at HMP Birmingham, HMP Liverpool, and a house block at HMP Stocken—I think 3,100 places have already been delivered. We will keep driving that forward.
Q5 Chair: Turning to the position of courts, I notice quite frequently we are now getting statistics that show 50 or so courtrooms regularly out of use—about 14% of the Crown court space, in particular, not being available to use on a daily basis, largely because of poor maintenance. That was raised by the Lord Chief Justice when he gave evidence to us. How much is that going to be a priority?
Dominic Raab: Yes, I think that is a priority. First, we have the Crown court backlog. It was on a downward trajectory, and I am disappointed, obviously. We know that the industrial action set us back; but as we redouble our efforts to get it down it is obviously going to be a priority to make sure that where we have courtrooms that can and should be used we have the maintenance in place to do that. Obviously, because of the concordat, that is something where, through HMCTS, I have a very constructive working relationship with the Lord Chief Justice.
Q6 Chair: There is a shortfall in the round of appointments to the Crown court. For example, it was about 16 short last time, and we are about to have a new chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission. What discussions are you having with the Judicial Appointments Commission and the judiciary to try to make up that shortfall in recruitment to the judiciary?
Dominic Raab: We are doing a range of things on courts recruitment. On judicial recruitment, obviously there is the increase in retirement age. We have a recruitment campaign under way at various different levels. That is just something that we are in constant conversation with HMCTS about. I think there is always a question around diversity, in perhaps a slightly broader way: there is the obvious diversity challenge in the senior judiciary, but, more generally, encouraging more people into the profession.
We have taken some steps recently to increase solicitor audience rights. We have also taken steps to increase what CILEX-qualified solicitors can do as well, including things like audience rights.
I think, overall, when you look at the marketplace for legal practitioners, there are going to be broader routes in, and over time that should filter through into the judiciary. Obviously, there are limits to the audience rights and positions that CILEX-qualified lawyers can go for, but let’s see how we go. I think that by increasing the base supply into the profession we will be in a stronger, more resilient position over the longer term.
Q7 Chair: To what extent do you think the working conditions of the judiciary are an impediment to recruitment?
Dominic Raab: That is something that you do hear mentioned in the context of maintenance. That is why those issues, perhaps as much as purely pay and rations, if you like, make a difference. That is something we would look at very carefully.
Q8 Chair: It feeds back into the capital programme and maintenance programmes, doesn’t it?
Dominic Raab: Yes. I have the figures here. We are recruiting up to 1,000 judges in 2022-23. We have, as you know, removed the limit on sitting days in the Crown court, but just in terms of recruitment that is the current year’s tally that will be coming in.
Q9 Karl Turner: Lord Chancellor, last Tuesday the Committee heard powerful evidence from criminal legal aid solicitors and the Law Society, who spoke among other things about the pressure on individual solicitors in that practice. Mental health was mentioned, as well. They described to the Committee that the profession is on the verge of collapse, so why didn’t you implement Lord Bellamy’s recommendation to increase fees paid to solicitors working in that sector?
Dominic Raab: I came up through the solicitor profession myself. I have great respect, esteem and sympathy for the work they do. Overall, as you know, Karl, we are increasing investment in criminal legal aid by £135 million—£115 million to uplift most fees by 15% and £20 million that is going towards the longer-term reforms. There is a full consultation response on the longer-term reform, which we will be publishing by the end of this month, so you will not have to wait too long for that. Just on legal aid solicitors in particular—and, by the way, I will meet the President of the Law Society shortly—there are some things we have already done, and some things that are coming down the track. Would it be helpful if I just talked you through them?
Karl Turner: Perhaps, yes.
Dominic Raab: We are uplifting fees for the majority of schemes by 15%. We are providing a £5 million uplift per year for fees in the youth courts from 2024-25. We have also committed to launching an advisory board to provide advice on criminal legal aid schemes. I do not want to trail too much detail on the next step, but I think I can give you the principles that will guide what we set out shortly: it is going to be how the £20 million for the longer-term investment will be allocated, and, in particular, how it will support criminal legal aid solicitors.
It will deal with the recommendations from the Bellamy review on reforming fees for police station work, which I think you, Karl, raised with me before. It will deal with CLAR’s recommendations on the LGFS. I think it is important to reduce the reliance on pages of prosecution evidence, and to deal with some of the unintended incentives around that.
It will also look at how we can support a viable criminal legal aid market—and there is the wider question about diversity in the round. This is all coming soon. There is some stuff we have done and there is some stuff that is coming.
Q10 Karl Turner: Do you accept, though, Lord Chancellor, that the profession really is about to collapse unless you are willing to change your approach and increase the fees under the litigator graduated fee scheme by 15%? Would you accept that it truly is on the brink of collapse?
Dominic Raab: I am not sure that that is the word I would use, you will not be surprised to know; but we have got to address that second phase of longer-term reform and try to look at this as a market as a whole and make sure it is vibrant, sustainable and diverse enough, so that we can deal with the long term. I accept the case that a second phase of reform and money is going to be an important part of it.
Q11 Karl Turner: What is the timeline for implementing the LGFS scheme to 15%? Have you got any idea?
Dominic Raab: As I said, we are going to be publishing this very soon. I do not want to trail bits of it but I will be publishing it by the end of November.
Q12 Karl Turner: How many criminal legal aid firms do you think will be operating by the time you, if I can put it like this, get your act together?
Dominic Raab: The fundamental thing we have got to try to do is make sure we service the need. There is a range of ways of doing that, but I am confident that we have the means, but also the structural reform, to make sure that there is a viable sector—because the sector is important and we respect the work that the lawyers do, but also because of the need that is out there.
Fundamentally, much as I love the profession from which I came, my job is to try to make sure that the vulnerable people who need the advice get it. So we are focused on that, but that means inevitably that we need a viable sector; and I think our reforms will deliver that.
Q13 Karl Turner: In 2010, Lord Chancellor, there were 1,861 firms of criminal solicitors with duty contracts. We were told in the evidence session last Tuesday that that is down to 964. What is your contingency plan if the entire thing collapses? Do you have one?
Dominic Raab: I think we have enough flexibility in the system, and enough investment going in, and enough practitioners willing to do the work. The money is important, and I accept that. We have to put it structurally on the right footing to be viable not just for the short term but for the medium and long term. I am confident that we can do that.
Q14 Karl Turner: You say there are enough practitioners willing to do the work. Where are they?
Dominic Raab: They are there.
Q15 Karl Turner: Where are they, Lord Chancellor? You say they are there, but, with respect, where are they?
Dominic Raab: No, I think they are there. There has certainly been a shift. Previously, there would have been criminal legal aid solicitors and barristers who exclusively did that and made a whole career out of it. There is now more joint working in areas as well as criminal. Once we have the funding going in, we have the people with the qualifications and experience to take up that work.
Q16 Karl Turner: In 2017, there were 5,240 duty solicitors on rotas. The number now is 3,825. Does that worry you?
Dominic Raab: I want to make sure that those who need that support get it. There has been this argument about refocusing on, if you like, advice early down the track. What we do on police stations is very important. There are all the other areas of work.
It isn’t purely a question of the numbers, although I accept that the numbers are important. What matters is how the work is done, and getting advice earlier for those who really need it is a big part of that answer.
Q17 Karl Turner: There are areas of the country that literally do not have a duty qualified solicitor to attend a police station or a magistrates court. When alleged defendants are not represented in proceedings, it is not just the defendants who suffer but victims of crime. Does that not worry you?
Dominic Raab: The system operates as a system. Of course, changes made in one area ricochet right the way through. That’s why we always have things like supplementary support. I am not saying it is a substitute, but it’s always there. The civil legal advice telephone service is one example. That applies wherever you are in England and Wales.
You were talking about scarcity, or deserts, as they are sometimes called. That is kept constantly under review by the Legal Aid Agency and they have measures and action they can take whenever there’s a particularly acute problem.
Q18 Karl Turner: You do accept that there’s a major issue that you need to address, don’t you?
Dominic Raab: I don’t think the system has been, or is on, a sustainable footing. I think CLAR gives us the opportunity to reset that. We have accepted almost all the recommendations from the Bellamy review. We have implemented them. We had to take the time that we did to consult. That was a statutory requirement. I know there could be some argument about how quickly it came on tap. Then, there is the second step—the £20 million of wide, long-term reform—and I think we are grappling with all of that.
When I came in, a little more than a year ago, none of this had been done. We were still waiting for the Bellamy review. It now has been published. I published it before Christmas—that was what the CBA wanted me to do. We’ve moved as swiftly as we possibly can.
I appreciate some of the critique, the criticisms and concerns, but, actually, if you look at what we’ve done in the course of just a year or so, we’ve moved this forward dramatically in a way that hadn’t been happening before.
I understand some of the frustrations, but we now do have a reform agenda that is motoring forward. The money is coming through, and we’ve shown we’re serious about it.
Q19 Karl Turner: You mention the timeline from your coming in, but I have the chronology here. You were appointed in, I think, September 2021. On 14 March 2022, 94% of the criminal Bar—CBA members—voted for industrial action. I raised it with you the very next day in the Chamber, 15 March, and you accused me of being the shop steward for criminal lawyers.
Dominic Raab: I meant it as a compliment.
Q20 Karl Turner: It was taken as a compliment; you’re very kind.
Between April and June, the CBA undertook a system of no returns, a form of industrial action. Between June and July, the CBA staged partial and escalating walk-outs. In August, 80% of the CBA membership voted to escalate the action. The strike began on 5 September. I think you were sacked on 6 September by Prime Minister Truss and the new Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, came in and sorted it all out in a matter of a few weeks. Are you up to it?
Dominic Raab: I came in in September. By December, we had not just published CLAR, but given a direction of travel. That was a matter of three months.
Q21 Karl Turner: You spent months refusing to meet and speak with them.
Dominic Raab: No, I met Jo Sidhu before Christmas. Indeed, the reason we published it before Christmas was on his advice.
I didn’t think that the strike action, although I am sympathetic to the pressures on the criminal Bar, was warranted. The cost of what it took to settle that is over £50 million. While I am not going to back-track on a deal that was previously done, the idea that a magic wand could be thrown at this or it was just a question of a diplomatic fix or niceties is not the case.
Q22 Karl Turner: If you had not been sacked they would still be on strike, wouldn’t they? Victims of crime would still be waiting for trials to be heard.
Dominic Raab: First, I don’t know what they would have ultimately done—
Q23 Karl Turner: You wouldn’t have settled it, would you?
Dominic Raab: Let me answer your question.
Q24 Karl Turner: You wouldn’t have settled it, would you?
Dominic Raab: Are you finished with the question? In which case, I will give the answer.
I made my position clear. I don’t look back on it and think I was wrong. Otherwise, you’ve got to explain where the over-£50 million was going to come from.
On the other hand, it having been settled, I don’t believe in unpicking deals that have been done. I don’t think that’s quite right as a matter of good faith, so we move forward.
Don’t pretend for a moment—or I certainly don’t for a moment—that that was a warranted strike. It did significant damage. The CBA did not behave in a responsible way, and the £50 million pressure that has put on budgets, on top of the autumn statement, is something I’ve then got to find.
Where would you say that £50 million should come from? Should it come from victim support? Should it come from drug rehabilitation? Should it come from education for prisoners? Those are the real problems in the real world that Ministers have to grapple with.
That money doesn’t just come out of thin air. That was the challenge, but, as I said, I want to proceed as a matter of good faith. I don’t believe in unpicking deals other people have done. That is not good faith. So I’ll have to absorb that pressure, but don’t pretend the money doesn’t come from somewhere. It does.
Q25 Karl Turner: Criminal solicitors are seriously considering a form of industrial action. What is your attitude to that?
Dominic Raab: I don’t think that strike action, and this is talked about in various sectors, including the public sector and across Whitehall, is the right thing to do now. I understand the pressure on pay and fees, but, of course, there are two points: a systemic point, which is that if we agree to unsustainable, beyond-inflation pay increases, that will make inflation last longer and undercut the poorest in whatever sector because inflation will stay higher for longer, plus the impact on interest rates.
I also think, in the context of CLAR and the way we accepted the overwhelming majority of recommendations—for the Bar, but also now for solicitors—that we are coming up with a fair deal. Fifteen per cent. Uplifts in fees, which is the obvious thing we have done, are well beyond the increase that many others in the public sector are getting. I am sympathetic—
Q26 Karl Turner: Fifteen per cent? They say 9%, and that’s from the Government’s own impact assessment.
Dominic Raab: Who are we talking about?
Q27 Chair: We are talking about the LGFS for solicitors.
Dominic Raab: We accepted the recommendations. I think they were balanced. I don’t think the financial situation has got easier since CLAR was published; it has got more challenging. But we need to do right by the profession for all the reasons that, believe it or not, you, Karl, and I share. Putting more money into these areas now, compared to what is happening elsewhere in the public sector, let alone the private sector, I am just not convinced is the right thing to do.
I will engage. One of the first things I said when I came in was that I wanted to meet the heads of the professions.
Q28 Karl Turner: It was refreshing. You had not had that attitude previously.
Dominic Raab: I did. I met Stephanie Boyce. I met the head of the Bar Council. I met Jo Sidhu. I have always been willing to do that.
What I can’t do is pretend that there isn’t a very real-world choice that we face as a Government in the public finances and the envelope that I have and where that money should go.
If you want to make the case for more money than we have committed to, tell me where it comes from. Does it come from the support we are providing for the victims of violent crime or indeed the victims of rape? Does it come from the drug rehabilitation money that we are putting in and I am trying to protect? Does it come from the money I am putting into ending or reducing reoffending by dealing with homelessness with prisoners?
It has got to come from somewhere, Karl.
Q29 Karl Turner: The Law Society and the CLSA have concluded that the only way to get you to act—or, indeed, the Government to act—is to take strike action. That is terribly troubling, isn’t it?
Dominic Raab: I am not sure you can throw that in my direction, but the problem, with respect, that you have is that a critique without a credible alternative, and being able to answer the consequential questions on where the money comes from, is not a plan. I am in the business of putting forward a sustainable plan.
I’ve got to deal with the financial envelope I have, the choices that in the real world I have to make, and the fact that we have followed, by and large, the lion’s share of the Bellamy recommendations. I think that was the right thing to do. We will continue with that agenda.
Q30 Karl Turner: Have you told the Chancellor of the Exchequer what a terrible state the profession is in, and that it has suffered immensely in the past 12 years of Tory Government? Have you mentioned to the Chancellor that you might need a few extra quid?
Dominic Raab: I think I was one of the last Departments to settle when we had the spending review. I argued the case very powerfully. The problem you have, Karl, is that it is all very well—
Q31 Karl Turner: It is not my problem, with respect, Lord Chancellor; it’s yours.
Dominic Raab: No, but actually—
Q32 Chair: It is a collective problem.
Dominic Raab: It is a collective problem, and critique without a credible alternative of your own, I am afraid, is not particularly credible. I am happy to answer all your questions, but you’ve always got to ask: where does that money come from? At a time of precious resource, I’ve got to weigh in the balance all those things.
Q33 Chair: I think we have ventilated the point, but may I press you a little in this respect? You said you will meet the Law Society. Will that include a discussion of the outstanding issues with criminal solicitors’ fees?
Dominic Raab: I would never preclude our friends in the professions from raising anything they want to with me.
Q34 Chair: When do you plan to meet the President of the Law Society?
Dominic Raab: I can’t give you a precise time, but I know that we are in contact with them—and the Bar Council.
Q35 Chair: Given that there is that outstanding issue, it’ll be sooner rather than later, I imagine.
Dominic Raab: Yes, yes.
I hope that, when we publish, which is coming soon—
Q36 Chair: Yes, we look forward to that.
Dominic Raab: I think that what people want to see is action, not just all words. My overwhelming effort has been to drive that forward.
Q37 Chair: When you publish that—at the end of the month, hopefully—will it include some reference to the second stage of Bellamy? You remember that it was intended that there should be a system to deal with that.
Dominic Raab: Yes.
Q38 Chair: The other point, and it is probably convenient to deal with it now, is that the availability of solicitors impacts on the future availability of the judiciary, and that then leads to backlogs. The backlog continues to be substantial, as ventilated at departmental questions this morning. You had a target of reducing the backlog in the Crown court to 53,000 by March 2025. Is that still achievable?
Dominic Raab: We are going to strive with every sinew to hit it, but I can’t pretend that the impact of the CBA strike has not affected that. I think I gave you the figures earlier. We were on a downward trajectory. It has gone back up. At the end of September, the figure was 62,500. I monitor it very carefully.
What I am focused on doing is using all the levers we have. We have the extra judges being recruited. We have the extra money going in. We have had the Nightingale courtrooms. We have increased sentencing powers. We are doing more remote hearings. We have the super courtrooms.
What I’m trying to do is make sure, as sustainably as possible, we weigh down on it. In the Crown court, we are affected by what all the other agencies—I’m not sure whether it is upstream or downstream, but you know what I mean—
Q39 Chair: It will be downstream for these purposes.
Dominic Raab: That has a pressure. We want the whole system to be motoring, but it is one system, and the things that happen at police or CPS level have an impact at the court level, and that then has a further impact down the system.
Q40 Chair: I have some up-to-date figures. Today, 96 of the 501 Crown court courtrooms are not sitting in the UK; yesterday, it was 70. We are looking at fluctuations of 14% to 19%, and that is not sustainable in the long term, is it?
Dominic Raab: No, but that tells you the challenge we have if the cases aren’t ready. I don’t have any control over listing—you know that. The extent to which the Secretary of State can discuss that is an interesting question. As Lord Chancellor I do have discussions about policy areas, but I can’t get involved in individual listing.
Q41 Chair: Is there a problem with the common platform—again, ventilated today—that we are not getting sufficient data to understand what causes part of the delays and the backlog: not being able to record guilty pleas and not being able to record other issues. Does that need to be looked at?
Dominic Raab: We have improved, but we can always do with more. One of the things that have been quite helpful is the criminal justice data dashboards, both for crime generically but for rape, which is a particular concern.
I understand the criticism of the common platform, but it is live in 173 criminal courts—around 76%. We have rolled it out in Wales. As at 11 November, 211,000 cases had been accepted on to the common platform. We had 333,00 hearings managed, and 71,000 hearings had been managed on the common platform in the Crown court.
There have been teething issues. There are some technical issues and some cultural change that we try to drive forward, but it is important that we deliver this and make a success of it.
Q42 Chair: The Lord Chief Justice raised a couple of points with us about the impact of the roll-out of section 28 cross-examinations on listing and the progress of trials. It is obviously advantageous to vulnerable witnesses and other complainants to be able to give evidence in that fashion, but it might delay the progress of trials. What is being done to monitor that?
Dominic Raab: We are raising data on it. Obviously, the data takes time to come through and the roll-out has been done in phases. I have heard anecdotal evidence on this. I have heard anecdotal evidence of the advantages of it, not just from the point of view of the victim, who gets the choice—these may be victims who, if section 28 is not available, will drop out of the system. It may just be a no-regrets decision that some victims will not go forward if they have to give evidence in the open glare of the courtroom, but I understand that it creates a scheduling challenge. I have talked to the Chief about it and I hope that, over time, it can be managed sensibly.
We also know—I wouldn’t say it is a universal view—that there is quite a lot of anecdotal support for the measure that I have heard from victims, from practitioners.
I think that we need to drive this forward, but I am mindful that there are certain things that are the prerogative of the judiciary. It has been a positive thing overall, but we do not yet have the data to give you a more granular sense of that.
Q43 Chair: Is there a thrust to capture that data?
Dominic Raab: Yes. I have to be careful, though, because there is some data that the judiciary is sensitive about us catching. I am a data fiend. I want to see more, but I don’t want to impinge on things that go to judicial independence. I don’t think that capturing evidence on this should.
Q44 Chair: Is that target of 53,000 really ambitious enough? Should we be seeking to drive it down further?
Dominic Raab: Ultimately, the question will be: over what timeframe, given that, if you like, the Crown courts sit, from the legal point of view, at the end of the process, but in the criminal justice system in the middle? I just need to make sure we get that right. It is part of the concordat that we properly fund the court system. Everyone in government is agreed on that.
Q45 Chair: There is, understandably, a great deal of attention on the Crown court because it deals with the more serious criminal cases. Are we at risk of overlooking the situation in the county and family courts?
Dominic Raab: What I would say is that I’m not. I’m sure that public perception—beyond practitioners—is not focused on this.
On the county courts, we have not yet recovered from the full impact of the pandemic. We are investing a lot of time and effort into improving waiting times in civil as well as the family courts and tribunals. There is quite a lot of regional variation. There are longer waits in London and the south-east, so I need to understand why.
On private family law, I have talked to the president of the family division and we have a very clear reform agenda. It is starting to operate. I said before that probably 55% of cases going to the private family courts have some form of domestic abuse or safeguarding element to them.
That still leaves 45% where there is a strong case that, other than exceptional circumstances, they shouldn’t be going to court. We need to try to incentivise the ADR. We have the mediation scheme up and running. I think that the voucher has been a success, but we need to scale that up.
Again, we come back to the issue of precious resources. I want to invest in things like that, but there is a strong case for looking at reform to stop people, if they refuse a reasonable mediated outcome, hopping into the court system to try their luck—double-dipping, if you like. I would like to look at costs in that context.
We have a very clear plan and the family division have been brilliant, constructive interlocutors on this. It is up to us now to drive that forward.
Q46 Chair: You accept that there seems to be overwhelming evidence that the early involvement of lawyers can be the gateway to mediation and can lead to swifter resolutions. Is that a point that you recognise?
Dominic Raab: I think it can go two ways. I have heard the argument. The thing to do with something systemic like this is to get the incentives and disincentives in the right place. That is how I would put it. Mediation is great, but if you just mediate and think, “We’ll have another crack in the family courts”, there is no point. We need to get that right.
When people know that they are not going to get some better financial deal, there is a huge amount of angst and bitterness that couples and children, particularly young children, are spared. That is what I am very focused on, and there is real scope to deal with that. That would help to bring the backlog down for those cases—the domestic abuse and safeguarding cases—that we do need to get to court.
Q47 Chair: We have a target for reducing the Crown court backlog. The family court backlog is still 110,000. Is there a target to reduce it?
Dominic Raab: There may be, but I don’t have it on the tip of my fingertips. I am happy to follow up.
Q48 Chair: Something to take away, perhaps.
Dominic Raab: Yeah, sure.
Q49 Chair: The county court is still paper-based. Is there a timeline to digitise the county court, as has been done with the High Court?
Dominic Raab: As you know, the Master of the Rolls is very keen on driving this forward.
Q50 Chair: But you need the resource.
Dominic Raab: There is the resource and there’s the will. Of course, not everyone likes the digital process when we’ve tried it with divorce or probate. You never get 100% support. Changing to digital involves transition, and some people find that more difficult than others.
I definitely think that we should be looking to push forward the digitisation process. Within a relatively short time, practitioners and the judiciary will get used to it and see the yield and the dividends.
For the public, it’s a massive boon. I have previously been here as courts Minister driving this forward. You could see, first, usage going up; and, secondly, for example, in probate and divorce, how you could increase the speed at which these things get done, which is what most taxpaying members of the public, exposed to the civil or criminal justice system, would hope to see.
Q51 Chair: Are you satisfied with the speed in the Probate Registry at the current time?
Dominic Raab: I’m never satisfied. I’m always restless to go further. We are driving as fast as we can with resource.
Q52 Chair: You recognise that there are problems and concerns.
Dominic Raab: Yes. I think there is a great reform agenda there. I can see the challenges as well.
Q53 James Daly: I am going to ask you a few questions on IPP, but first I would like to take a step back to one of your priorities, which you addressed in the Chamber today: violence against women and girls, specifically the investigation and prosecution of rape.
One of the great challenges when talking to a Minister—you or the Home Secretary—is that you have responsibility for separate parts of the process. It is fair to record for the benefit of the Committee and people listening the scale of the problem.
In the year ending March 2022, the police recorded the highest annual number of rape offences to date—70,333, with charges being brought in just 2,223 cases. Only one in 100 rapes recorded by police in 2021 resulted in a charge that same year, let alone conviction.
When we are speaking to you, Lord Chancellor, are we speaking to you purely as somebody who has responsibility for these matters after charge? There is clearly a huge problem with the police not referring the vast majority of rape cases to the CPS for a decision. Do you feel that you should be involved in that stage of the process? If so, do you work with the Home Secretary? What is the cross-departmental working in that area?
Dominic Raab: It is a great question. It is inherently a challenge. Every bit of the system, understandably, claims operational independence: the police claim operational independence; the CPS has independence on charging decisions; and the judiciary has judicial independence.
We have tended to create a safe space where Ministers from across the piece and the Law Officers and the DPP come together. With the benefit of the data that we now have, particularly on rape, where we can see geographically and step by step through the phases of the process, we have created a safe space where we can ask questions. We all want to get to the same outcome.
I spoke in the Chamber at oral questions today and set out the data on the increase in rape cases being reported to the police, CPS charges and Crown court receipts so there is progress. Overall, we have seen, on the latest criminal justice statistics, convictions for rape up by 65% compared with the year before. I am restless to go further.
I would say that we have about eight policy levers, as well as the money going in. Operation Soteria is massive. It touches on your point exactly. The police forces and CPS teams that now operate under Operation Soteria work much more closely together. You notice that there is less overwhelming focus on grilling the complainant—we would call them the victim, but the person who comes forward to report the crime—and more overwhelming scrutiny of the suspect. That not only is right but means that victims are more likely to come forward.
We have all the other levers right the way through to section 28. We need the data, as the Chair says. There is more to do, but we have the specialist courtrooms at Snaresbrook, Leeds, Newcastle—
Q54 James Daly: I’m terribly sorry to interrupt, but I want to make sure that colleagues have enough time to ask you about other things.
What you are talking about is from an incredibly low base. These are increases from fractions of the true extent of the situation. Until Ministers address the very real problem of why the police are not referring for judicial consideration the vast majority of cases, we will go nowhere.
We would always want conviction rates to be higher, but they are pretty in line with other offences—they are not out of kilter.
I have laboured that point, so may I turn to IPP? Have you read the Committee’s report? My friend Dr Mullan was a dissenting voice, but the conclusions are very powerful. Have you read it?
Dominic Raab: Yes, I have. I will come on to IPP. It is a very serious issue.
May I have a final word on the rape stuff? The volume of convictions has gone up. You can argue that the CPS should measure the conviction rate differently, but the standard way—we have always had the statistics—is that the conviction rate is the volume of convictions as a proportion of cases brought. The conviction rate increased to 69% in the last quarter, from 68%.
I know that there’s more to do, but I don’t accept that there isn’t important work going on.
I know that the Committee has done a lot of work on IPP. I am reviewing the Committee’s recommendations. I know that we have a deadline of, I think, 28 November. I am familiar with the report.
We have the IPP action plan. We don’t use IPP sentences any longer; they were not introduced by a Conservative Government, but I understand the history.
During 2021-22, 46% of all unreleased IPP prisoners considered at an oral hearing of the Parole Board were released; 24% were recommended for removal to open conditions; and less than a third had a negative outcome.
We have a process, and of course I would want to move more rapidly, but rather than relaxing or resentencing, which would create real risk issues and attract real questions of public confidence, the better answer is to try to get those IPP offenders through the process with the support to pass it and move to open conditions and then to release. We are making some progress in that regard.
Q55 James Daly: I would challenge that, Lord Chancellor. I think the figures are very stark. As you said, IPP sentences were abolished in 2012 and there are still 2,926 people imprisoned, including 1,434 who were recalled to custody having been released.
I assume that you are aware of those figures. People are in prison because they have been recalled, not because they have committed further offences or there is evidence that they pose a threat of harm to the public.
Dominic Raab: I have given you the data about the progress we are making in getting through the, if you like, stock of offenders who were sentenced under IPP.
We had a review of the probation recall culture, which was published in 2020. I am sure that the Committee is familiar with it. In the 12 months to the end of 2021, 34% of IPP recalls were as a result of further charges for new offences, but I fear that I would be in trouble with other members of this Committee—in particular, Dr Mullan—if I just said that we were going to resentence all of them or let all of them out.
The problem is that I am responsible for what I do. It is the same with the approach we take to parole. I have to try to do this in a coherent and fair way based on the legacy I have been left, and I do not think it is right to provide some equivalent to an amnesty.
Q56 James Daly: I do not think that is the case and it is certainly not what the Committee is suggesting, but, if we go further, 608 have been in jail for over a decade beyond their original tariff, which is absolutely outrageous. The sentencing programme would not have been abolished unless people saw the intrinsic unfairness within it.
The figure I find absolutely startling is that 188 people in England and Wales today have served over 10 years in prison, having originally received a term of imprisonment of two years or less. I find that outrageous.
Dominic Raab: I would not have voted for it the first time around, but I am left with the legacy. I deal with the world as it is and I cannot go back. What I am saying is that I am very supportive of taking every step I can to increase the number of people who can go through that process, which is ultimately done by the Parole Board, and equip it to pass that test. I think that is the right thing to do.
Q57 James Daly: I do not doubt your sincerity in the view you take, but I think it is important that we air these views. I think you have had an open letter, which the Committee has received, regarding support for this Committee’s recommendations from numerous professionals involved in the cycle. I think the overwhelming evidence is that we have people in the prison system who are suffering from severe mental health problems as a result of the sentence imposed upon them. Essentially, we are keeping people in prison because they have a mental health problem rather than because of their risk to the community.
Dominic Raab: On that, I am very sympathetic. If you look at the prison population, particularly the male population, we have too many foreign national offenders; we have too many people who are effectively mentally unwell and, therefore, commit crimes and trip into prison.
Under the Mental Health Bill—I know you are familiar with it—we are taking quite a significant series of steps as that comes through parliamentary scrutiny to end prison as a place of safety. I have worked very hard with successive Health Secretaries on that. We also have a deadline—as I recall, it is 28 days—for moving people out of prison and into NHS care. I believe that is important.
I certainly think that, in addition to FNOs, there are too many people who are inherently mentally unwell and, because of the changes made by successive Governments over decades, have tripped into prison. I think it is a big issue, but I have to do it in a responsible way. It is no good just saying, “Do you know what? I will let them all out.”
Q58 James Daly: We are not suggesting that.
Dominic Raab: I know, but that is why I am working with the Health Secretary; that is why we have the Mental Health Bill; and that is why we are doing something on this issue now.
Q59 James Daly: On the basis of that logic we could have a person in prison for 40 years, having originally received a tariff of two years.
Dominic Raab: That was what Parliament willed. Obviously, we have repealed the sentences, but you do not repeal them retrospectively. I am stuck with the legacy of something I did not vote for, but that is the way our system works.
Q60 Chair: Are you saying that we are stuck with an injustice because it was done in the past?
Dominic Raab: How would I characterise it? We want to make sure that we have the most dangerous people in prison. There is a lot of soft science around risk. One of the reasons I am pursuing the parole reform is that I am not confident we have that balance right, but there are also people we want to avoid coming into prison. I think it is wrong to continue without taking steps to stop the mentally unwell tripping into prison.
The other one is drugs. I think about one in four in prison have, or previously have had, a heroin or opiate addiction. I do not know whether I have that wrong, but it is astonishingly high. Typically, we have left them on methadone; successive Governments have done that. I know we are diverting from IPP, but if we can get those offenders off drugs sustainably through abstinence-based recovery programmes and expand drug recovery wings, we will clear out a proportion of prolific reoffenders, and that will allow us to focus on the most dangerous offenders.
I do not disagree that IPP is one of the elements of that, but I think the right thing to do is to get them going through the process in the right way so they can satisfy the criteria that I have to satisfy around risk.
Q61 James Daly: The criteria are not being applied correctly. We have people going back into custody who do not pose a harm to the public. They may have committed an offence in the past, but the future they are looking forward to is prison for the rest of their days. They have been in there for over a decade; they have unresolved support and mental health problems.
The Committee received evidence in camera from probation officers and people involved in this process, who accepted that when such prisoners are released there is an over-abundance of caution. Conditions are imposed on them on their release from an IPP that it is nearly impossible for them to abide by. Although some of them have committed offences, the vast majority have not and they have been brought back into custody potentially for the rest of their lives on the basis that they pose no risk of harm at all to any member of the public.
I understand what you are saying from a policy perspective, but I suggest that you as the Lord Chancellor of England and Wales and an elected politician have no evidence, unless it is provided to you by somebody, on whether any of these 2,926 people pose a risk of harm to the public.
Dominic Raab: I am not sure I would accept that. I gave you the figure on recalls: 34% resulted in further charges for new offences rather than tripping up over onerous licence conditions.
Q62 James Daly: But 70% did not commit offences.
Dominic Raab: I understand that, but they would have been picked up on other things. What I am saying is that 34% is quite high.
I am happy to look again at the question of licence conditions. I have looked at this before; I have scrubbed it and kicked the tyres and I want to get it resolved, but I am left with a system whereby I will be held responsible for mistakes that are made in relation to public protection and risk.
I have to do this in the right way. James, I am happy to keep talking to you about it. I think you have articulated the challenge in a perfectly fair way.
Chair: Moving to the next topics, that leads us to the Parole Board reforms that I know Dr Mullan is going to ask some questions about.
Dr Mullan: If you will forgive me, Chair, first I want to ask questions about the reforms made to sentencing for child murder.
Chair: We will deal with sentencing parole in this section.
Dr Mullan: I would like to deal first with the Bill of Rights.
Chair: I thought it might follow more naturally now since we have been talking about parole and other matters.
Q63 Dr Mullan: Do you think that the Government’s introduction of a whole-life tariff for child murder, as described at the time in publicity through Ministers talking at the Dispatch Box and in their manifesto, reconciles effectively with what we have done in terms of the caveat that it has to be as a result of significant premeditation? Do you think the public believed that when we said we would introduce whole-life tariffs for child murder we meant only when there was significant premeditation?
Dominic Raab: The short answer is that I do not know.
Q64 Dr Mullan: We have to make a guess.
Dominic Raab: Kieran, as you and I have discussed before, I suspect that if you ask particularly in relation to child murder or serious injury the public will always, emotionally and understandably—I say this as a parent of two young boys—want us to take this seriously.
Dominic Raab: They welcome the increase in sentences and Hudgell’s law, and I will always look at what more we can do to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Whether or not it is enough for the public—
Q66 Dr Mullan: I am not talking about whether they will be satisfied, which is a different question. I am asking whether, when we told them we would introduce whole-life orders for child murder, they would have expected us to do that only for cases with significant premeditation.
Dominic Raab: It is a good challenge. The short answer is that I do not know. What we have tried to do is make sure we target the biggest threats to the most vulnerable in our society. I drove that sentencing forward; I drove Tony’s law forward. I believe, head and heart, that those are the right things to do. I will always look at our sentencing.
Equally, we have the wider debate, which we have discussed, about who should be in prison. I have been on the Back Benches for many periods; I have done Select Committees. There will always be one area or other where we want to increase sentencing. I could fill the prisons 50% higher than they are today, but the reality is that we cannot keep exponentially increasing the prison population.
Q67 Dr Mullan: Absolutely not.
Dominic Raab: I have you raising this issue with me and it will be someone else on another aspect. I am sympathetic to all of them, but at the end of the day there is a very significant capacity issue in our prisons.
Q68 Dr Mullan: But we have not made a public commitment to those other areas; there is a wider discussion to be had. We made a very specific public commitment. What do you think the public reaction will be the next time there is a child murder and there is not significant premeditation and that person does not get a whole-life tariff? Do you think that will undermine confidence in sentencing, or contribute to it?
Dominic Raab: People will, I hope, understand that we have ratcheted up the sentences in the worst cases, but I am sure that whenever a child is involved it strikes an incredible chord.
I met Denise Fergus, the mother of Jamie Bulger. I remember that case growing up; I remember that CCTV footage. I will always be on the side of people like her. That is why we are delivering the parole reforms and various other things we are doing. I spend my time fretting about risk, but I also have to recognise and reconcile the resources and capacity that we have.
Q69 Dr Mullan: The impact assessment that related to that change does not distinguish between the two. It would seem to me that the impact assessment and the resource assessment took into account that there would be a more general application. Perhaps you could write to us and confirm what the Department thought it was committing to in terms of numbers, because the impact assessment does not make any distinction between the different types of child murder.
Dominic Raab: I know that my officials are earnestly taking notes of any follow-up points. We always have a number from these sessions, which is healthy.
Q70 Dr Mullan: I understand that in September you said that you thought the Parole Board was totally adrift from its moorings. What made you think that?
Dominic Raab: First, I want to pay tribute to the people who work in this area. It is very difficult. A lot of people do an incredible amount of work in the Parole Board, in prisons and in probation.
When the public protection test was brought in, the idea was that for those subject to parole decisions it was very clear: you had to satisfy that there was no further risk to public protection.
If you look at the Weekes case, that shifted. It became a balancing act between the interests of the offender in one way or another—rehabilitation—and the risk to the public. If you look at the impact of the Human Rights Act and proportionality arguments in relation to article 5, or otherwise, I think it became a balancing act.
To your point about what the public expected, some of these provisions came in originally in the aftermath of the abolition of the death penalty to make sure people knew that we would not let out people who ever posed a risk.
My experience of looking at a large number of cases—forgive me if I do not talk about individual ones—is that typically you have an assessment of the risk of the offender. Often, there will be significant concerns. You will then have a psychiatrist’s report. Typically, they will have made some progress—when reviewing it, it may seem only like millimetres—in engaging with an inherently difficult individual. I do not even cast a moral judgment, but you look at the index offence and that person is very dangerous.
There is the passage of time and you look at what you can realistically do with licence conditions. We have just seen with IPP that there is a balance if you release someone. You do not want to set them up to fail to come back in. On the other hand, is it something that can mitigate risk?
Then you have issues of straightforwardness and deceit.
I feel that as a result of all these things the focus on the sole issue of risk to the public has been eclipsed. I think it is true on the statutory criteria. If you look at Weekes, in fairness I believe that the Court of Appeal—someone will correct me—said that the public protection test as specified in legislation was not specific and, therefore, we needed to fill some of those gaps. That was how it happened.
The cases have ebbed and flowed a little bit, but they are also proportionate. I think that in King it came back a little bit, but there were still proportionality arguments that effectively achieved the same result. I think that the test is just not applied as a pure public protection test.
Secondly, there is the composition of those parole panels. They are all good people, but I think that the approach of a social scientist and psychiatrist will be different from the approach of a grizzled detective, or possibly a probation officer or prison officer, who is thinking about risk in very granular terms. Why? Because they may well have talked to the victim and had the horrendous duty to tell them of an appalling crime. I think experience will suggest that they will look at it in a different way.
As to the composition of Parole Board panels, I think that at one point one in five had law enforcement experience, so you have a heavy emphasis on social science—this is my central point—in an area where it is very difficult to assess risk reliably.
I have said that what I want to push is a precautionary principle. I want to make sure that we get back to that ability to assess risk in these very difficult cases. In particular, where the index offence is terrorism, murder, rape or the unlawful killing of a child, I think there is a case for greater ministerial involvement. Every time I look at a case and think of my duty to the victims and general public—this is not to denigrate what the Parole Board does—I have rekindled the sense that this system is not quite right. I believe that it is my job to protect the public and victims, and that is what I am going to do.
Q71 Dr Mullan: What changes resulting from the root and branch review do you think will require primary legislation?
Dominic Raab: Amplifying the prescriptions for what the risk to the public involves and the public protection test; changes to the composition; and the right of a ministerial check, in whatever form that should take, in relation to that top four cohort.
You would probably urge me to go beyond that top four cohort, but I am caught between the snare of James and Kieran on this.
Q72 Dr Mullan: I am not sure that is a fair representation; there is an overlap in some areas.
Dominic Raab: I am sure you do, but my point is that we have to do this in a focused way. What I did was to look at the four index offences where the risk of reoffending and the severity of what happens is the highest.
Q73 Dr Mullan: What is your proposed legislative vehicle for doing that? Is it a new Bill or some other route?
Dominic Raab: We are still working that through. Obviously, we have quite a tight timeframe, but I would like to legislate on that as soon as possible.
Q74 Chair: Before we move away from parole, the test in Watson in the Court of Appeal was quite clear, was it not? Lord Bingham, then Sir Thomas Bingham, Master of the Rolls, said that in the final balance the board was bound to give preponderant weight to the need to protect innocent members of the public. I think that Lord Justice Rose concurred with that and said that the need to protect the public is paramount. Does not the law, if properly applied, do that already?
Dominic Raab: There is inevitably a balancing act. When you read the decisions, this is what they are doing. If pure assessment of risk was the exclusive or predominant factor, you might well leave it there, but I think it is right that you look at scope for managing risk and where the licence conditions could do so, but the reality is that a balancing act goes on in a way that I do think was not the intention of Parliament originally.
We had the balancing act of Weekes. Although what you say is right, effectively the impact of proportionality has also meant that we have a balancing act.
I believe I am the only person who has successfully JR-ed the Parole Board. I do not do that because I do not respect their professional view; I just take a precautionary approach to risk. I think that is what the public expect.
Q75 James Daly: In this context, what does the word “risk” mean to you?
Dominic Raab: A significant threat to life or limb.
Q76 James Daly: Therefore, from the perspective of the statutory test, anyone who falls beneath it should be released?
Dominic Raab: I do not think it is quite that simple, but, in a nutshell, what I am worried about are dangerous criminals who have been convicted of a serious index offence of the type I have described going out. Essentially, it is not a moral judgment, but you will not really reform certain people who are either deeply mentally unwell or have a psychotic condition. I worry that, over the passage of time, with this balancing act and the small element of engagement that can sometimes demonstrate progress, but not nearly enough to satisfy me on risk, we have the balance wrong.
Q77 Chair: I understand your objective of giving greater assurance to the public and, therefore, having a degree of ministerial control, but how do you square that with the common-law position, as well as the European convention position—that the Parole Board is and should be regarded as an independent court for these purposes? Is there not a danger that you trespass upon that status?
Dominic Raab: There is, which is why we have a review mechanism to the upper tribunal, but this is an interesting question and we have talked about it. Is it a public protection test or is there a balancing act going on?
I think that the Parole Board’s function is mischaracterised as judicial. Whatever the legal label, I think its sole function should be the assessment of risk. By the way, I think that is a very difficult assessment to make in these kinds of cases given the passage of time and the conditions. I think it should be more of a fact-finding, inquisitorial process.
The fact that it is regarded as a judicial process in the way that you, the Committee and I understand it tells you that there is a balancing act going on. Of course, there should be strict parameters and criteria for that. I can see all the risks involved, but fundamentally what people expected with a public protection test was something pretty binary. I am not sure that is what they are getting.
Q78 Chair: In achieving that, do you accept there is a legal obligation to ensure that decisions concerning the detention of the individual have to be taken by an independent court?
Dominic Raab: Yes, but these people have been convicted of a criminal offence. We are talking only about those four most serious categories of cases. Quite a lot of the work that I would like to see to rebalance it can be taken care of by the criteria and the composition of the panel, but in relation to the top cohort of the four particular offences it is right that we do this. Our proposals will include, as I set out in the root and branch review and our response in the proposals set out in the House of Commons, something akin to a judicial review check. I do not want to have a court substituting its judgment and opening it up to a merits-based review with the balancing act or proportionality. We are then just back to the same old place. I think there is scope for addressing this with Strasbourg.
Q79 Chair: The Victims Bill, for example, had pre-legislative scrutiny. Would these legislative proposals to reform the Parole Board be appropriate for pre-legislative scrutiny?
Dominic Raab: We did the root and branch review, which was consulted on, and I have set out to the Government’s response to it. It will not require as many clauses as the Victims Bill, so I am not quite sure it needs full pre‑legislative scrutiny, but I hope I have shown I am happy to come back and talk to you about it again.
Q80 Paul Maynard: Patience has its own reward, so you get to me eventually.
If we do a greatest hits tour of the Committee’s work, we have done IPP. Let us now move on to the Victims Bill, on which we did a report. Our clear view was that the powers given in the Victims Bill did not really strengthen the role of the Victims Commissioner in the way we expected it to. Is that a view that you might share?
Dominic Raab: You are talking about the generic role rather than the current position.
Paul Maynard: Yes.
Dominic Raab: First, on the subject of greatest hits, I read at length your report. I think that you had 47 recommendations. We will be publishing our response to that very shortly. I was genuinely impressed by the report—I am not just saying that—and we have taken on board a number of the recommendations.
I want to be careful about the role of the Victims Commissioner. I have found it an incredibly important role. There is more that can be done, but I do not want to create a distortion of functions that are already challenged, so it is trying to make it work in a complementary way rather than in a way which would have that effect.
I understand the argument that is made. We have set out what we think the priorities should be. There is a big issue around expectations. I think it is reasonable to expect a CPS lawyer in the most serious types of cases—I am not talking about a straitjacket requirement—before the case goes to court to have met and at least had some conversation with the victim. You can see in rape cases why the trust issue is so important.
On accountability, there is a significant piece of work, not least given the points being made about the operational independence of each of the agencies, on bringing to it a more concerted, cross-cutting approach both at national level for the inspectorates but also for PCCs. There is a significant piece of work to be done.
There is a balance in the criminal justice system, but I want to be careful that we help to fine-tune it and do not upset it.
Q81 Paul Maynard: You mentioned your caution over enhancing the role of the Victims Commissioner. Clearly, you have been very cautious about the role of the Victims Commissioner, to the point that you suspended the competition process for the new appointment. Why did you suspend that competition?
Dominic Raab: I suspended it because basically it is so important and I wanted to get a wider field. That was just my judgment call. That is not to denigrate the previous applicants. There was a very high standard, but it is so important. I can tell you that we are making smart progress on this. The recruitment campaign is already under way and we expect to appoint a commissioner as soon as possible in the new year.
Q82 Paul Maynard: Given that the previous occupant, Dame Vera Baird, was told by officials that she was appointable, is there any explanation for why you subsequently chose not to appoint her, despite her appointability and the fact you did not choose to meet her during your previous incarnation in this role?
Dominic Raab: That is simply not true; I did meet her. Indeed, I have great respect for Vera Baird. I think she did a really good job. The role has evolved. I also extended her period in that role. I have no criticism of Vera, but it is my job to do the very best I can and I thought there was a case for opening it up to open competition. I take that very seriously; I am a meritocrat at heart, but, most importantly, I believe we can find an exceptional fit for the role in the current climate with all the challenges we face, and ultimately I think that is my duty.
Q83 Paul Maynard: I do not doubt what you say, but for the record I quote her resignation letter to your predecessor: “It was notable that the previous Secretary of State…had not met me once since February.” She is saying that a significant reason why she resigned was her inability to meet you.
Dominic Raab: We have gone from saying I had not met her at all to I had not met her between February—I am pretty sure, but I can come back to you on when I did meet her. I am pretty sure that I met her virtually as well as in person.
Q84 Paul Maynard: That might well account for the difference between the two elements. You say that in the new year you hope to fill the role. Is that correct?
Dominic Raab: In the new year.
Q85 Paul Maynard: Therefore, it will be at some point in 2023.
Dominic Raab: Yes. The process is already under way. I get that there is a gap. I want to fix it as soon as possible. If you ask me whether I want to do it quickly or get the very best pool and appoint the very best candidate, it is the latter.
Q86 Paul Maynard: Once again, as part of her letter to Brandon, Dame Vera said that the Bill of Rights “undermines what little progress the Victims Bill is set to bring.” How would you respond to the criticism that your focus on the Bill of Rights risks undermining the Victims Bill?
This is a compassionate Government which sees that doing the right thing by victims will drive progress in outcomes in the criminal justice system. Of course, the Bill of Rights is there to make sure that the process can protect victims and the public perhaps more than was possible under the HRA.
Paul Maynard: I ask that merely to help to segue into the Chair’s Bill of Rights questions.
Q87 Chair: Very nicely done.
The Victims Bill and the Bill of Rights are your two legislative priorities. In terms of parliamentary time, which one will come first?
Dominic Raab: I would expect the Bill of Rights to come first.
Q88 Chair: It is more important than the Victims Bill?
Dominic Raab: It is not so much that; it is just where it is. We have not yet responded.
Q89 Chair: You have not responded to the consultation on it.
Dominic Raab: Yes. The Bill of Rights is ready to go; it has already been published, but I do not really accept the conflict. The bigger challenge we have is the funnel of important stuff that the Government’s reform agenda is pushing through, but we will do both.
Q90 Chair: There are two years and a bit more left in this Parliament. Have you agreed time with the business managers for the Bill of Rights or the Victims Bill?
Dominic Raab: It is very close. The Bill of Rights is coming up for Second Reading shortly. I want to get to the same position as soon as possible on victims and whatever else goes with victims.
Q91 Dr Mullan: Are there any areas of the Bill of Rights as originally published that you intend to amend before it comes back?
Dominic Raab: Not before it comes back.
Q92 Dr Mullan: Therefore, it will come back in exactly the same form.
Dominic Raab: I do not think it has gone away; it is there.
Q93 Chair: What about in the course of its passage through the House?
Dominic Raab: Sir Robert, you know that I will always engage constructively. I suspect there will be some interesting conversations in the House of Lords.
Q94 Dr Mullan: I guess that dynamic is about whether you are persuaded by others to make any changes. From your perspective, given the time that has lapsed and the discussions, is there anything that you are personally minded to change, or not?
Dominic Raab: We have a great Bill here, which is beautifully tabbed. Before Karl asks, I did it myself. There is one area where I am looking for a legislative vehicle, which is SLAPPs. This is a significant constitutional step forward. As you know, I think there is a really strong case for strengthening free speech and preventing abuse of the system around foreign national offenders. There are other things that I think we need to do. Parole reform will need to have the latitude that the Bill of Rights will provide.
If you look at some of the very topical issues we have inside our high- security estate, we are already getting claims under the HRA. People say that the goalposts do not shift under HRA. We are already getting claims from convicted terrorists or Islamic ideologues for a right to socialise within the prison population when we want to use these separation centres to prevent that risk both to the wider prisoner community and ultimately the public.
These are all the reasons we want to do it. There will be a chance. I am assuming—again, this is for the business managers—that Committee stage will be on the Floor of the House. I will want to listen very carefully to what colleagues have to say, but we spent a long time looking at this. This was our manifesto in 2010, which you will remember. I looked at it and did a first draft for consultation in 2015, and we did a consultation again not just on the policy proposals but on a bunch of text. We have been thinking about this for a long time; it is time to do it, but I am always willing to listen.
Q95 Dr Mullan: You will be aware of the concerns that anything we do in relation to the Human Rights Act might interfere with the Good Friday agreement. I am just wondering whether you have had any engagement with the Irish Government on that issue.
Dominic Raab: In terms of the Good Friday agreement, I have been out to all the devolved Administrations. I have spoken to politicians and the judiciary in Northern Ireland. We have done roundtables with Lord Wolfson and now Lord Bellamy in all the Administrations.
I think the position on the Good Friday agreement is very clear. We are staying as a party to the ECHR. I think that satisfies the issue with the Good Friday agreement.
On top of that, as was the case with the Human Rights Act, we are incorporating into the schedule to the Bill of Rights the European convention. The big changes, therefore, are about the procedural framework and how rights are interpreted. While that does have some substantive impact, it is nothing that will affect the functioning of the Good Friday agreement. I can say that confidently.
Q96 Dr Mullan: Are you concerned by people like Lord Dyson, Lord Mance and senior retired judges criticising the Bill of Rights?
Dominic Raab: I always listen. I can give you the names of former judges and judges, when they were current judges, who have extrajudicially written about the problems with the Human Rights Act and Strasbourg case law. Lord Sumption seems to be writing frequently about this.
I always listen, but fundamentally I think the things we are doing are right to restore some common sense to articulate a more UK-wide set of priorities for human rights and to curb some of the abuses of it.
I have it tabbed for a reason. Which clauses of the Bill of Rights are subject to these criticisms? It is right that under clauses 2 and 3 we reduce the pressure to follow Strasbourg case law. We should be articulating an autonomous UK set of case law. It is right that we stop the process of allowing courts to amend legislation. It is for Parliament and elected lawmakers to do that.
It is right that public protection should be ascribed greater weight, particularly when it is set out in primary legislation. I think there are good policy reasons and areas where we will benefit from doing that.
There is a constitutional point here about the separation of powers. I believe in a robust judiciary. It was Labour that created the Supreme Court. Some people on our Benches did not think that was a good idea. I am personally very comfortable with it. I would like it to be supreme, not subordinate. All of these things are spelled out in the Bill of Rights
Q97 Dr Mullan: On that narrative, do you accept it is more likely we will lose some cases when they go to the European Court?
Dominic Raab: We have an exceptional record and I would imagine and anticipate that will continue. To be clear, I think there is a misunderstanding. As common lawyers we apply the doctrine of precedent. Often, on the continent they do not, and there is not a strict doctrine of precedent in Strasbourg.
If you look at the shift in the Strasbourg court, it talks about the age of subsidiarity. Robert Spanó, the president, has just transitioned; he is no longer there, but I think the European Court has been on a journey. It had the age of the living instrument; it now has the age of subsidiarity. It has always recognised the ability for us to engage in dialogue with Strasbourg on these issues, so it is absolutely legitimate and lawful for us to test the margin of appreciation and avail ourselves fully of it in those areas where there are vital interests at stake.
That is not some kind of grubby or unlawful thing to do. We should not be gold-plating things because of Strasbourg, any more than anywhere else. Part of it—Strasbourg has said this—is about having a dialogue with it, and the Bill of Rights sets out a process for doing that.
Q98 Dr Mullan: One of the things I have noticed, while having some sympathy for your argument, is that, when you look at the case law in the original documents that accompanied the Bill, from many years ago there are cases that we are flagging as examples of ones we might lose. I appreciate that the RAND agreement will go before the courts, but outside that are there specific cases where we have wanted to do something and we have not been able to do it because of the case law?
Dominic Raab: Absolutely. In the case law from the Human Rights Act, the obvious one is deportation of foreign national offenders. Personally—others may take a different view—I do not think we should ever send someone back to the arms of a torturing state. I think the prohibition of torture is absolute. People talk about pulling out of the ECHR. Even if we did that, it is written into various other international conventions, primary legislation and common law. For example, there is the use of article 8 and the right to family life by foreign national offenders to frustrate deportation orders
Q99 Dr Mullan: There are recent examples of that.
Dominic Raab: To be brief, first, the UK courts under the HRA were using article 8 as a fetter for deportation. It came first in the UK courts and then the Strasbourg court, presumably looking at it, followed that. That is a good example of dialogue, although probably in the wrong direction, and it is a good example that if we gold-plate the approach Strasbourg takes we will end up unable to deport serious foreign national offenders.
When I looked last and published this data in the consultation, some 70% of successful human rights appeals against deportation by FNOs are still article 8.
Bear in mind recent history. I think the early noughties, or some point between 2000 and 2010, was the first time in its history that the Strasbourg court had ever relied on article 8 to trump the deportation order for an FNO. Now, 70% of successful appeals in the UK are based on that. That was not something for which we should necessarily blame Strasbourg, at least initially. It started here with the elastic interpretations of human rights and the shifting goalposts.
I do not think that is right. By the way, I do not think it is right because I want to deport more foreign national offenders; I do not think it is constitutionally right.
Q100 Dr Mullan: One of the things I have picked up from talking to Ministers is that you cannot necessarily evidence the interference it has on decisions we might reasonably take, because Ministers get advised that they cannot do that because it would not survive. Is that perhaps a challenge? We will struggle to evidence stuff because we have started to behave differently in anticipation of what the courts might do.
Dominic Raab: The truth is that, first, there are loads of cases on article 8 and you can track when they first started coming in. You will see that they started to come in under HRA and then Strasbourg followed suit.
Secondly, you have the cases that, because of the precedent, are lost, and that is why I think the figure of 70% is so important.
Thirdly, it has a chilling effect because people bring legal cases and we think, “We can’t”. It is not a responsible thing for the Justice Secretary, or any Government Department, to take on cases that we do not have a reasonable prospect of winning.
That then starts to have a chilling effect. A good example of this now is the separation centres in high-security prisons. We are starting to see these. What I worry about is that because of those shifting goalposts we lose the ability to protect the public in what is clearly a vital area of security.
In terms of evidence, this has happened. The argument is not about whether this has happened. The Strasbourg court has been saying for decades that the ECHR is a living instrument and it can expand interpretations of it. What that basically mean is that it can expand and change what is written into the European convention. There is a basic problem with that. It is clear that to some degree that has been echoed, mirrored and expanded in the UK under the Human Rights Act. We have judges talking about this. The idea that it is not documented is not serious.
I think the more credible argument is that both the current Supreme Court and the Strasbourg court under Robert Spanó have, as things have flowed, ebbed back a bit. Bob, I know that you have made that argument. There is something in that, but what ebbs may flow and we are absolutely entitled to codify the right approach and say that the Court should apply the law but should not expand and amend it. That is a fundamental principle of our democracy.
On whether there is evidence for it, read a textbook on human rights law. There will be a section in it on the living instrument.
Q101 Dr Mullan: It might be worth looking at the Government documents. The footnotes relate to historical cases.
To push it the other way, why are we in it at all? Are not British judges and the Supreme Court more than capable of interpreting how the British state should act in a lawful way?
Dominic Raab: You will see in clauses 1 and 2 that principle set out.
Q102 Dr Mullan: Why do we need to be in it at all? Why can we not just do it on their own? Why be a party to it? Are not our judges more than capable of making all the decisions all on their own rather than having to defer to a higher court?
Dominic Raab: There are two different arguments. One is to repeal the Human Rights Act. I have looked at this argument and have heard serious people suggest it. If you take the period of over 20 years during which the case law has accumulated and you just repeal it and not put something else in its place, I think the judges would fill the gap and you would have at least uncertainty, if not similar sets of problem.
I have heard people make the case for pulling out of the ECHR. I am not sure that pulling out of the ECHR would solve the problems that people think it would. I do not think you would solve all the small boats problem. The Bill of Rights will help in some material respects, but it will not solve the whole problem and the Home Secretary has quite rightly said there is no silver bullet. Pulling out of the ECHR will not.
The principle of non-refoulement—that you cannot send someone back where there is a well-founded fear of threat to life or limb—goes far further than the ECHR. As you mention, Kieran, the ECHR is written into the Belfast agreement, so I can see the immediate downsides. I am not entirely clear what the upsides would be. I think they would be more marginal than the advocates would suggest. The Government’s position is that we would not rule it out. Like anything, I want to have a proper cost-benefit analysis of it.
Q103 Chair: The manifesto that you and I were elected on, Lord Chancellor, in 2019 was to update the Human Rights Act. It was not to repeal it. You have gone well beyond the manifesto, have you not?
Dominic Raab: I do not think so, Bob. I have heard this argument as well. People are accusing us of two different things. I hear it all the time, “We are going to rip up human rights.” There is a threat to this, that and the other—all the cases that were won under the Human Rights Act notionally. On the other hand, there are people—I have a list of all the quotes and the critics here—who say it will not make much difference; they cannot both be right.
Chair: Yes, sure.
Dominic Raab: This is an incremental reform. We are staying within the convention; the convention is incorporated in the schedule. The big change is the procedural framework for interpretation. It will make some substantive differences in the ways that I have set out.
Equally, that is a very British and, if I dare say it, a very conservative approach to reform. It is material and, if you look at the approach to human rights over the years, it is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. What will make a real difference—and I have set out the areas from free speech to FNO deportations to separation centres—is where it will help us to protect the public.
Q104 Chair: Your initial predecessor, when he set up the independent review on human rights, Sir Robert Buckland, asked Sir Peter Gross, a very distinguished former Lord Justice of Appeal, to carry out a review. He did that over the better part of a year. You have side-lined some very detailed evidence supporting his recommendations. Why is your evidence base better than Sir Peter’s? Why not build on what he did?
Dominic Raab: We have built on what Sir Peter did. He had some interesting analysis on sections 2 and 3.
Chair: Yes.
Dominic Raab: He had some interesting analysis on extraterritorial jurisdiction. Having looked at it very carefully, I am very grateful not just to Sir Peter but for what the whole panel did. That is a good example of where we did look at the evidence.
Ultimately, you have to decide how extensive you want the reform to be. What I wanted to do is what I consider a common-sense approach. It is to look at strengthening the rights. I believe we should strengthen free speech: I am reluctant to call it wokery, but the combination of judge-made privacy law to the stifling of free speech—whether it is on academic campuses, Twitter, wherever it may be, through to other areas where we need to qualify and caveat rights. Most of the non-absolute rights in the convention are explicitly permitted; they allow for qualification in a way that protects the public and stops this constant shifting of the goalposts. We took a middle course in all of this.
It was the Madras on the curry menu—not the Korma, but not the Vindaloo.
In fairness, I looked at all the evidence. I looked at what Sir Peter said and did. I have looked at others who have said we have to pull out of the ECHR. Again, as I said in answer to the earlier question, I looked at the cost-benefit analysis of that. I am all up for looking at evidence.
This idea that the HRA has not impacted on public protection, if you do a thorough analysis, is impossible to square with the facts.
Q105 Chair: Will that thorough analysis be published?
Dominic Raab: We set some of this stuff out in the consultation. We set it out when we published the Bill. I have talked about the areas: Osman rulings. We have highlighted some of the police forces where, as a result of that straitjacket regulatory burden imposed by a court and not by the chief constable or a PCC’s view or, let alone, elected Parliament, it has perverse consequences.
Ultimately with Osman, it is a good example of where there needs to be accountability, but it is right, when it comes the allocation of public finances, when it comes to operational judges on the frontline, that accountability ought to be via the chief constable, the PCC, Parliament itself, elected Ministers. It is not right that we effectively have straitjacket regulation coming in through the back door via a court. That is not right. That has had an impact on the resource and the discretion that most people would expect their police forces to be able to exercise.
Q106 Chair: The impact assessment does say, as a likely consequence, we will lose more cases in the ECHR and it will be harder for people to enforce their rights directly. Is that a price worth paying?
Dominic Raab: That is not what will happen.
Q107 Chair: That is what the impact assessment says and it has been published.
Dominic Raab: That shows you how dispassionate we were about it.
The recourse to the courts will be there in the usual way. It is right to say that courts should make a declaration of incompatibility, challenge public bodies that exercise unlawfully. It is not right for them to change the law or expand human rights without elected MPs having accountability.
As for going to Strasbourg, we have one of the highest compliance rates.
Chair: Yes, absolutely.
Dominic Raab: Every now and then it is right for us to test and challenge parameters, particularly when they are fluid or where the case law has been going in different directions. The obvious example I give is prisoner voting. We had all these arguments around prisoner voting. I was human rights Minister in 2015. We did not give prisoners the vote. Parliament considered it; it was the right thing to do. We engaged in dialogue with Strasbourg. I went out to the Committee of Ministers. We put the argument to them. After an amount of to-ing and fro-ing, they accepted it. That is all legitimate to do; that is something within the framework of the Council of Europe.
Being able to go to Strasbourg on occasion—I am not talking about on a weekly basis—to test the parameters, where the balance is wrong and we have a good argument, both a good legal argument and a strong and overwhelming policy argument, is a legitimate thing for us to do.
Q108 Chair: You can do that within the current framework.
Dominic Raab: Yes, we do. As we gold-plate so much at home, via the HRA, we are much less able to do that when something vital is at stake.
Q109 Karl Turner: Talking of Sir Peter Gross and his analysis of the Bill and his discussion on section 3 of the Human Rights Act, he thought only a very minor amendment to section 3 was required. Why does the Bill repeal section 3 in its entirety? Section 3 is the provision where courts are required to read domestic legislation down in order to give primacy to convention rights.
Dominic Raab: The crux is with section 3, it is not actually repealed. The clauses and the provisions may be in a different place. It certainly overhauls it; it is not quite right to say it repeals it in its entirety. The reason is: it is wrong for a court to amend legislation. It is right for that to be sent back for Parliament to reconsider.
Q110 Karl Turner: Before I ask you about an example of where section 3 has been a problem—a recent case would help—clause 3(3)(a) states that courts cannot expand the protection of a right “unless the court has no reasonable doubt that the European Court of Human Rights would adopt that interpretation if the case were before it.” Can you explain?
Dominic Raab: Which clause? Is it the HRA or the Bill?
Q111 Karl Turner: It is the Bill. Can you explain why you chose to frame the provision in that way? That seems to be to repeal it.
Dominic Raab: Which one is it? Clause 3?
Karl Turner: Clause 3(3)(a) on my brief. Do you have the Bill?
Q112 Chair: The court cannot expand the protection of a right “unless the court has no reasonable doubt that the European Court of Human Rights would adopt that interpretation.”
Dominic Raab: I understand. What we are trying to avoid is precisely the rights inflation happening through incremental expansions of interpretations of rights. It is important. There is a difference between the application of a legal scope of a right to the facts and expanding the legal interpretation of the right itself. If we are going to change the law, it should be done by Parliament. The courts are there to apply the law. That is the crux of it.
Q113 Karl Turner: Is there a problem with the section? Can you give me a recent case where section 3 of the Human Rights Act has been particularly problematic—in a very short answer?
Dominic Raab: Section 3, particularly in tandem—
Q114 Karl Turner: You are talking about the fact that you are repealing section 3 in the Bill.
Dominic Raab: I understand the issue.
Q115 Karl Turner: Why is there a problem about section 3?
Dominic Raab: Section 3 is often operated with section 2.
Q116 Karl Turner: Yes, of course. It has an inter-relationship. Give me a case where there is a problem.
Dominic Raab: Off the top of my head, I cannot.
Q117 Karl Turner: Can you write to us about that?
Dominic Raab: It is in the consultation. We spent some length looking at this. It is already there. We published this as part of the original evidence base.
Q118 James Daly: Lord Chancellor, taking one step back we talked about Vera Baird and her views in respect of the Victims Bill. I asked you a question earlier regarding the approximately 70,000 allegations of rape this year; 2,200 approximately have gone to charge. Under the Victims Bill, as it is currently drafted and how you foresee it, would you consider the 68,000 people who have made a complaint to the police of rape to be victims of crime? Under the Victims Bill, would they be viewed as victims of crime?
Dominic Raab: Do you mean, will it apply retrospectively in that regard?
Q119 James Daly: The Victims Bill depends on what a victim is perceived to be.
Dominic Raab: Yes.
Q120 James Daly: I could pluck any figure, any hypothetical figure. I am trying to use one that we have here, 70,000.
Dominic Raab: Yes.
Q121 James Daly: If you have 70,000 people who make an allegation of rape and only 2,000 of them lead to a charge, I am assuming the Victims Bill will mean that the 68,000 will be considered to be victims of a crime.
Dominic Raab: Let me write back to you with the definition. You have made some recommendations on this.
Chair: Yes.
Dominic Raab: Let me write back to you with what we have settled on as the precise definitions.
Q122 James Daly: Prisons now, Lord Chancellor.
Dominic Raab: On to what, sorry?
James Daly: Prisons.
Dominic Raab: Yes.
Q123 James Daly: It goes back to something that was touched on earlier by myself and my colleagues. Why do you feel a greater ministerial oversight of moves to open conditions are appropriate? It changed in 2022. This relates to IPP prisoners, in particular, and seems to be another bar on IPP prisoners being referred to open conditions, which may be more suitable for people with mental health conditions.
Dominic Raab: That was a change I made based on risk and commanding public confidence. Of course we want people in open conditions. No one is a bigger advocate of that journey than me. One of the big successes we have had is increasing in one year the volume of offenders released within six months and a proportion of them going into work by two thirds. That will not happen if we cannot use open prisons and some of the cat-C estate as well. I want that to happen.
However, the problem and the risk is that, if people abscond, or if people move and there is a problem with it, that undermines public confidence. We must ensure we carry the public with us. I can write to you with the cases. There are a number of cases that raised concerns about this.
The threshold for me blocking it is high. Equally, I want to ensure we protect the public and that public confidence is with us. That is precisely because, where it is appropriate, I want more people going into open conditions because of the reoffending and work programmes we can get them on to.
Q124 James Daly: How many decisions on average each year will be affected by the change in policy?
Dominic Raab: I will write to you with the details. It is not a huge amount.
Q125 James Daly: Will the reduction in moves to open prisons for top tier prisoners lead to an increase in the cohort—this is an important question—being released directly into the community from the closed estate?
Dominic Raab: It will depend on whether they are a determinate or indeterminate sentence.
Q126 Chair: Thank you. One of the pressures in the closed estate is that some 700 cells are lost each year because of their physical condition. What are the plans to deal with the physical fabric of our older prisons? The lack of those cells is putting more pressure on an already overcrowded estate.
Dominic Raab: Yes, it is a good point. I have made this argument with our Treasury friends. It is a false economy, because if you lose those prison places—it is the same in the court estate—you end up paying more to deal with it. Prevention is better than cure. One needs to avoid penny-pinching the maintenance budget at times of financial pressure. We have the new settlement post the autumn statement. It is one thing I wish to protect because I see that false economy.
What is also worth saying is that the investment in fire safety gives us the opportunity to upgrade something like 30,000 cells to modern fire safety standards by 2025-26. Ensuring that is done will not just save us losing but will bring in extra cells.
It is a good deal. I have talked about the pressures of a limited budget. Investing in the maintenance, whether it is in the prison sector or the court estate, is a sensible move. It yields quite a quick operational dividend.
Chair: That is a priority.
Dominic Raab: Yes.
Q127 Chair: What about the retention of staff? There is a significant turnover of band 3 to band 5s. For example, evidence suggests that 19% of band 2 operational staff leave the service within 12 months. There is clearly a problem with recruitment and retention.
Dominic Raab: My view, having come into this as Justice Secretary a little over a year ago, is that the role our prison officers do is second to none in the public sector. They are out of sight, out of mind. Nobody is banging pots and pans together for them; they do not get that recognition. They deal with some of the most difficult things, whether it is from the prolific offenders who are constantly reoffending through to the very high-security estate.
What are we doing about it? We launched this retention toolkit in prisons that helps governors identify, particularly in their local context, the most appropriate interventions; that is important.
I am trying to give prison governors more autonomy, where I can, to cater for local needs. We are trying to streamline the efforts and the delays and bureaucratic hurdles to recruiting prison officers. We want to be careful with that because there is a serious issue around vetting and fitness checks.
Earlier this year, we announced the Prison Service pay award, which was the consequence of the pay review body. It has delivered a 4% award to all staff with an additional investment of a £3,000 increase in band 3 prison officers. That is starting to have a positive impact. All those things go together.
We need to find ways to recognise what a heroic job they do. During covid—again, out of sight, out of mind—they did an absolutely stellar job. My predecessor did an incredible job as well. I know he would immediately give credit to the Prison Service.
Q128 Chair: We all join you in that. Is it time to develop initiatives such as the toolkit and others into an overall prison workforce strategy, particularly as prison places, as planned, will grow and that is going to require more officers, particularly in the band 2 through 5s?
Dominic Raab: Calling it a strategy, calling it a toolkit.
Chair: Whatever, yes.
Dominic Raab: Yes. I will be interested in your views. If you guys look at that and think there is more we can do, I would be very open minded about it.
Q129 Chair: Perhaps we can return to that.
Unless there are any other questions from colleagues, we have had a lengthy session. I am very grateful to you, Lord Chancellor, for your time and for your evidence. I am sure it will not be the last time we discuss some of these topics.
Dominic Raab: Thank you. It is always a pleasure to engage, even on the difficult issues.
Chair: Thank you. The session is concluded.