26
Examination of witness
Jake Richards.
Q1 The Chair: Welcome to the 37th meeting of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Our committee is made up of 12 members, drawn equally from both Houses of Parliament and from a diverse range of political backgrounds and traditions. However, we all hold in common a passion for the upholding of human rights of UK citizens. We are joined by one additional member today, Mr Andy Slaughter, who is Member of Parliament for Hammersmith and Chiswick, and serves as the Chair of the House of Commons Justice Committee. Mr Slaughter is guesting with us today. You are very welcome indeed.
The JCHR holds thematic and legislative inquiries. It produces reports and recommendations topically. Given the theme of today’s public session, in 2023, we published a report advocating the enactment of the Hillsborough law on public accountability. We have also held a recent legislative inquiry into the police and crime Bill.
Our thematic inquiries have included an examination of transnational repression and modern-day slavery in supply chains, as well as of the role of British nationals in the genocide of Yazidis and other minorities, and the failure to prosecute any of those responsible for their involvement in atrocity crimes.
Our current inquiries include an examination of AI and human rights, and children within the social care system. Today, we have been looking in our private session at the Northern Ireland remedial order and, in due course, we will look at the Northern Ireland Bill. Our calls for written evidence have now closed, but much of the evidence and our reports can be read on our committee website.
Today is a one-off ministerial evidence session to examine the remit and priorities of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Sentencing, Youth Justice and International. The session will provide the committee with the opportunity to question Minister Jake Richards in his new role about government reforms to the justice system, their work on human rights, youth justice, and Ministry of Justice legislation, such as the Sentencing Bill and the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the so-called Hillsborough law. You are very welcome to the committee today.
Jake Richards is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and was appointed to the ministry, having been the Assistant Whip in the House of Commons. He was appointed to that role in September 2025, having been elected for Rother Valley originally, we were told, in 2024. Is that correct?
Jake Richards: That would be correct, yes.
The Chair: That is good. I want to make sure I got it right. He sat on the Home Affairs Select Committee in the Commons from October 2024 to October 2025. Prior to being a Member of Parliament, he practised at the Bar. He was a member of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee.
I would like to begin, if I may, with a curtain-raiser today. It is a general question. Then I will turn to colleagues. Minister, what are your main objectives since being appointed as a Minister? How easy is it to balance your priorities with human rights considerations?
Jake Richards: First of all, thank you so much for having me. It is a great privilege to be able to give evidence to your committee, which is one that I have observed from afar before getting this role.
Human rights are a huge priority for this Government. The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear, and did so again after the reshuffle to the new Lord Chancellor and to me as a junior Minister, that this Government’s commitment to our human rights obligations is not for compromise. We have restated that repeatedly.
However, there is also an agenda for reform, which has been well aired by the previous Lord Chancellor, as well as the Prime Minister himself. That is, it is fair to say, a work in progress, and I am hoping to play a part in that.
The motivation for that reform agenda is not compromise. It is to ensure that human rights are effective for the challenges that we face today, and serve our national interests that we face today. That is always at the forefront of my mind when I am dealing with human rights on an international scale.
I am sure that we will come to some of the issues we face in our domestic legislation. I know that my responsibility as the Minister, albeit in the Ministry of Justice, has, in my view, a particular constitutional significance as a representative of the Lord Chancellor in ensuring respect for the rule of law and the promotion of human rights across our domestic agenda. To the extent that I can do that from the Ministry of Justice, I always will.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That was a very helpful set of answers.
Q2 Sir Desmond Swayne: Minister, the Government have indicated that they want to reduce the scope with which Article 3, on degrading and inhuman treatment, is interpreted. Is that something that the Government can do unilaterally, within a margin of appreciation, or are you going to have to co-operate with allies at the European convention to secure that? If that second option is the case, what reconnaissance have you done with respect to who the enemy is and who our allies are, and how long will this take?
Jake Richards: As the Home Secretary made abundantly clear when she was at Dispatch Box for her policy statement just two weeks ago, the Government are looking at Article 3 and its operation in terms of our international obligations.
You asked me a question on whether we would or would not engage with our European partners on this. Frankly, many of our European partners are already working on and looking at this issue. It would seem natural and, in fact, right for us to engage with them on that, so we are doing so. I was in Strasbourg two weeks ago now and met with permanent representatives at the Council of Europe from an array of countries that all have similar concerns with some of the direction the jurisprudence from the courts has gone in. There is also a really important respect for the independence of the courts and of the judiciary. How you have that mature dialogue between democratically elected Governments, member states and the court is a really live issue and one that we are all discussing and carefully approaching, if I can put it like that.
The answer to your question is yes. We have this ambition to look at it again. We are working with our European partners to do that. You asked me about intel from what you would call diplomatic meetings. I am not going to be sharing that, but I expect that we will see progress in the coming weeks and months.
Sir Desmond Swayne: The mood music from the convention has been mixed. We had speeches earlier in the year saying that everything was dandy and that there was no need to change anything. You are going to be working with a number of allies. What sense of urgency do you have in securing this agreement and moving this forward, given that there is no silver bullet for the problem that we face with the small boats? You need all the different parts together to make an impact, and there is a public appetite to get this sorted.
Jake Richards: I do not quite see the link between this Article 3 issue and the discussion about the small boat crisis. I am very happy to talk about the small boat crisis, by the way, but it does not have much to do with Article 3 or the European Convention on Human Rights.
Sir Desmond Swayne: I think that it does.
Jake Richards: We can perhaps come back to that. You mentioned the mixed mood music from the ECHR; I presume that you mean the Council of Europe. What we have seen since May, and with the letter from the nine countries that touched upon this issue, is the UK in particular, but other European countries and the Council of Europe, taking a really mature and sensible approach to this issue.
That letter in May came not out of nowhere, but it was not part of the Council of Europe process. Since then, the Secretary-General has set out a four-point plan on this issue, one point of which relates to a political declaration, but there are three other aspects to it as well. We are playing our part as a member of the Council of Europe to shape and lead that, and that process is ongoing. There is a degree of urgency. Different countries have different perspectives on these things, and that is part of what multilateral diplomacy is about.
Sir Desmond Swayne: How long will it take, and how long do you have?
Jake Richards: How long we have is perhaps a question for others. How long will it take? Let us see over the next few weeks as to whether there is any announcement and progress coming from various conferences that I am sure you are aware of.
The Chair: Let us turn to Lord Murray, because I know he will ask a supplementary about this. He has been involved heavily in some of the discussions around the Danish initiative.
Q3 Lord Murray of Blidworth: The Home Secretary, when she announced her asylum policy statement, appeared to make a link between Article 3 and the small boats crisis. She said on 17 November, in her statement to the Chamber, “We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the convention: the application of Article 3”. She said, “We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of ‘degrading treatment’ has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous”, so there is a clear link.
The Attorney-General, when he was giving evidence to the Lords Constitution Committee, noted that there was an intention to work with partners across Europe, but he also noted, “To amend the convention itself requires unanimous agreement across 46 states”, and pointed out that, the last time there was an amendment to the convention—the protocol on subsidiarity, or the Brighton declaration—it took about nine years between declaration and implementation. Is that a realistic timeframe for the current set of reforms that you may be proposing?
Jake Richards: In the first part of your question, you quoted the Home Secretary’s statement. She is absolutely right, but that policy statement was not just about the small boat crisis. It was about our immigration and asylum system in general. What the Home Secretary was saying—and I and the Government agree with her—is that Article 3 is relevant when, in certain circumstances, the Government seek to deport individuals. There is no intrinsic link between the small boat crisis and the Article 3 agenda, and the Home Secretary did not say there was one. The quote that you cited certainly did not say that either.
Change to the protocol is not on the table at the moment. That is not what the discussion is about. As you will, no doubt, know, the Secretary-General has set out a four-point plan, the first point of which is looking at the options around a political declaration in this area. Let us see what progress we make.
In terms of the small boat crisis, dealing with the small boats and securing our borders is an absolute priority for this Government, and we are not for a minute saying that the public will have to wait nine years for us to sort that out.
The Chair: I want to ask about tribunals as well. Lord Murray has been involved in what was an all-party amendment that was tabled in the House of Lords about tribunals and transparency. Although it was not agreed in the House, we have seen some movement on that, have we not?
Lord Murray of Blidworth: Thank you, Chair. The position at the moment is that decisions of the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber are not published. As Lord Alton has observed, there was an amendment to the borders Bill seeking to require publication of those decisions, given the public interest in the decisions of the tribunal, and transparency being the important feature of justice that it is. While the amendment was defeated, it appears that the Lady Chief Justice, in her recent report on the court services, indicated that there will be publication of decisions of the First-tier Tribunal. Do you have any idea of how long that process will take?
Jake Richards: I do not. I can find out. There is an issue here about the data and what we know about what is going on in the immigration tribunal system. I accept that that is a problem. When I was on the Back Benches, I sought information as to what we know about the issues as to why we have this massive backlog. We can talk about some decisions that the previous Government made, but this is probably not the right forum to air those arguments. Where there is an issue as to data collection and whether we can do a better job of making sure that we have a good sense of what is happening, why decisions are being made, and why some appeals are allowed and some not, I would be very sympathetic to that, as long as it is proportionate.
The Chair: That is very helpful. If you could write to the committee subsequently, we would all be very pleased about that.
Jake Richards: Yes, absolutely.
Q4 Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon: Minister, this is following on from what Lord Murray was asking you. Is there a disconnect between the public perception of the judicial process for asylum and immigration cases, and how it works in reality? If so, how could this be addressed?
Jake Richards: It is a big question. In the whole debate about our immigration system and illegal immigration, and in the context of human rights, it is right and fair to say that the public representation of what is happening in our legal system and in that sphere is sometimes not accurate and not right. The Lord Chancellor, I as his junior Minister, all of us in government and, indeed, Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords, have a responsibility to try to call that out as and when we can.
However, it would be wrong to suggest that that is at the crux of this political issue. Again, the Home Secretary has made very clear—this is a big part of her argument that she made both at the Dispatch Box and in the media, which you will, no doubt, have seen—that it is absolutely right that the public do not think that our immigration system is fit for purpose or that we have secure borders. Part of that is about ensuring that our justice system works expeditiously and fairly, because that is a key part of how we secure our borders and have a fair and controlled immigration system.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon: Given what you said just now, how does the public believe what you are saying? Their perception would be something completely different, so how would you engage to make sure that the public understand what you or Ministers are saying?
Jake Richards: There is a communications challenge, and all of us in government have a responsibility, as I said, to really carefully consider how we talk about these issues. Ultimately, though, for government, the best way of reassuring the public that the system is fair, just, firm and expeditious is by making the system all those things. We can have the best communications. We can complain about this paper or this part of the media. We can hope for a more benign social media context. Ultimately, we just have to deliver a fairer and better system, and that is what this Government are going to do.
Q5 Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Minister, we cannot be sanguine about the idea that the public are receiving accurate information as to what happens within the immigration courts. Careful consideration is given, and those who sit in those courts are fine lawyers. One of the terrible things that I wanted to ask you about is whether you are aware that threats are now being received by judges sitting as immigration judges. We have recently had the situation of some people being fearful for their families and their children, and fearful about remaining at their main address, because their name was published as an immigration judge and they have been receiving serious threats to their safety.
Jake Richards: I am certainly not sanguine about it, and I hope that that is not the impression that I gave in my previous answer. It is an issue. Where there is disinformation and when there are plain lies being told about what is happening in any part of our justice system, it is a responsibility for all of us and, I hope, a large swathe of the responsible media to call that out.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Unfortunately, the media is largely responsible for some of this.
Jake Richards: I understand the point that you are making, but there are also very good journalists out there who are trying to do that. We all have a responsibility to do that, and the Lord Chancellor has an oath about standing up for the independence of the judiciary. It is one that this Lord Chancellor, anyway, takes very seriously indeed.
I agree with the thrust of your question. I speak to the shadow Justice Secretary outside of the Chamber. I have known him professionally for a long time. Some of what he has done on this issue is disgraceful, frankly, and I would call that out both at the Dispatch Box and privately. I am very aware of the threats that the judiciary have received, and I know that the Lord Chancellor takes that incredibly seriously, as do I and as we all should.
Q6 Andy Slaughter: Good afternoon, Minister. As I understand it, you intend to replace the First-tier Tribunal for asylum and immigration cases with a system of adjudicator appeals, which has come as a bit of a surprise, not least to the judiciary. When are we going to get more details on that, and how can we be sure that your adjudicators, whoever they are and wherever they come from, will be independent in the same way that the First-tier Tribunal is?
Jake Richards: First, this is a Home Office-led initiative, so you will forgive me if I do not—
Andy Slaughter: The tribunal is an MoJ matter.
Jake Richards: The reform of the immigration system, including this tribunal issue, is going to be led by the Home Secretary and her Immigration Minister, Alex Norris. Of course, whatever reforms are done to try to make the system more effective—and this is part of our ECHR and human rights obligations—have to be fair, ensure that there is independence, and have all the elements of the right to a fair trial. My job as part of the justice team, but the job, I hope, of any Minister, will be to scrutinise that, as a member of the collective, but we will be having discussions with Home Office colleagues as and when those plans come to fruition. I do not know when they will.
The Chair: One thing that this committee has always prided itself on is that it has worked closely with the Ministry of Justice, as well as sometimes having an oversight of other departments. In the past, there certainly has been help in answering the kind of question that Mr Slaughter has just put. If it is possible to share with the committee subsequently any information on the timing and the detail, we would be greatly appreciative. We realise that it does not fall under your personal responsibility, but there is a connection with some of the work that you do.
Jake Richards: Just on that, you have asked me about my reflections in the first three months in this job. One of them is the huge amount of crossover with the Home Office. I spend a lot of time meeting, talking, WhatsApping and speaking with Home Office ministers on lots of issues and, no doubt, that will be one of them.
The Chair: We were very pleased to have before this committee the then Lord Chancellor, who is now the Home Secretary.
Jake Richards: Yes, that helps.
The Chair: It does, and I must say that we were very pleased with the honesty, the candour, and the way in which she dealt with the committee, so anything that you can do to bolster that would be appreciated.
Q7 Lord Dholakia: Minister, particular attention is being given at the moment to matters relating to immigration and the ECHR. Your department is responsible for how other government departments are functioning in this particular area of work. What is your contribution in terms of other departments’ responsibility in undertaking this particular work? Is there any evidence that there are issues that we should know about and are not aware of in this committee?
Jake Richards: Do you mean just in the immigration space, or human rights in general?
Lord Dholakia: I mean general issues.
Jake Richards: There are a number of issues that you will, no doubt, be aware of. Indeed, I read your report on the SW case. How it works—I hasten to add that I have been in the job for only three months—is that I see a lot of what is going on in other departments. I see my role as ensuring that, across government, legislation and provisions that we are undertaking are compliant with human rights law, and doing that in a coherent and consistent manner. There is always more that can be done on that, and I will continue to monitor closely what is happening.
Lord Dholakia: Are you satisfied that other government departments are performing their particular task in relation to ECHR work? What are your observations on that?
Jake Richards: Yes. In my mind, we should be very proud of this Government. Indeed, although I did not agree by any means with everything that the last Government did in this space, we, as a country, have a really proud record on this. As I said, I was in Strasbourg 10 days ago and met with various parts of the court and the executions of judgments team. We should be very proud of our record in this area. There is always room for improvement, and there are, of course, problems in the system. This is why this committee is so important in holding us to account, but, generally, we should be very proud of how we, as a country, treat human rights.
Q8 Lord Murray of Blidworth: You are the Minister with supervisory governance of human rights issues, as has been ably outlined by Lord Dholakia. Given the Home Secretary’s suggestion that tribunal judges apply human rights in a way that goes further than the convention requires, what effect will legislative changes to the public interest test under Article 8 have on removals? To what extent are you involved in the plans to reshape Article 8?
Jake Richards: I have a supervisory function. I am not quite sure that that is the right way to describe it, but I accept the point and I accept that responsibility. In terms of the Article 8 plans, there are statistics somewhere in this folder that I can get out if necessary. The Home Secretary is trying to solve this mischief of what the Government deem to be mass appeals under Article 8, many of which clog up the system unnecessarily.
We deal with all these claims. All litigation has to be dealt with proportionately. What we and the Home Secretary are trying to do is to look at and reform how Article 8 is implemented in domestic law. The mischief that we have identified as a Government is not at the Strasbourg level, but in domestic law.
Speaking to people from across the political spectrum, by the way, across Europe and, indeed here, there is a general acceptance that, on Article 8, it is our domestic law that needs reform. I must admit that I am completely bamboozled as to why the Government did not go further on that. They did legislate at times, even under the Cameron Government and later, to try to sort this out, but did not, and this Home Secretary is determined to do so. That is what that tries to go to, and I hope that that answers your question.
Lord Murray of Blidworth: I agree with much of what you have said, but what I am asking you is, in reality, what steps can be taken effectively in relation to Article 8 that will not put us in breach of the convention, should somebody go to the Strasbourg court.
Jake Richards: They are massive, because where the Strasbourg jurisprudence is on Article 8 is over here, our domestic law is over here, and we want to get to about here. It is a domestic problem. When I spoke to the judges in Strasbourg on Article 8, they said, “You need to sort this one out”.
I am maybe not quite as learned as some around this table, but I have read quite a lot of legal analysis, and none of it has persuaded me that the issues around Article 8 and immigration, the backlog, what some would deem to be unfair appeals that are allowed, or appeals that are allowed that do not strike us as common sense, are issues of the ECHR. It is more an issue of our domestic law.
Lord Murray of Blidworth: Can you write to us with those figures about the numbers of appeals on Article 8 grounds?
Jake Richards: Yes. I am sure that I can find them, but I will write to you. They are all set out in public as well. They are in the Home Secretary’s statement, but I am happy to put that into a document, if helpful.
The Chair: It would be very helpful indeed. We have been looking at the ECHR, as you can imagine, and having discussions. We are thinking of doing more work around this issue, because we can see that it is important, so thank you for that.
Can I move on, then, to the Sentencing Bill on the day on which the House of Lords will complete the Committee stages of the Bill? Mr Slaughter is going to open for us on this.
Q9 Andy Slaughter: The Sentencing Bill broadly implements the independent sentencing review, which sets out a number of ways in which the prison population can be reduced by, in aggregate, about 10,000 places. The rise in prisoner numbers means that, even after the big prison-building programme and even after the Sentencing Bill, prisons will still be full for the foreseeable future. How, then, is rehabilitation in prison likely to take place, given that full and overcrowded prisons are a major barrier to it happening at the moment?
Jake Richards: Part of the Sentencing Bill aims to learn from the Texas earned progression model, which has a strong record on tackling reoffending. In Texas, they have closed 16 prisons and had a 30% drop in crime over quite a long period. That earned progression model is part of the answer, but I will also be very blunt and say that the Sentencing Bill has to be the beginning of a prison reform process. Provision of education and work is not good enough. You know that as well as I do in your work on the Justice Select Committee, and there is a big job to be done to try to improve that, with very difficult fiscal constraints.
Andy Slaughter: You mentioned the earned progression model, and that is baked in as one of the measures that are going to reduce prisoner numbers. My understanding of what earned progression means is that prisoners will undertake various rehabilitative methods, which might be training and education, as well as good behaviour, which gets them out earlier but has also been part of their rehabilitation. Are the numbers that you assume not based on the fact that everybody, unless they do something bad while they are in prison, gets out at about the one‑third mark? Unless you do that—i.e. they do not earn their progression; they get out early anyway—you will not hit your target on numbers.
Jake Richards: Modelling this stuff is difficult. There is a large degree of uncertainty as to different aspects of the Sentencing Bill, whether that is the presumption of short-term sentences, how the judiciary is going to interpret that, recall provisions, or the earned progression model. There is a degree of uncertainty in that. Off the top of my head, I do not know exactly how the public modelling has been done on it.
Essentially, the gist of your question, if I may, was to ask what more we are doing around rehabilitation to tackle reoffending, because this Sentencing Bill does not solve the problem. I accept the premise. The Sentencing Bill deals with the immediate and urgent capacity crisis in our prisons. It also does some stuff that, frankly, we should be doing anyway. Short-term sentences are not working for anyone.
I also accept the third part of this, which is that there is a lot more to do. We cannot pass the Sentencing Bill, which I hope we will do in the new year when it receives Royal Assent, and then just look away from our prisons. I can assure you that Lord Timpson will not let that happen, the Lord Chancellor will definitely not let that happen, and nor will I.
Andy Slaughter: You want to see more rehabilitation in the community and an increase in the use of community sentences. There is one specific provision under Clause 35, which is the power to publish the names and photographs of offenders serving community sentences with unpaid work requirements. How does that assist rehabilitation?
Jake Richards: Different provisions have different purposes. The reason for that provision is that there is a general sense, and one that I support, that it is incredibly important that, for people to have faith in the criminal justice system, they are seeing justice being done. Again, the principle of that provision is one that I support and I am happy to defend.
The details of that one need to be thought through very carefully. I have had discussions with probation unions, as I know the Lord Chancellor and Lord Timpson have. It is really important that we are not forcing either the Probation Service or, indeed, prison officers to do things that they do not want to do or that they feel would make them unsafe. There is a bit of work to be done on consulting about how this operates. The principle of work for offenders is really important, and then showing the public that justice is being done is one that I support as well.
The Chair: There are many people on this committee who have become great admirers of Lord Timpson because of the approach that he has been adopting and the work that he has been doing. We have been in correspondence with him, and in talks, about the length of time that people are being held in custody and, as you say, the massive overcrowding that we have in our prisons. There is no disagreement between any of us about this, and we wish you well in that task. IPP, though, is a different matter, and I will bring in, if I may, Mr Afzal Khan.
Q10 Afzal Khan: Minister, thousands of prisoners remain locked up, subject to indefinite IPP sentences, which Lord Brown described as a “stain on our criminal justice system”. Why have you rejected proposed amendments to the Bill to introduce a resentencing exercise?
Jake Richards: On IPP, I will answer the question, but Lord Timpson is very much leading that work that we are doing. He implemented the IPP action plan, which has seen a dramatic reduction in the number of prisoners who continue to serve IPP sentences.
Ultimately, the crux of this comes down to your appetite for risk. The Government have looked very carefully at the measures that have been brought forward, through the parliamentary process, whether that is through an amendment or through campaigners, and we take this issue very seriously. Ultimately, public safety has to be our number one priority as a department. Where there is any risk to public safety, we cannot countenance some of the reforms that have been proposed in this area, however sympathetic we are to the wider issue.
Some progress has been made. We will continue to look at it. I know that the Lord Chancellor will continue to consider all the options on this issue. It is one that he has shown a close interest in before taking on this role, but, ultimately, public safety is our priority. At the moment, the Government feel that they cannot go further in terms of legislation without that compromise, but we will always keep this under review. It is a very serious issue, and one that, especially in the House of Lords, has very weighty figures contributing to the debate, no doubt today, somewhere else in this building.
Q11 The Chair: Before we turn, as we will in a while, to youth justice, I have a question for you about the public accountability Bill—the so-called Hillsborough law. Given the 2023 recommendations of this committee for a Hillsborough law, and on the day after the Independent Office for Police Conduct produced after five years yet another inquiry and found that something like 12 police officers would have faced gross misconduct proceedings under today’s laws over the Hillsborough disaster, which occurred 36 years ago, can you tell us, if the Public Office (Accountability) Bill is passed in its current form, which elements you foresee as the biggest challenge for the Ministry of Justice to implement?
Can you clarify for us whether the Government are doing anything alongside the Bill to develop a national oversight mechanism to capture lessons learned from all of the many public investigations? Should the Public Office (Accountability) Bill be amended to strengthen the powers and resources granted to the independent public advocate, whom I met last week, to support victims of major incidents? That is not in the Bill at the moment, but I know that there is widespread support in both Houses to do something about it. That is something that you are giving attention to.
I should say, in parentheses, that, 36 years ago, as a Liverpool Member of Parliament, I was heavily involved in visiting families and taking up issues that arose out of the tragedy. We had a debate here that I initiated in the Lords just a few days ago, looking back at what had happened, but looking forward to what, one would hope, this Bill will do. In my remarks, I very strongly welcomed what the Prime Minister said about the stain on our national character that this has left as a consequence of the lies and deceit that had, unfortunately, come to the fore during those inquiries.
Jake Richards: We were talking about the Sentencing Bill and my colleague Lord Timpson being in Committee. Another colleague of mine, Minister Alex Davies-Jones, is also currently in Committee on what we will call the Hillsborough Bill. It is important to pay tribute to your work on this and to others around the table, but we should not lose sight of how significant this is. The measures in this Bill are groundbreaking. Many, including me, probably thought that this would never happen, so we should be very proud of where we have got to on it.
In terms of the oversight mechanism that you have described, that piece of work sits with the Cabinet Office. All I can say—and I will say it carefully, having been a barrister involved in many inquiries and inquests, and then as a Back‑Bencher watching how these things happen and then sometimes drift away—is that there is real force in the argument, but that is with other colleagues, and I make those arguments internally.
The Chair: On the independent public advocate, though, which I asked you about, Lord Wills instigated the Private Member’s Bill that led to the creation of the advocate’s role, supported in the House of Commons by Maria Eagle, who also introduced a Private Member’s Bill. The public accountability Bill says nothing about that role, and yet the advocate herself says that this is something where she believes needs more resources and more empowerment. Is that something that you are able to at least look at while the Bill proceeds?
Jake Richards: Let me look into that. I must admit that that is something that I have not put my mind to. I can speak with the Minister and certainly write to you and the committee about that.
The Chair: I am really grateful. Thank you.
Q12 Andy Slaughter: I absolutely agree that the Bill is groundbreaking. The areas that it covers go very much to the heart of the matter on representation and on duty of candour.
Of the two elements that the Chair mentioned, the IPA, which I will not press you on, as you said that you will come back to us on it, does not appear to be integrated into the Bill. The lack of a national oversight mechanism is becoming increasingly the Achilles heel in this process, because it affects inquests. It affects prevention of future deaths reports—i.e. when they are ordered, how they are catalogued, whether they are implemented, and whether the recommendations of public inquiries are properly carried out. We have about 25 going on at the moment.
We need a public body. None of us wants to create more public bodies, but there has to be some professional oversight of this. Whether or not that needs legislation, if you cannot tell us today, can you or your ministerial colleagues at least come back to us and explain what is going to happen on this issue?
Jake Richards: Yes, I can answer that directly. I probably went over the line in my previous answer. I am very sympathetic to the argument that you and Lord Alton have made implicitly, and I will be making the arguments internally about trying to solve this problem. It is all well and good finding out problems in our country, but, if you do not do anything about them, it is not worth the paper that it is written on.
I sat on the Home Affairs Select Committee prior to this role, and we looked into the independent inquiry on child abuse that Professor Alexis Jay had done, which reported in November 2022 and set out 22 recommendations. She gave evidence to that committee and set out, in very minute detail, what had happened since November 2022. Nothing had happened.
She had been in touch with the chief of staff to one of the Prime Ministers who came thereafter, the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary’s spads. She received one call from government representatives during that period, which was from a special adviser, and it was to tell her off for a letter that she had written about the lack of progress on the recommendations. As we know, none of those recommendations was implemented by the last Government. Progress is being made by this Government, albeit somewhat slowly, but it is being taken.
I am very sympathetic to the argument, I understand the issue, and I know that Alex Davies-Jones, the Minister responsible for the Hillsborough Bill, certainly understands it and is making that case.
Andy Slaughter: If you talk to the survivors or families of Hillsborough, Grenfell or many other tragedies of that kind, they will say that the national oversight mechanism is what is missing. A lot of the work has been done by groups such as INQUEST, and the ball is really in the Government’s court there.
The Chair: Thank you very much. As you can imagine, it is an issue that is very close to the heart for a number of us around this table, so I wish the Bill progress and hope that it is enacted. I hope that we will not lose sight of the date of implementation of the Bill either. Too many pieces of legislation that we pass in this place sit on the statute book but never get implemented, so I hope that some attention might be given to that as well. Let us move on. It is a pleasure now to call on Alex Sobel MP.
Q13 Alex Sobel: The minimum age of criminal responsibility across the UK, although it does differ slightly, is low compared to other European countries. In England, it is 10. There has been criticism by human rights organisations, and a growing body of scientific evidence, that argues for raising the threshold. Is this an issue that you would like to explore as the Youth Justice Minister?
Jake Richards: At the moment, it is not on the agenda, but what I can say is that we are looking to do some big things on youth justice and, I hope, delivering a big reform agenda in the youth justice area. We hope to say a lot more about this in the new year, but, as part of that process, we will, no doubt, be lobbied. To put it in a better way, that debate will, no doubt, be aired as part of a refocus within government on youth justice, and we will, of course, listen to those arguments.
Alex Sobel: There are too many children being remanded into custody. In March 2024, which is the latest figure that I have, it was 430 children. We need to have alternatives to remanding children in custody, so what alternatives is the department developing to custodial remand?
Jake Richards: It is a big part of what I am doing. At the moment, 40% of our youth custody population is remand; 60% of that 40% do not receive a custodial sentence. It is absolutely disgraceful. There are lots of factors in that, and a lot of those are outside the Ministry of Justice’s direct control. These are police decisions. They are CPS decisions. They are local authority decisions. It is a lack of bail packages that are properly put together. There is often too much of a rush from charge to first appointment. Usually, you want that to happen quickly, but, in these contexts, you need a bit of time, so that the local authority can come up with bail packages that satisfy the court.
Internally within the MoJ, I have set up what is called a remand task force, and we are meeting regularly to look at all these factors and what we can do to drive those numbers down significantly. I have set myself a target of driving those down significantly in the next calendar year. It does not need to wait for years and years. We can do this quickly. It needs better decision-making. I have also asked to look at the current population, because, thankfully, in youth justice, there are only 480-ish children in custody. I speak to governors and to officials all the time, and we know that some of them do not need to be there, so let us have a look at what we have at the moment and see whether we can do something about that now.
There is also a capacity issue. We are going to say a lot more about that in the new year. We are working very closely with DfE colleagues, in particular Josh MacAlister, to look at how we can bolster remand fostering placements and, with the pilots that we have seen in London, Birmingham and elsewhere, how we can help improve that.
You have highlighted a really important issue and one that I am determined to fix. One of the reasons why it is so important is that, in our youth custody service, the rates of violence are completely unacceptable. There are lots of reasons for that, but part of the reason is that the churn in the population causes all kinds of problems, and it is very difficult for staff and governors to get to grips on the violence. If we can drive down the remand population, it is a win-win.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We sense that there is real passion on your part in wanting to drive this forward. If the task force comes up with things that it would be helpful for both the Justice Committee and our committee to act on, with some of those other agencies, we could certainly do so. We can write letters to other agencies and say how much we support what the MoJ is trying to do, and seek responses from them, so consider partnership with us on that.
Q14 Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Minister, I wanted to ask you about the use of the chemical PAVA and whether you think it is appropriate to be used in young offender institutions, given the pressing human rights concerns that there are about its use generally in the prison system, but particularly in relation to children. I know that the decision is subject to judicial review just now, but there is, of course, the ministerial exemption, so you are able to speak about it.
Jake Richards: You are right. That case is being litigated next week. I accept what you say.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: You have an exemption.
Jake Richards: I know. “Use your exemption carefully” is the advice.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Members of the public who are watching might not know what PAVA is, but it is an illicit spray. You or I could not have it, but the police can, in certain circumstances, use it for crowd control, and it can be used inside prisons. It has the effect of blinding people, not permanently, but for a period, and it can sting the skin and so forth. It can cause coughing fits and, for anyone who is asthmatic, could certainly have consequences. There are real concerns about its use in young offender institutions particularly.
Jake Richards: There is a very rigorous process in relation to PAVA. I get weekly updates on all incidents across the youth estate. Where PAVA is deployed, I get an update; when PAVA is deployed and used, I get an update. Thankfully, since its introduction into the estate—before my time, I hasten to add—it has not been used frequently at all. When it is, there is a very robust and rigorous scrutiny process. Again, it was designed before my time, but I am satisfied that it is rigorous. I can assure the committee that the Lord Chancellor has reviewed that process on individual cases, including him and me watching footage, so we take it very seriously. We keep it under review, because we have to, as we should.
I would make the wider point that one of the big problems in the YOIs—and there are lots of problems—is violence. At the heart of the issues of violence, and other issues, are the relationships between children and staff. We have to have staff who feel empowered and safe in the workplace for them to build those relationships. Having spoken to a lot of staff and governors, having PAVA has helped them in that endeavour, but we keep it under review, because there is the alternative argument that the deployment and use of it can affect those relationships.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I would have thought so.
Jake Richards: Yes, of course, but it is a very serious point, because we have a real issue about churn of staff in the youth custody service, about people leaving the service, and about people going off sick with stress. Violence is not just towards other children. It is towards staff. Every week, the main list of people who get hurt in the estate is members of staff, and I take that incredibly seriously. Inevitably, there is always a balance. You have to have a proper, rigorous process of keeping it under review, every incident, and that is what I will do.
The Chair: We are currently, as you know, holding a thematic inquiry into children in social care. The reason that we are doing that was at the instigation of my colleague Baroness Lawrence, who has a question to put to the Minister about this.
Q15 Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon: Going back probably a couple of years, we heard that about 400 children in care have gone missing. So far, they have come across only 200, and this is in the asylum thing. The Government have recently announced that they will review the national protocol guidance to stop the criminalisation of children in care. What consultation will take place, and how will the Government ensure that the experiences of children in care and care leavers are accurately reflected?
Jake Richards: I must admit that I do not know about the specifics of the consultation. Again, I can go away and find out, but it is something that I really care about. I was talking about statistics earlier. About 45% of children in the youth custody estate have care experience, so it is a massive overproportion. I spent some time in Highbury youth court with the Lord Chancellor, and was struck by how many of the cases on the youth court list were cases of children in care who were being prosecuted for acts of violence against social services. We have to look at whether we are appropriately prosecuting and criminalising children in that setting, and whether there is more that we can do.
I went on a bit of a tangent there, but, fundamentally, children in care is part of my role as the Youth Justice Minister. I am working very closely with Josh MacAlister, who has taken it over, from the Department for Education. I can also say that the Lord Chancellor raises the issue of children in care at every single meeting. It is something that he has personal experience of in his family and takes very seriously.
When there are specifics as to a consultation, which I must admit I did not know about, if you or anyone else feels that care leavers or children in care at the moment are not being heard as part of that process, let us know, because that is not what we want to do at all. Before doing this, I was a barrister, practising mainly in child protection work. I spent a lot of time in the care system and, from the Back Benches, did a lot of work with charities in the care system, such as Become. I take it very seriously. If we are not doing a good enough job on it, let me know.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon: Could you find out from your colleagues what is happening around the consultation?
Jake Richards: Yes, absolutely.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon: The Children’s Commissioner has said that the current protocol developed in 2018 lacks statutory power and is inconsistently applied. How will the new protocol address these concerns?
Jake Richards: The protocol about what, sorry?
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon: This is from the Children’s Commissioner. It is on the national protocol.
The Chair: The national protocol guidelines.
Jake Richards: I see. As I say, Josh MacAlister and the Department for Education are leading on that work. If the committee’s or your view, Baroness Lawrence, is that that work is not representing people who have experienced the care system, I am very happy to make those representations within government on your behalf.
The Chair: Thank you. It might be worth while asking your officials to be in touch directly with Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner, about this. She certainly drew it to the committee’s attention.
Jake Richards: I have met with the Children’s Commissioner, and our meeting focused almost entirely on youth justice. We did not get to this. There were only so many things that we could talk about, but I am seeing her again, no doubt, soon, and I will put this on the agenda for that meeting as well.
The Chair: That is very helpful. Turning, if we may, to international justice, Baroness Kennedy and I have an all-party amendment arising out of this committee’s unanimous support for universal jurisdiction. We called for it not just once, in our report on Daesh, but again in our legislative inquiry into the police and crime Bill. That amendment is down to the current police and crime Bill, which is before the Lords at the present time, and I imagine that we will get to that amendment early in the new year. Lady Kennedy has done a huge amount of work on this. Let me turn to her now to ask you a question.
Q16 Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Here you are, Minister, as somebody who has practised at the Bar, so you are only too aware of some of the limitations in terms of our own law. One of the things that Lord Alton and I experienced early on in dealing with this issue of returned Daesh fighters who are British—let us start with the British in the first instance—is that, having returned to this country after the end of the Syrian and northern Iraqi debacle, they were prosecuted. There are a number of people in prison who are serving sentences for having been involved in terrorist organisations abroad, et cetera.
There were quite limited charges. If you look at the review of those who are in custody for this—we know this from the police unit that deals with international crimes—none of them was interrogated as to their domestic circumstances. “Did you ever take a second wife? Did you ever have somebody living in your household who was a Yazidi? Did you ever meet Yazidi people while you were there?”
As you will know, what happened to the Yazidi people was genocidal. The enslavement and multiple raping of them over a period of time was one of the things that shocked the world. Other jurisdictions have managed to prosecute people who were returnees, but also people who had taken sanctuary in the country and who, it turned out, were involved in those atrocities. Germany has been very successful in prosecuting people for genocide.
What I am asking you is this. First of all, are the Government aware of the fact that there are people in our prisons who have never been examined as to whether they were involved in genocidal behaviour and conduct? It is not too late for them to be interrogated and questioned about what they were doing while they were in this arena.
Secondly, we have made a recommendation that we look at universal jurisdiction. It may not have crossed your path yet, but universal jurisdiction in this country applies only to British citizens and residents for crimes where universal jurisdiction applies. That has been re-examined by other countries. For example, the United States had the same narrow universal jurisdiction application. It has now widened it to be anybody who happens to be going through the United States.
We have learned that there are people who come through Heathrow Airport, who come to Britain to educate their children, who come to our universities or our public schools, or who come to shop at Harrods, who have been involved in criminal behaviour that would be covered by universal jurisdiction, if it were more widely drafted. We are seeking to encourage government to consider looking at universal jurisdiction and to draft it more widely in the way that we have recommended. What would your view of that be?
Jake Richards: On the first part of your question—I have views on the second part as well, but this is probably more in my area—I am very sympathetic to the premise that, if there are people currently in our prison system who are guilty of horrific offences and justice has not been done, we should do everything we can to further that endeavour and to make sure that justice is done.
You will know as well as I do that the justice system is incredibly stretched. Our prison system has been on the brink of collapse. Coming into this role, I have been somewhat surprised about how little we know about who is in and what for. I am very sympathetic to the notion that we should do whatever we can to ensure that justice is done for these often horrific offences, if those people are within our prisons and within our jurisdiction.
On the second point, I believe the legislation is Home Office-led. Your amendment is being laid down.
The Chair: It is. You are right. It is the Home Secretary. On the other hand, clearly, the view of your department will have been sought about this amendment, which, as I say, enjoys all-party support. It has been tabled by Lady Kennedy and me, but Lord Anderson of Ipswich KC, who was the Government’s former adviser on terror, has signed it, as has Baroness Hodgson, the Conservative member. It had unanimous support in two reports from this committee. It would be really helpful if you could convey that back to the Lord Chancellor and ask whether he would be willing to meet some members of this committee to discuss the amendment before it is considered on the Floor of the House.
Jake Richards: I am very happy to do that and to look into it further, yes.
The Chair: It is worth just reiterating what Lady Kennedy has said. At the moment, if a British citizen commits international crimes—that is genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes—in another jurisdiction, we can prosecute them. We can prosecute if those occur in our jurisdiction. That is very unlikely, but there could be prosecution.
What we cannot do is to prosecute someone who has been alleged to have been involved in gross crimes. You could think about what is happening in Darfur today, for instance, what has been happening in Ukraine or what has been happening in many other parts of the world. If they come, as Lady Kennedy has said, on a shopping expedition to London, if they come to see a son or a daughter graduate at one of our universities or whatever it may be, there is nothing whatsoever we can do about it under the current law. We think this is a gap that can be filled.
By the way, we are not saying that every person who comes should therefore be prosecuted. It is giving a power to the Attorney-General to take that decision. I have already seen people misrepresenting what the amendment would do. I hope you will give it some—
Jake Richards: I will certainly put it on the Lord Chancellor’s radar as and when I can. I will also speak to the Attorney-General about it. He will no doubt have views. Yes, I will do that.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: You will be put under pressure on the basis that people are going to say, “This is going to lead to Israeli Ministers being arrested as soon as they arrive in the country”. The reality is that these decisions would be taken at a high level by our Attorney-General. You will also get people who are involved in all kinds of things, as we mentioned, such as in Ukraine, where serious crimes have been committed. Some of them have involved the taking of children and so forth.
This is not going to be a rash of prosecutions belabouring our justice system, but there might be the occasion where someone of significant profile should be brought to justice even in this country under universal jurisdiction.
Jake Richards: I will just add two reflections very briefly. First, there is always that balance to be struck between ensuring that justice is done and ensuring that justice is not politicised. I am not suggesting that your amendment does this; I do not know the details of it. You have to be wary of litigation being used as a diplomatic tool or weapon. That is something to be aware of.
Secondly, we should be strengthening our international co-operation on this to ensure that there is a more robust international framework for criminal litigation, through the ICC and others. We need to protect those institutions, if I can put it like that, and bolster them where appropriate because at the moment they are vulnerable to a very dangerous world.
The Chair: Having given you a lot of easy questions to answer so far, Minister, we are going to end with a less easy question.
Jake Richards: Have they been easy?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Those were easy. You do not know difficult yet.
The Chair: We are going to end with Sir Desmond Swayne.
Q17 Sir Desmond Swayne: I assure you this is the easiest question. The Government have inherited a terrible situation with respect to the backlog in the Crown Court, so much so that they have introduced this proposed restriction on jury trials in order to deal with the intolerable situation of justice being considerably delayed at present. Given that, once the backlog has been eradicated—I accept that will take years—surely there must be a sunset clause to return to the status quo ante. Is that your intention?
Jake Richards: This is the same argument about the Sentencing Bill and prison capacity, and it has some coherence. I would say two things. First, it will take, as you have identified, a long time for the legislation to deal with the current crisis. It is beyond this Parliament. Therefore, of course, Governments of whatever colour will keep the legislation under review.
Secondly, as and when this legislation comes before the House, the argument that I will make—not being the Minister responsible for the Bill, but if I am ever asked my view—is not just that this is solving a crisis that we have inherited in terms of the backlog in the Crown Court. It is also about modernising a justice system to be more expeditious.
In my experience from the Bar and since, there are examples, as the Justice Secretary identified this week in the Commons and in the media, where it is quite clear that defendants are using the jury trial as a sort of delay mechanism. There are some offences that can be dealt with much more expeditiously and fairly and it is proportionate to do so through the manner that has been envisaged. This is not just to deal with the crisis; it is also about modernising the justice system.
Sir Desmond Swayne: That was a long answer for what was a no.
Jake Richards: It was a—
Sir Desmond Swayne: It was a no, was it not?
Jake Richards: It answered the question.
Sir Desmond Swayne: You have answered the question, but the answer was no, was it not?
Jake Richards: I do not foresee there being a sunset clause in the legislation.
Sir Desmond Swayne: That is a no.
Jake Richards: My view is that this will be kept under review, like any other piece of legislation. We will see what happens over a period of time.
Sir Desmond Swayne: Is there a case that those people accused of an offence with a relatively short potential sentence, which would inevitably steer them towards a non-jury trial, for whom the consequence of a guilty verdict would be disproportionately damaging, given their career and status, ought to have at least some mechanism for asking for the matter to be reviewed as to whether they ought to have a jury trial?
Jake Richards: I can see that there is some force in having a threshold, which would have to be quite high, for some sort of exception to the general framework. We would have to look at how that would be regulated and what effect that would have on the backlog, which is the central mischief that we are trying to solve. I can see some force in that argument. We will see whether it makes the legislation.
Q18 Afzal Khan: Minister, you talked about defendants trying to abuse the system. Is it not a fact that defendants have always been trying to get away from what they have done? Is the jury system working or not?
Jake Richards: No, it is not working. It is fundamentally failing. I have friends at the criminal Bar who message me to say they have just listed trials for very serious offences in 2029, after the next election.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: That is not the question.
Jake Richards: Let me just finish.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Are you criticising the jury system or are you criticising the delays? Those are different.
Jake Richards: There are a couple of things there. The jury system is part of our justice system, which is failing. As Lord Leveson—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Sir Brian.
Jake Richards: Sir Brian, forgive me. As Sir Brian Leveson’s very careful review has set out, jury trials take longer than what has been envisaged.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: He does not know.
Jake Richards: Let me just answer the question. I am very happy for Baroness Kennedy to come back, but it is quite clear, in my mind, that the justice system is failing victims. Reforming this mechanism will be a big part of helping victims. That is how I would square that circle.
The Chair: You have invited Lady Kennedy to come back.
Q19 Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I am really keen to hear your view on this because, while it might not be specifically your remit, you are part of the team and so your view will be heard when there are discussions. You are a practitioner in a way that some people in the department are not.
One of the things that are at the heart of this—it is at the heart of the question that my colleague has just asked you—is whether we believe juries are a good thing. They are being retained in relation to murder, manslaughter and rape. A great deal of time was taken by the Secretary of State to say, “Look at the appalling situation of rape victims”. I care very much about rape victims. I have been campaigning on the situation of justice for women all my professional life.
Do you accept that the Secretary of State, the Minister for Justice, the Lord Chancellor, could tomorrow say, “There is a priority list and rape cases have to be dealt with within nine months”? He could say that tomorrow. You are making the barter that you are going to sacrifice jury trials because of the shocking business of what is happening to women who are making allegations that they have been grievously interfered with sexually. That is being given as the reason for doing this. At the same time, he could say tomorrow, “You have nine months to get that trial on” and give it number one status as a priority. Could he do that?
Jake Richards: I understand the case. The Lord Chancellor is making an argument and he is using the most egregious examples. By the way, every day—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: It should not be an example.
Jake Richards: Exactly, so we need to deal with the whole justice system. We are not just doing this because of the victims of rape who face unacceptable delays. I get casework, like all the MPs around this table no doubt will, about trials for far less serious offences than rape taking years and years, which is terrible for local communities, terrible for the defendant and worse for the victim.
It is not fair to say, because that is the example that has been cited, that that is the only reason we are doing it. You have asked about the intrinsic value of juries. We are not scrapping jury trials. We are absolutely clear that there is a value for jury trials, especially for the most serious offences.
You will no doubt appreciate the principle of what is proportionate. In the context of what we are facing, we have a situation where 10% of criminal proceedings are subject to a jury trial and 7% of those plead, so there is no jury trial. We are talking about 3% of criminal offences, which take an inordinate amount of time in the criminal justice system when we are facing a backlog of 80,000 cases. The proposal that has been set out by Minister Sackman and the Lord Chancellor reduces that from 3% to 1.5%.
We just need to step back from this idea that we are tearing up the justice system. What was proposed yesterday in the House of Commons is a modest adjustment to our criminal justice system, which has been reformed countless times over the generations and over centuries before, to try to deal with the central complaint that we face as democratically elected politicians that people are waiting too long for justice.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Can I ask you whether consideration has been given to something that the general public know nothing about? There is a justice situation that operates for the corporate sector but does not operate for others. I do not know what your own practice was. What area of law did you practise in at the Bar?
Jake Richards: It was mainly child protection and family law, but civil law as well.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: You will be aware that deferred prosecutions are available when we are dealing with fraud, money laundering and tax evasion by corporates and companies. They are taken in and told, “We will defer prosecuting you”—it is like a suspended prosecution—“on the basis that you get your house in order in the next two years. If you manage to do that, there will be no prosecution”.
Could we not, creatively, do exactly the same thing with low-level crime, particularly if it was a first offending? Particularly in the category that you are now talking about, in many of those cases where there is no obvious victim, why could we not defer prosecution and say, “Commit another crime in the next two years and the book will be thrown at you”? You would take a huge number out, probably as many as you are going to do by limiting jury trial. Why not consider that? Was it considered at all in any of the discussions?
Jake Richards: I cannot tell you whether it was considered. It is not my Bill; it is not my proposal.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: You have never heard it discussed in your department, have you?
Jake Richards: To be very blunt, I have not been involved in any discussions involving this Bill apart from when we have updates from Minister Sackman. Minister Sackman is a Minister of State. She is very experienced. I have full trust in what she is trying to do here.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: How long has she been a Member of Parliament?
Jake Richards: She was elected on the same day as me.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: It was the same time as you.
Jake Richards: Yes.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Her experience is from the last year.
Jake Richards: I would be very careful about criticising Minister Sackman.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I am not criticising her. She is an excellent Minister. Let me just make it clear to you.
Jake Richards: I am sorry.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Do not refer to people as having exceptional experience when you have been in government a year.
Jake Richards: I was referring to Minister Sackman’s experience as a lawyer, practising at the Bar for—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: It was as a solicitor, I thought.
Jake Richards: No, she practised at the Bar for nearly 20 years. She is someone for whom I have an enormous amount of respect. She has taken Silk. She is someone who I respect and admire greatly.
I do not know whether this issue of deferred prosecutions in a day-to-day crime setting rather than a fraud setting has been considered. I do not know. We can relitigate the argument that we have already had, but “I do not know” is the answer to that.
Q20 The Chair: It is one of those interesting things. We will draw it to an end here. Thank you so much for answering so candidly. Beyond any personalities, there are serious issues in this Bill. They go way beyond the recommendations that Sir Brian made, such as the idea about intermediate courts. Many other people have talked a lot about freeing up court time and the empty courts that could be better utilised.
When you come to present new primary legislation, because that will be required, there is a process that has been used on previous occasions. I think back to Baroness May. When she was Home Secretary, she introduced modern slavery legislation. I thought she was spot on in doing it with pre-legislative scrutiny so that members of both Houses were involved in looking at the Bill before it was presented to the House or to standing committees. It gave a chance to properly air some of the issues that Lady Kennedy and others around the table are concerned about.
I do not know what thought has been given to that. I am not necessarily expecting you to know the answer to this now, but could thought be given to the process that will be used, given the controversies and the questions that need to be answered, some of which may be answered in the way that you have just done? Surely having pre-legislative scrutiny would be a good way of addressing everything from the backlog of cases to the use of a sunset clause. All those things could be dealt with in a rather less hostile environment than we will have if it becomes a confrontational issue on the Floor of both Houses.
Jake Richards: Yes. When I meet with ministerial colleagues on Monday morning, I will raise that. I will raise it with Baroness Levitt, who is my colleague. I am seeing her later today, in fact. I will have the opportunity to raise it.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: She is a very experienced prosecutor.
Jake Richards: Oh, she passes for “very experienced”. She is a very experienced prosecutor, and she will be part of that process as well.
The Chair: I am grateful to her for engaging on the Hillsborough law. I am seeing her again on Monday around that.
Minister, thank you very much for being with us today. Just before I wrap it up and conclude, for the benefit of people who have been watching our proceedings, I will remind them that next week we are looking at human rights of children in social care in England with a session on disabled children in social care. I hope that members of the public will engage with us on that.
I would like to thank everybody who has been here today in the gallery listening, but also the members of the committee, who have been so attentive. Most of all, Minister, I want to thank you and your team for your courtesy and your engagement with us. I hope you will not see this as the last time that you come before the committee.
Jake Richards: I hope not. I enjoyed it. Thank you for having me.
The Chair: With those words, I conclude our session.
