0:00:01 > 0:00:07Next don't that is extraordinarily considerate.
0:00:16 > 0:00:20I would like to make a further statement on the parole board
0:00:20 > 0:00:28decision to release John Worboys. I know the victims have suffered
0:00:28 > 0:00:31considerable trauma. The prospect of the release of this man is deeply
0:00:31 > 0:00:35concerning to them, to members of this House and to members of the
0:00:35 > 0:00:39wider public. I believe I omit to those victims and the public to
0:00:39 > 0:00:44consider all the options open to me as Secretary of State for Justice. I
0:00:44 > 0:00:48took the step of seeking legal advice from specialist leading
0:00:48 > 0:00:51counsel to establish whether there were grounds to challenge this
0:00:51 > 0:00:59decision in the courts and to ask the courts to stop the release of
0:00:59 > 0:01:01Worboys before the decision was reconsidered. Let me set out my
0:01:01 > 0:01:09approach to judicial review in general. There should not be a
0:01:09 > 0:01:12challenge that has no reasonable prospect of success. It is right
0:01:12 > 0:01:15that public bodies can be held to account for their actions through
0:01:15 > 0:01:21due process of law and specifically judicial review. There has been
0:01:21 > 0:01:23significant public debate about the possible basis for a legal challenge
0:01:23 > 0:01:27in a case such as this. It has been speculated that there are two
0:01:27 > 0:01:32grounds open to me to challenge such a decision. The decision was one
0:01:32 > 0:01:36that nobody could reasonably have taken, or that there were
0:01:36 > 0:01:40considerable procedural failings in the way that that decision was
0:01:40 > 0:01:44taken. The bar for a judicial review to succeed is very high. The test
0:01:44 > 0:01:50for deciding if a decision is unreasonable is not simply that the
0:01:50 > 0:01:54decision maker, in this case the parole board, could have made an
0:01:54 > 0:01:58alternative decision, but that no reasonable person would have come to
0:01:58 > 0:02:03the same conclusion on the facts upper case. Similarly, on procedure,
0:02:03 > 0:02:07it would be necessary to identify failing to follow that process by
0:02:07 > 0:02:14the parole board that would have had a material impact on the decision.
0:02:14 > 0:02:18Having taken considered an expert legal advice, I have decided that it
0:02:18 > 0:02:22would not be appropriate for me as Secretary of State to proceed with
0:02:22 > 0:02:26such a case. Honourable members will appreciate that I can go further and
0:02:26 > 0:02:30expose details of the legal advice I have been given. I know this will
0:02:30 > 0:02:35disappoint the victims in this case and members of this House. Given the
0:02:35 > 0:02:41crimes for which he has been convicted, on a personal level,
0:02:41 > 0:02:45candidly, I share those concerns. I have taken a close personal interest
0:02:45 > 0:02:49in this case since assuming office as the Secretary of State for
0:02:49 > 0:02:53Justice. I believe it is important that all the victims have clarity as
0:02:53 > 0:02:57soon as possible, which is why I am before the House today. I can
0:02:57 > 0:03:01reassure the House and the public that Worboys will not be released
0:03:01 > 0:03:10until his licence conditions have been finalised. I understand that
0:03:10 > 0:03:15contact with victims has taken place this week, and further meetings
0:03:15 > 0:03:20about his release will take place next week. This will have given
0:03:20 > 0:03:23those victims the opportunity to make representations to the parole
0:03:23 > 0:03:27board as to the conditions to which Worboys should be subject on
0:03:27 > 0:03:32release. Let me be absolutely clear, Worboys will not be released until
0:03:32 > 0:03:36their representations have been properly considered and his licence
0:03:36 > 0:03:41conditions are in place. Indeed, last week, I asked for assurances
0:03:41 > 0:03:45that the views of victims were being taken into account and that robust
0:03:45 > 0:03:52licensing conditions would be put in place to manage his risk. I am aware
0:03:52 > 0:03:56that some third parties have indicated that they are seeking to
0:03:56 > 0:04:00bring legal proceedings themselves, and that correspondence has been
0:04:00 > 0:04:03served on me as Secretary of State as a potential interested party to
0:04:03 > 0:04:10any litigation. I fully support the right of victims to take their own
0:04:10 > 0:04:13legal advice and to challenge the decision. The approach I'm taking
0:04:13 > 0:04:17does not mean that others who may have significant interest in the
0:04:17 > 0:04:21case are precluded from taking action. Each case depends on the
0:04:21 > 0:04:26circumstances of each individual ringing a claim. And that is one of
0:04:26 > 0:04:30the reason I do not intend to save more on this matter. I would not
0:04:30 > 0:04:36want to prejudice any legal challenges by commenting further on
0:04:36 > 0:04:40the facts of the particular case or the legal advice I have received. I
0:04:40 > 0:04:43will be taking advice on how my department should consequently
0:04:43 > 0:04:47engage in any proceedings, but it would not be appropriate to comment
0:04:47 > 0:04:51further at this stage. It is vitally important that the public and
0:04:51 > 0:04:54victims have confidence in the justice system that is there to
0:04:54 > 0:04:59serve them. This case has exposed some issues with the parole process
0:04:59 > 0:05:04as a whole. I have already indicated that aspects of the parole process
0:05:04 > 0:05:09more generally should be examined. In my statement on the 9th of
0:05:09 > 0:05:13January, I said my department would review the case for transparency in
0:05:13 > 0:05:16the review parole board decisions, how victims are communicated with,
0:05:16 > 0:05:19and how they are appropriately engaged in that process. I now
0:05:19 > 0:05:25believe that review should go further. I have therefore expanded
0:05:25 > 0:05:32the terms of reference of the review to consider guidance in practice on
0:05:32 > 0:05:36parole board decision making. I have published these today and have
0:05:36 > 0:05:42placed a copy in the catlike house library. I have expanded the review
0:05:42 > 0:05:45to consider whether there should be a mechanism to allow parole
0:05:45 > 0:05:49decisions to be reconsidered, and how that might best be achieved
0:05:49 > 0:05:52whilst retaining the independence of the decision-making process. This
0:05:52 > 0:05:57review remains a priority for me and the Government. Despite the
0:05:57 > 0:06:02significant expansion of the terms of reference, I intend to complete
0:06:02 > 0:06:07that review before Easter. I also acknowledge the concerns that the
0:06:07 > 0:06:10victim contact scheme operated by the National probation service may
0:06:10 > 0:06:15not have worked as well as it should have in this particular case. It is
0:06:15 > 0:06:20right that as well as looking at the process around parole decisions for
0:06:20 > 0:06:24all cases that we consider whether existing processes were followed in
0:06:24 > 0:06:31this instance. I have therefore ask Dame Glenna Stacey, Her Majesty's
0:06:31 > 0:06:36Chief Inspector of probation, to conduct a rapid fact-finding
0:06:36 > 0:06:43exercise to find out whether the existing processes, policies and so
0:06:43 > 0:06:47forth were adequately followed by the parole board in this case. Her
0:06:47 > 0:06:50findings will inform the wider review. Mr Speaker, as I have said,
0:06:50 > 0:06:55I know members of the House are concerned about this case and how we
0:06:55 > 0:07:00deal with the release of offenders. I hope this has reassured all
0:07:00 > 0:07:03members of the thorough and careful consideration I have made this
0:07:03 > 0:07:06difficult case, and that we are now giving serious and urgent
0:07:06 > 0:07:13consideration to ways in which the process can be improved that
0:07:13 > 0:07:16reassures not only the victims of these terrible crimes but the wider
0:07:16 > 0:07:22public.Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of
0:07:22 > 0:07:25State for prior sight of his statement. Two weeks ago it was
0:07:25 > 0:07:30announced that John Worboys would be released from prison. In those two
0:07:30 > 0:07:37weeks, it has been absolutely clear, the victims of the vile crimes
0:07:37 > 0:07:41committed by Worboys feel that our criminal justice as has let them
0:07:41 > 0:07:46down. Our system must ensure that it has the victims of crime at its
0:07:46 > 0:07:52core. When it fails to do so, it affects not just the direct victims
0:07:52 > 0:07:55themselves but risks undermining wider public trust in our justice
0:07:55 > 0:08:05system. As Labour has reiterated since the news of the release of
0:08:05 > 0:08:09John Worboys was announced, it is important that the Secretary of
0:08:09 > 0:08:19State does everything in his power... Many will be disappointed
0:08:19 > 0:08:25by today's news. It is understood that legal advice can't be shared,
0:08:25 > 0:08:29and the minister does not want to prejudice other cases being brought.
0:08:29 > 0:08:33But today's news makes the need for changes in the parole board even
0:08:33 > 0:08:39more pressing. The current rules permit either the Secretary of State
0:08:39 > 0:08:41for victims to bring judicial review. Many will have seen that
0:08:41 > 0:08:46they are doing and that they have attracted much public support for
0:08:46 > 0:08:50their fundraising for this. Judicial review is a key tool for every
0:08:50 > 0:08:56citizen to be able to challenge unjust or unlawful decisions by the
0:08:56 > 0:09:01state or other public bodies. Cuts to legal aid have undermined the
0:09:01 > 0:09:05ability of many to pursue judicial review. I would request that the
0:09:05 > 0:09:13Government today use its review into this to see how it can support
0:09:13 > 0:09:19judicial review. Any judicial review would look at whether the parole
0:09:19 > 0:09:23board decision was taken properly. If not, it would go back to the
0:09:23 > 0:09:27parole board to look at this again. As it stands, the current rules mean
0:09:27 > 0:09:31that we would not know the reasons for any subsequent parole board
0:09:31 > 0:09:39decision. As we have repeatedly said on the side of the Us, there is no
0:09:39 > 0:09:44need to debate whether there is a case for greater transparency. It
0:09:44 > 0:09:48should be a practical review that looks at how to ensure the public is
0:09:48 > 0:09:53informed of the reasons behind parole board decisions. Just as the
0:09:53 > 0:09:57public is clear about court judgments, it needs to beat able to
0:09:57 > 0:10:02be clear about decisions of the parole board. Greater transparency
0:10:02 > 0:10:06has widespread support, so we welcome the widening of the review
0:10:06 > 0:10:12announced today, and especially a mechanism to allow parole board
0:10:12 > 0:10:15decisions to be reconsidered whilst retaining its independence. People
0:10:15 > 0:10:20were shocked that some of the victims found out about the decision
0:10:20 > 0:10:25of the release of Mr Worboys through the media. Labour has said from the
0:10:25 > 0:10:29outset that it is totally unacceptable and very concerning
0:10:29 > 0:10:32that someone not given the opportunity to participate in the
0:10:32 > 0:10:40parole board hearing, as is their right. The victim contact scheme is
0:10:40 > 0:10:43responsible for informing victims of significant changes in the case,
0:10:43 > 0:10:48including parole board hearing. This is managed by the National probation
0:10:48 > 0:10:50service, which has experienced significant difficulties, especially
0:10:50 > 0:10:57case overload, since the reform to probation services in 2014. Labour
0:10:57 > 0:11:02had called in this House for the Government to look into the failings
0:11:02 > 0:11:06in the MPS and victim contact scheme, so it is a step forward that
0:11:06 > 0:11:14the minister has now asked Dame Glenys Stacey to conduct a
0:11:14 > 0:11:18fact-finding exercise into the role of the MPS. He needs to also ensure
0:11:18 > 0:11:22that this answers the questions being asked on whether his
0:11:22 > 0:11:30Government's wholly negative changes to the probation service contributed
0:11:30 > 0:11:37to failings, and how he plans to address them. It is clear that
0:11:37 > 0:11:41concerns are not limited to the decisions or indeed the functioning
0:11:41 > 0:11:46of the parole board. Labour has repeatedly stated that the Worboys
0:11:46 > 0:11:51case raises so many serious questions that anything less than an
0:11:51 > 0:11:55independent end to end review of the handling of the case from the first
0:11:55 > 0:11:58report to the police of an attack right through to the parole board
0:11:58 > 0:12:04hearing would let down the victims and the wider public. Labour has
0:12:04 > 0:12:10repeatedly called for this wider enquiry but it is not clear why the
0:12:10 > 0:12:12Secretary of State for Justice has repeatedly refused this demand. It
0:12:12 > 0:12:21is reasonable and rational, and it would help build public trust. I
0:12:21 > 0:12:26hope that he would take this opportunity to reassure this House
0:12:26 > 0:12:34that he will undertake this end to end review.Can I thank the
0:12:34 > 0:12:40honourable gentleman for his questions. In the context of wanting
0:12:40 > 0:12:48to ensure that the victims' position is supported, I think he was right
0:12:48 > 0:12:53to focus on the areas he did. And I'm grateful for his not pressing
0:12:53 > 0:12:58need further on the facts or legal advice. In terms of the matter is
0:12:58 > 0:13:03that he raised, it is right that the victims are treated with concern,
0:13:03 > 0:13:11with sympathy, and that all due processes are followed. In terms of
0:13:11 > 0:13:15this particular case, I think we need to have a proper understanding
0:13:15 > 0:13:17of precisely what happened and whether the support was provided in
0:13:17 > 0:13:28the way that it should have been. That's why I'm pleased that Dave is
0:13:28 > 0:13:35-- Dame Glenys Stacey is undertaking a fact-finding mission. I understand
0:13:35 > 0:13:40the need for greater transparency in parole board decisions. I know that
0:13:40 > 0:13:43one of the things that frustrates victims is the sense that they don't
0:13:43 > 0:13:48get to know what is happening and the reasons why the parole board has
0:13:48 > 0:13:51reached the decision that it has reached. Equally, I think it can be
0:13:51 > 0:13:56a frustration for the parole board that they are not able to articulate
0:13:56 > 0:14:02the reasons why they have reached a particular decision. I share that in
0:14:02 > 0:14:05sick. I think we need to look carefully at this, but I think we
0:14:05 > 0:14:08need to move swiftly on this matter, which is what I intend to do. In
0:14:08 > 0:14:14terms of an end to end review, my focus has been on these issues
0:14:14 > 0:14:17transparency and victim support. I think they are the immediate issues
0:14:17 > 0:14:24in front of us. I recognise that there is a debate about the original
0:14:24 > 0:14:34investigation. There is a debate about how these IPP sentences
0:14:34 > 0:14:39operated, though they have been abolished. It is important to focus
0:14:39 > 0:14:50in terms of our reviews on how these matters are dealt with, as a
0:14:50 > 0:14:57priority.It is very clear, Mr Speaker, and may I wish you a happy
0:14:57 > 0:14:59birthday, that my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor has
0:14:59 > 0:15:05applied himself to what is a very serious and troubling case with the
0:15:05 > 0:15:09greatest scrupulousness and care, and he is to be commended for having
0:15:09 > 0:15:18applied a difficult legal test of what is ultimately a legal decision.
0:15:18 > 0:15:25Will he agree a political decision that could be made as soon as
0:15:25 > 0:15:28possible is to change the parole Board balls to the them to give
0:15:28 > 0:15:39reasons for their decisions Krachunov Parole Board rules. And
0:15:39 > 0:15:45will be a great reassurance to victim is and the public.
0:15:45 > 0:15:53That is a good point. It is right that we fully understand the full
0:15:53 > 0:16:01implications of greater transparency within the Parole Board. It is not
0:16:01 > 0:16:10my desire we find a position whereby as a matter of course offenders,
0:16:10 > 0:16:18where the Parole Board is taking a particular firm line because on the
0:16:18 > 0:16:23evidence somebody should not be released, but we need to understand
0:16:23 > 0:16:25the full implications. There is a case for much better
0:16:25 > 0:16:34transparency. Can I welcome this statement and the
0:16:34 > 0:16:43decision to widen the remit of the review. Has he be informed if the
0:16:43 > 0:16:47CPS and police are reviewing the other serious allegations against
0:16:47 > 0:16:50John Warboys and if there is any chance of further chances being
0:16:50 > 0:16:55brought against him before he is released? This is the question
0:16:55 > 0:17:07victim want answered. -- victim is. That is a matter for
0:17:07 > 0:17:11the CPS and Metropolitan Police and I don't think there is anything I
0:17:11 > 0:17:20can say to inform the House on that. I should declare during my 17 years
0:17:20 > 0:17:26in the Treasury Solicitor Department I acted for the Secretary of State
0:17:26 > 0:17:28and Parole Board and sometimes both together.
0:17:28 > 0:17:34I commend this detailed work on this case and would ask him to reassure
0:17:34 > 0:17:40us not only will the views of statutory victim is be taken into
0:17:40 > 0:17:52account but the wider group of victim is known to the authorities.
0:17:52 > 0:17:58There are different systems in place for the statutory victim is versus
0:17:58 > 0:18:09others but in this case where there are a large number of people who are
0:18:09 > 0:18:15victim is but not in respect of the fit Coates convictions that John
0:18:15 > 0:18:22Warboys had, we need to ensure the system works them as well.
0:18:22 > 0:18:25Following his previous statement this month, I raised the importance
0:18:25 > 0:18:29of competence in our justice system and my fear is the decision not to
0:18:29 > 0:18:38judicially review this will not give reassurance. He has talked about
0:18:38 > 0:18:42greater transparency but I want to press him on the point the
0:18:42 > 0:18:49honourable member for Bromley has made, will he commit to changing the
0:18:49 > 0:18:53statutory balls so decisions are open not just in this case but
0:18:53 > 0:19:02future cases? -- statutory rules. The intention is
0:19:02 > 0:19:08to look at increasing transparency. I will come back to the House with
0:19:08 > 0:19:20more detailed proposals.Can I urge him to write to the CPS and ask them
0:19:20 > 0:19:26to undertake a review. It may be the public interest test was not
0:19:26 > 0:19:31satisfied because there was an indeterminate sentence and the
0:19:31 > 0:19:39change in circumstances may mean that test is now satisfied the cases
0:19:39 > 0:19:46that were not prosecuted. Could he give that undertaking?In
0:19:46 > 0:19:52terms of accountability for decisions on prosecutions, that is
0:19:52 > 0:20:02not an area which is under my responsibility. But I very much
0:20:02 > 0:20:08understand and sympathise with the point made, and I know this is an
0:20:08 > 0:20:19issue which the Attorney General is focused.
0:20:19 > 0:20:26Will he be looking at how the CPS and police deal with cases where
0:20:26 > 0:20:30there are, where it comes to light their further victims in cases of
0:20:30 > 0:20:37serious like this? John Warboys was convicted of sexual assaults on 12
0:20:37 > 0:20:43women but there are over 85 others who came forward afterwards and that
0:20:43 > 0:20:50needs to be looked at for similar events where that might occur.
0:20:50 > 0:21:00This is a fair point on the record. I refer to my earlier answer.
0:21:00 > 0:21:08Clearly in terms of whether there is a public interest case to bring
0:21:08 > 0:21:13further prosecutions, no doubt that is something both the police and CPS
0:21:13 > 0:21:20will want to consider. It is essential we recognise and
0:21:20 > 0:21:24respect the independence of our legal system but also recognised the
0:21:24 > 0:21:27public are disappointed and angry with the Parole Board decision. Does
0:21:27 > 0:21:34he agree by opening up the decisions and making them more transparent,
0:21:34 > 0:21:37even if the public still disagree, they will have an understanding how
0:21:37 > 0:21:46that decision was reached? That is a very good point. The
0:21:46 > 0:21:51direction that as a society we have gone in has generally been towards
0:21:51 > 0:21:56greater transparency. As Professor Nick Hardwick who was one of the
0:21:56 > 0:22:01first to make this point, there is a case in this context of the Parole
0:22:01 > 0:22:07Board as well. Whilst we understand the desire not
0:22:07 > 0:22:14to prejudice possible actions, in his previous letter in January a
0:22:14 > 0:22:21public letter, he states the victims were not contacted until October. He
0:22:21 > 0:22:25knows the concern it is not just about updating them but involving
0:22:25 > 0:22:31them in decisions. Can he give an assurance participation will be
0:22:31 > 0:22:43looked at and he will publish the date when contact was made?
0:22:43 > 0:22:49This is what will be investigated and I have no doubt it will be made
0:22:49 > 0:22:56public in her conclusions. It is important victims are involved. In
0:22:56 > 0:23:02this case, they are involved in terms of making representations on
0:23:02 > 0:23:09licensing conditions. It is appropriate due weight is given to
0:23:09 > 0:23:16this. My constituents believe the best way
0:23:16 > 0:23:20to protect the public is for violent offenders to be kept behind bars and
0:23:20 > 0:23:26they take the honourable view if an offender is sentenced to a term of
0:23:26 > 0:23:30imprisonment they should serve that in prison in full before being
0:23:30 > 0:23:32released. Given this is a statement about the
0:23:32 > 0:23:39transparency of the Parole Board decisions, who and how is held to
0:23:39 > 0:23:46account in the Parole Board if those released early reoffend?
0:23:46 > 0:23:56In terms of the numbers of re-offences, those numbers are put
0:23:56 > 0:24:01into the public domain. That is one of the tests of the effectiveness of
0:24:01 > 0:24:06the Parole Board. It is clearly a priority for all of us that people
0:24:06 > 0:24:11who are dangerous are not released. The test for a Parole Board in the
0:24:11 > 0:24:18context of one of these IAPP business is an assessment of their
0:24:18 > 0:24:23risk to the public.
0:24:26 > 0:24:34The Shadow Minister is right, this case raises wider issues from the
0:24:34 > 0:24:37offence being committed to the process of parole. Can he tell us
0:24:37 > 0:24:44when he will bring forward the Bill promised in 2015?
0:24:44 > 0:24:57What I can say is I am receiving advice on what we can do to make
0:24:57 > 0:25:01progress on this matter. I hope to update the House in due course. I
0:25:01 > 0:25:08agree victims the vitally important in the system.
0:25:08 > 0:25:14Thank you for the detailed estimation for the decision. I
0:25:14 > 0:25:16welcome his comments on further transparency which will increase
0:25:16 > 0:25:25public confidence and the confidence of victims in the system. How soon
0:25:25 > 0:25:30does he anticipate changes can be made?
0:25:30 > 0:25:34The review even though it has been broadened and we are looking more
0:25:34 > 0:25:40widely not just at transparency but whether there should be opportunity
0:25:40 > 0:25:45for the Parole Board to look again at decisions, that review will
0:25:45 > 0:25:50report by Easter, depending on what it recommends will determine the
0:25:50 > 0:25:57timing but I am keen to make progress as quickly as possible.
0:25:57 > 0:26:02Can I welcome the extension of the review announced today but I do
0:26:02 > 0:26:07think there are serious questions about the way police and the CPS
0:26:07 > 0:26:11operated in this. I don't think it is satisfactory to leave it to the
0:26:11 > 0:26:16police and CPS. There is a Home Office minister
0:26:16 > 0:26:21that, I want to know what the Home Office and Attorney General office
0:26:21 > 0:26:25under -- Are doing to look at the early stages as to whether this man
0:26:25 > 0:26:29should be charged with further offences?
0:26:29 > 0:26:32I know the Home Secretary and Attorney General had been very
0:26:32 > 0:26:38focused on this case. What I would say is my focus has been on the
0:26:38 > 0:26:45immediate issues and that does relate to the consideration of
0:26:45 > 0:26:48judicial review but also issues of transparency and support for victim
0:26:48 > 0:26:56is. Of course, there are questions that do need to be asked about how
0:26:56 > 0:27:01the system which this Government has abolished, how that operated in
0:27:01 > 0:27:06terms of whether it met the test of honesty and sentencing.
0:27:06 > 0:27:15That is for another day.Recognising the importance of the independence
0:27:15 > 0:27:22of the judiciary but considering in this case the crimes, the victims
0:27:22 > 0:27:27public concern, can he assured he has looked into all the options in
0:27:27 > 0:27:36this case? Yes, I can give that assurance and
0:27:36 > 0:27:40without dwelling on the details of the reasons I have set out before,
0:27:40 > 0:27:47given very long, close and serious consideration to my options.
0:27:47 > 0:27:51He is rightly concentrating on the issue of transparency in his remarks
0:27:51 > 0:27:59but he referred to the fact there are some victims court in legal
0:27:59 > 0:28:05proceedings because legal aid has been severely restricted. Would he
0:28:05 > 0:28:09please look again at the availability of civil legal aid for
0:28:09 > 0:28:14judicial review? In the context of legal aid
0:28:14 > 0:28:29generally she will be aware there is currently a review on that.
0:28:31 > 0:28:34It is reassuring the Lord Chancellor despite only being imposed a short
0:28:34 > 0:28:41time has sought to get behind the Viktor of this terrible case. Can I
0:28:41 > 0:28:45push him on the point about legal aid. He mentioned he supports the
0:28:45 > 0:28:51rights of the victim is to pursue their own case. Will there be
0:28:51 > 0:28:54discretion from the legal aid agency to provide funding for them to do
0:28:54 > 0:29:02so? First, in terms of the action
0:29:02 > 0:29:10brought, that may be brought by victims on this, I want to be
0:29:10 > 0:29:16careful in my remarks. Just because I am not taking action
0:29:16 > 0:29:21does not mean others cannot because these legal cases can depend upon
0:29:21 > 0:29:30precisely what the position they are in. It is the case legal aid
0:29:30 > 0:29:33generally remains available for advice, assistance and
0:29:33 > 0:29:39representation in relation to judicial review. And that would
0:29:39 > 0:29:42include decisions of the Parole Board where there is sufficient
0:29:42 > 0:29:52benefit to the individual. We all respect the independence of
0:29:52 > 0:30:00the judiciary but there needs to come transparency.
0:30:00 > 0:30:03Will he agreed the outcome of this review must be greater transparency
0:30:03 > 0:30:05in terms of Parole Board decisions?
0:30:10 > 0:30:13IsI'm grateful to my honourable friend for his question. The
0:30:13 > 0:30:17direction we are moving in this towards greater transparency. There
0:30:17 > 0:30:22are some details we need to master and fully understand, but I think
0:30:22 > 0:30:29the direction of travel is clear. Can I welcome the extended review
0:30:29 > 0:30:33which the Justice Secretary just announced. But would he confirmed to
0:30:33 > 0:30:37the House that it will include a very detailed assessment of the
0:30:37 > 0:30:43decision-making processes that the parole board go through, with
0:30:43 > 0:30:47particular reference to expert reports from people like Doctor
0:30:47 > 0:30:50Jackie Chrissie Arty in this case, which are at the heart of these
0:30:50 > 0:30:57decisions, to make sure that they are suitable to give the expert
0:30:57 > 0:31:05advice that they give?Clearly, this is going to be a broad review in
0:31:05 > 0:31:12terms of how the parole board works. So, clearly, in terms of considering
0:31:12 > 0:31:19how it operates, the importance of particular expert evidence is going
0:31:19 > 0:31:29to be part of that process.I also might welcome the Lord Chancellor's
0:31:29 > 0:31:32statement and the decision to expand the review. He will of course be
0:31:32 > 0:31:40aware that this is not the first such case, and I would just to his
0:31:40 > 0:31:44attention the case of a serial child exploitation offender released after
0:31:44 > 0:31:48a 20 year sentence only five years after his trial. His victims felt
0:31:48 > 0:31:54the victim contact scheme let them down. Will he consider this case as
0:31:54 > 0:32:00part of his expanded review?In terms of generally looking at how
0:32:00 > 0:32:06the victim contact scheme works, I would certainly be interested to
0:32:06 > 0:32:11receive more information from my honourable friend, but certainly, if
0:32:11 > 0:32:15there are other examples where questions have been raised, then
0:32:15 > 0:32:24that is clearly something the review will need to take into account.
0:32:24 > 0:32:30Thank you, Mr Speaker. On that same note, I welcome the Secretary of
0:32:30 > 0:32:34State's response to what is a sensitive and emotive issue. It
0:32:34 > 0:32:40highlights that they need to listen to victims is so important. Could
0:32:40 > 0:32:45the Minister give assurances that this will be looked at? Is it fit
0:32:45 > 0:32:52for purpose? And was it adequately followed by the parole board?In
0:32:52 > 0:32:56terms of how the victim contact scheme worked in this particular
0:32:56 > 0:33:01case, you know, frankly, there are... There are different views
0:33:01 > 0:33:09that have been put to me. There is conflicting evidence, and that is
0:33:09 > 0:33:13why I think it is absolutely right that we have that review by Dame
0:33:13 > 0:33:18Glenys Stacey, so that we can properly understand what happens
0:33:18 > 0:33:26here, and therefore what lessons can be learned from it.I welcome the
0:33:26 > 0:33:31Justice Secretary's commitment to a broader review and appreciate that
0:33:31 > 0:33:35he has set himself a pretty aggressive timeline for this, so if
0:33:35 > 0:33:39the end result is generally going to be better reflection of the views of
0:33:39 > 0:33:42victims, can he assure me that the review itself will engage the
0:33:42 > 0:33:48victims?Yes, I think it is absolutely essential that victims
0:33:48 > 0:33:58are engaged in this process.I think that all members across this House
0:33:58 > 0:34:00recognise and appreciate my right honourable friend's candour with the
0:34:00 > 0:34:05house, but for the sake of all victims, will he make sure that all
0:34:05 > 0:34:09appropriate and measured steps are taken to make sure he's never put in
0:34:09 > 0:34:15this position again?I think the most important thing is not my
0:34:15 > 0:34:19position but the position of victims, and clearly, we need to
0:34:19 > 0:34:25ensure that victims have a system which they have faith in. Sometimes
0:34:25 > 0:34:33these can be difficult challenges in terms of making sure that where
0:34:33 > 0:34:39there are large numbers of victims, that their voices properly heard.
0:34:39 > 0:34:42Victims, I think, are entitled to have their voices heard, and we have
0:34:42 > 0:34:47to make sure we have a system that works for them.I am most grateful
0:34:47 > 0:34:53to the Secretary of State for the statement and two colleagues for
0:34:53 > 0:35:02the... The house will now returned to the homes fitness for habitation
0:35:02 > 0:35:04bill.