Work of the Justice Committee during the 2010-2015 Parliament

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

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

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

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

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

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