The comments made by Robert Buckland, the Secretary of State for Wales, on Twitter on 14 October 2022.
Our priorities are to do the right thing by acting in our national interest to tackle the energy crisis, to grow our economy and to continue to rise to the challenge of Putin’s war in Ukraine.
The comments made by Robert Buckland, the Secretary of State for Wales, on 7 September 2022.
It’s an honour and a privilege to be reappointed as the Secretary of State for Wales.
Working alongside our new Prime Minister, fellow Cabinet Ministers and colleagues in Wales, I’m looking forward to delivering for all parts of our great country.
The cost of living and increasing energy bills are having a significant impact on every single person in the country, and it’s a priority for me to make sure that families, businesses and individuals across Wales receive all possible help to see us through this challenging winter.
Wales has a huge part to play in our longer-term energy needs with potential for offshore wind, nuclear and renewable energy schemes. These are projects that create jobs and prosperity, help secure our energy future and deliver our Net Zero targets.
On top of specific measures to tackle the immediate cost of living issue, we will continue to deliver the investment Wales needs through the UK Government’s Levelling Up and Shared Prosperity Funds.
I am a proud Welshman and a proud Unionist and want to see Wales prosper as a strong part of our successful United Kingdom.
The comments made by Robert Buckland, the Secretary of State for Wales, on 1 September 2022.
Congratulations to Wrexham on achieving city status. The city and surrounding area already has so much to offer – it’s home to the famous Wrexham Lager Brewery, the Unesco World Heritage Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and a fantastic football club which is Wales’s oldest and one of the oldest in the world.
There is already much for Wrexham to be proud of and its future is equally exciting. I hope that the city of Wrexham continues to prosper and grow.
The speech made by Robert Buckland, the Conservative MP for South Swindon, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.
I have sat diligently through the entire debate, and I think that the House is soberly and carefully examining an issue that is not just about Brexit or our relationship with the EU, but which goes to the heart of the exceptional nature of Northern Ireland and its position in our great United Kingdom. That arrangement was reached a century ago, whether we like it or not. The consequences of Northern Ireland’s exceptional position have made this particular issue so vexed and complicated.
I was in Government when the final withdrawal agreement was negotiated. We all remember—I certainly do with great clarity—the need for there to be an agreement with the EU for us to be able to chart a way forward, not just in terms of our withdrawal and the period of grace that we had for a year after that, but our subsequent trade agreement. For me, that is of paramount importance.
I therefore come to this debate after very careful and measured thought. As an unalloyed pro-European, I still believe in the importance of Britain’s role with our friends in Europe and the importance of maintaining strong bilateral arrangements, and I do not want to see us doing anything hastily that could jeopardise that important continuing relationship. That is why we should heed very strongly the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—he worked diligently to bring back that Executive, with great success—about the need for Franco-British bilateral discussions to proceed at pace. In my considered view, that will be how we unlock the sort of negotiation that everybody in the Chamber wants.
Hon. Members are right to talk about the need for negotiation, but the reality is that there is no negotiation. We cannot even call it a negotiation because Maroš Šefčovič, in working for the Commission, needs political direction from the EU and its member states—most notably, France—to be able to even call his discussions with the United Kingdom a negotiation. That is the reality.
Although masterly inactivity is sometimes absolutely the right way for nation states to proceed, I am afraid that that is not an option for us here. A nation should pursue masterly inactivity when it has a position of advantage and I am afraid that we do not have that, because our essential interests are under threat. We have identified our essential interests as the
“maintenance of stable social and political conditions in Northern Ireland, the protection of the 1998 Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, the effective functioning of the unique constitutional structures created under that Agreement, and the preservation and fostering of social and economic ties between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom”.
Here is the point I want to make, in the short time I have: a lot has been said about necessity, as if it requires imminent peril or an immediate threat facing us just outside the door. Nobody is saying that we face that, but necessity in this context does not require that degree of imminence; it requires a degree of real threat, and growing evidence of a real threat to our essential interests. I would argue that there is such growing evidence. Clearly north-south is entirely unaffected—the respect we are showing for the single market is clear—but there is a growing problem when it comes to east-west. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) put it very well when he talked about the prawn sandwich argument.
I have to say that at a time when there seems to be violent agreement among all the parties of Northern Ireland, and indeed among all of us in this Chamber, the full implementation of the protocol is not what we want to see. Nobody wants that. What on earth are we all arguing about?
Sir Robert Neill
My right hon. and learned Friend speaks wisely about these topics, as ever. He refers to the doctrine of necessity and the tests that must be met. I think he will agree that, whether it be imminent or emerging, there has to be evidence that the high threshold is met. Does he think that, in common with the approach adopted in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, if there is evidence so pressing as to justify a departure from an international agreement, with the risks that that involves, it should be brought back to this place for the House to decide in a vote? As was then suggested in that Bill, on the evidence available, there should be a parliamentary lock on the use of that important step.
Sir Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. His amendment to that Bill was adopted by this House in 2020; I thought it was a sensible mechanism to allow this House of Commons to have its final say with regard to the implementation of these measures based on clear evidence.
My point is simply that this is not a matter of law or a question of legality. There is a respectable argument that can be deployed by the British Government to assert necessity, but this is not about the law; it is about the evidence that the Government will need to marshal to demonstrate that point. The Government’s responsibility is to be a good steward of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement.
Simon Hoare
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Sir Robert Buckland
I am afraid I cannot give way any further.
It is paramount that article 1 of the protocol, which says that it
“is without prejudice to the provisions”
of the Good Friday agreement, means that the Good Friday agreement definitely—in my view, as a matter of law—takes precedence. Any Government who fail to act or who sit idly by and ignore the concerns of Opposition Members, the wider community or the wider interests of our kingdom are therefore failing in their duty.
I have listened very carefully this afternoon to the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and his party. I would like further clarity as to whether in referring to the passage of this Bill he meant its clearance through this House, as opposed to through the other place before it returns here for a final consideration.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I was very clear: I want to see progress being made in the passage of this Bill through the House of Commons. I want to see steps being taken that give us the certainty that we will see this legislation moving forward and that Parliament will enact it. In those circumstances, we will respond positively.
Sir Robert Buckland
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he speaks about the issues with conviction and passion. As a friend of the Union—as a Unionist to my bones—I say to him and his party that it is time to act. It is time for us to come together if we are to restore the stability that the mainstream opinion of people in Northern Ireland, for whom politics is not their everyday preoccupation, is crying out for. What the right hon. Gentleman, his party and I must agree on is that the United Kingdom must be the source of that stability. If we fail to be the source of stability, people cannot be blamed if they vote with their feet—or vote in another way, God forbid.
That is why I am taking part in this debate: because as a Unionist I feel a responsibility for the stewardship of the United Kingdom that I love. I think Northern Ireland is as British as Wales, where I come from, and Swindon, which I represent. It is in the interests of all Conservatives to remember that, however tactically difficult the issue might be, and however inopportune a moment it is to have to make hard and fast decisions, the issue is of such importance that inaction is not an option. Tonight, I urge colleagues to vote for the Bill in the hope and expectation that we will see real progress and the stability that the people of Northern Ireland and the people of Britain want and deserve.
The speech made by Robert Buckland, the Lord Chancellor, at Jesus College at Cambridge University on 9 September 2021.
In my previous incarnation as Solicitor General I was honoured to last speak at the 35th symposium and so it is a particular pleasure to be asked back now as Lord Chancellor.
This is now my third symposium. It’s my pleasure to join you as much as now as it was then. As we leave COVID it’s great to be here in the company of many, many people who have great expertise in economic crime – the facts of it and how we can and should react to it.
What strikes me is that the facts on economic crime continue to be staggering. Fraud for example is the most common type of crime in the UK with 4.6 million offences in the year ending March 2021 and accounting for approximately 42% of all crime committed against individuals. What is just as stark is the cost to our society, estimated to run into the billions every year.
And what about the toll on people’s health – on their mental and physical wellbeing – that is much more difficult to quantify but it is easy to see just how real it is and how damaging its long-term effects can be. It also undermines trust in business, distorts markets, and erodes investor confidence in our economy – all things that we should not be prepared to accept at the best of times but, for obvious reasons, can ill-afford in the current climate.
This type of offending has changed enormously in recent years and COVID-19 has only accelerated that. Indeed, in the two years since the government published its Economic Crime Plan to strengthen the UK’s whole system response to economic crime, the increase in the availability and uptake of digital services across the economy, as well as the stark realities of the pandemic, have increased the opportunities for economic criminals to exploit and given rise to new ones.
These include taking advantage of our growing reliance on online banking, shopping and communication in order to commit fraud; making more use of popular crypto assets for the purpose of laundering money; and even targeting COVID-19 stimulus measures in order to try and defraud the public purse.
For us in government, these last 18 months have obviously been dominated by overcoming the challenges posed by COVID and that has been true across almost every area and level of government, but nevertheless we have continued wherever possible to make progress in our mission to deter, to prevent, and to punish a broad range of economic crimes.
The question at hand when I spoke at the symposium four years ago was: whose responsibility is economic crime and are they really up to it? My answer then was that all of us have a duty in relation to economic crime and that, if we are serious about combatting it, we need a co-ordinated response – one that is rooted in relationships between the criminal justice system and the private sector.
As we continue rising to the challenge of economic crime it is that relationship building which remains a focus for us as policymakers. This was emphasised at the meeting of the Economic Crime Strategic Board chaired by my colleague, the Home Secretary, back in February. It included leading figures from the financial, legal, and accountancy sectors and was able to agree a number of actions within our seven strategic priorities to build on our response to economic crime.
Collaboration is the theme that runs throughout that work. The upcoming delivery of the Fraud Action Plan will outline that whole system response, with specific ambitions such as looking at the ways in which we can work with the private sector to ‘design out’ fraud right at the source; boosting public/private co-operation more generally to address vulnerabilities; and improving high-value intelligence sharing.
Capitalising on the UK’s presidency of the G7 to strengthen the international response to illicit finance and corruption was also among the actions that arose out of that February meeting. I think the G7 is critical to this because these are global criminal enterprises we are talking about and the UK alone cannot put them out of business.
All these actions were of course detailed in the update to the Economic Crime Plan that was published earlier this year. It also gave a snapshot of the progress we are already making. From publishing the third National Risk Assessment of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, to allocating tens of millions of pounds of funding for reform and to combat economic crime.
I think it is fair to say that we now know more about this type of crime and are better resourced to meet the threat of it than ever before – but we are not complacent, and we have not slowed down on this, and we are determined to go further.
Now the Beating Crime Plan that we published in the summer is a great example of how we want to capitalise on the gains we have already made. The Plan itself looks at the many different levers we can pull on in government to bring down those stubbornly high rates of crime in our country in a number of different categories, which very much includes economic crime.
Our approach as set out in the plan is about facing up to the realities of the threat as it exists today. As I have already mentioned, we know that it is constantly changing and evolving to exploit weaknesses in new ways of doing things and those new technologies in particular.
That means we need to be agile and, instead of focussing on individual frauds, take a systemic approach to ensure that we reduce the opportunities to carry out economic crimes successfully, as well as making sure that criminal justice agencies have both the tools and skills to deal with it. The Beating Crime Plan sets out a framework for how we will do that.
One of my priorities as Lord Chancellor has been to improve our response not just to crime itself but to how we treat victims of crime. That should be our starting point no matter which part of the criminal law we are looking at and, first and foremost, the framework commits us to providing better care to victims.
This will include specific measures such as expanding the National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit, but we will also look more broadly at how we can improve our communications with the public about this type of crime.
We know that protecting people also means strengthening defences where they are at risk. By working with the technology, financial, telecommunications, and accountancy sectors we are going to agree sector charters that I believe will make people more safe and secure, as well as looking again at the case for additional regulation in paid-for advertising online, which we know is a conduit for fraud.
What it also requires is a more comprehensive understanding of how frauds are perpetrated, so that we are better prepared to combat them. We are replacing Action Fraud with a new national fraud and cybercrime reporting system, as well as bolstering the response from the National Crime Agency and the national security community – so that we can learn more and identify the most dangerous individuals and prolific criminal gangs involved in this sort of offending.
The City of London police naturally deal with more economic crime than many constabularies and act as national lead force for fraud. We want to increase their capacity and that of Regional Organised Crime Units to investigate these crimes; and establish a new fraud investigative function within the National Crime Agency itself, which will target the most complex and serious frauds.
The measures contained within the Beating Crime Plan are a continuation of the work we started in our Economic Crime Plan – they complement, they build upon the changes we have already made as we react to the ever-growing and ever-changing threat of economic crime in our country.
What sits beside all that work is corporate criminal liability law. I am hugely proud of the world-class and internationally renowned work we do to prosecute a range of highly complex economic crimes. But we must always be prepared to look again at whether the law in this area is sufficiently equipped to tackle economic crime, or if we need reforms to better hold companies to account for their own criminal wrongdoing, or that undertaken on their behalf.
Back in 2018 when I was Solicitor General, I posed the question about whether a new corporate offence of failing to prevent economic crime, similar to those already put on the statute book by this government concerning failure to prevent bribery and tax evasion, could be helpful.
The test for the introduction of new legislation always needs to be a rigorous one, but I know that the Serious Fraud Office have previously raised concerns about restrictions that prevent them from prosecuting these offences successfully and I firmly believe expanding and reforming the law in this area merits more work.
In November of last year I published the government’s response to our Call for Evidence on Corporate Liability for Economic Crime and whether the law in this area was fit for purpose. A range of stakeholders responded expressing many differing views on the existing legal framework, but I was not satisfied that the findings provided a conclusive evidence-base on which to justify immediate reform. They did however raise some important questions, in particular about the operation of the identification doctrine which represents the general common law test under which corporations can be attributed with criminal liability.
With that in mind, in November last year, I – along with colleagues from right across government – asked the Law Commission to carry out an in-depth review into the current law on corporate criminal liability for economic crime offences. Specifically, whether new offences need to be created that would make it easier for criminal justice agencies to prosecute fraud, money laundering, and false accounting.
In their current form, there is concern that the law on corporate criminal liability does not always appropriately criminalise corporate misbehaviour, especially when applied to large corporations. Reform may indeed be needed to ensure that organisations of all sizes can be held to account and serious crimes can be punished appropriately.
At the same time, it is of course important to ensure that any reform does not impose an undue burden of compliance on companies – so it must also take account of the impact of increased costs on law-abiding corporations to ensure they are not overburdened by processes they are expected to follow. To help ensure that any options they propose do take account of this, the Commission recently issued a discussion paper and carried out a short consultation between June and the end of August this year.
The responses to this will inform the Law Commission’s options paper that will be provided to the Government by the end of this year or early next. This work should give us a more comprehensive understanding of the options for reform and their implications.
The analysis is taking place at an opportune time and will be able to take into account the impact of both the new tax evasion offence introduced under the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and the additional regulatory requirements introduced in the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017.
I continue to be grateful to the Law Commission for undertaking this work and I hope that what will result from it are recommendations that will strengthen the law and ensure that firms that aid and abet this sort of criminal behaviour realise that it will not carry on with impunity.
To bring all this back to the question at hand during this symposium, the answer is sadly quite simple. Corruption and illicit finance pose a huge threat to our security, to our prosperity. It has the ability not only to undermine the values we hold dear as a society, but also to prop up the kind of authoritarian regimes that wreak havoc in the world. We are all acutely aware of the knock-on effect this has for human rights internationally and on our efforts to combat environmental damage – both of which it puts in huge jeopardy.
The instability this sort of crime poses both to our economy and in terms of our national security, mean that if we do not get it under control then we will all pay a much bigger price than we are already paying now. But it need not be this way.
By drawing together the various strands of work I have mentioned, I think we are starting to make a real difference. If the public and private sectors can continue to work in tandem, then it will be possible to improve our response – both at the source where these crimes are committed and operationally where they must be met with every resource of the law.
We are determined to keep up the pressure on this issue, so that we can really see results. At the same time, we want to proceed with the sensible caution that will make sure the UK remains transparent on economic crime, as well as being open and fair to global businesses. It is this careful balance that will ensure we maintain the confidence of investors and maximise their investment in our country at a crucial time for our economy.
Ultimately, we want to make sure that it is not society who must pay for economic crime, but instead the criminals who carry it out. As we begin to recover from COVID, it is imperative that we work together to make that happen – particularly on those emerging threats that I mentioned. I know that this symposium is a conduit for debate on that basis and I hope the discussions that you have had and will have throughout the remainder of the week are fruitful ones.
Once again, my grateful thanks to you all.
The comments made by Robert Buckland, the Lord Chancellor, on 8 May 2021.
We are a nation of animal lovers and many of us have sought the companionship of pets during the pandemic, which makes the reported spike in thefts especially cruel and shocking to many people.
This taskforce will examine every option available to protect families from this appalling crime and make sure perpetrators feel the full force of the law.
The statement made by Robert Buckland, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 8 March 2021.
Following my recent announcement of the Government responses on reforms to the judicial pension scheme and on proposals to address the unlawful age discrimination identified in the McCloud litigation, I am today publishing the Government response to the Judicial Mandatory Retirement Age consultation.
Running from 16 July to 16 October 2020, the consultation sought views on proposals to increase the mandatory retirement age for judicial office holders to 72 or 75, alongside a proposal to allow public interest-based extension of magistrates’ appointments beyond their existing mandatory retirement age of 70, as is currently available to other parts of the judiciary. The consultation attracted considerable interest with over one thousand responses received from across of the magistracy, the judiciary, the legal profession, and other key stakeholder groups.
It has been over 25 years since the mandatory retirement age for most judges was set at 70. A mandatory retirement age remains an important requirement of judicial office which protects judicial independence, preserves public confidence in the judiciary, and promotes opportunities within the judiciary for those who wish to apply and to progress. I believe, however, along with the majority of respondents, that it is now time the MRA is amended to reflect improvements in life expectancy and the changing demands on our courts and tribunals.
Following careful consideration, I have therefore decided to raise the mandatory retirement age to 75 to enable us to retain for longer the valuable expertise of experienced judicial office holders and to attract a wider range of applicants. I believe the new retirement age could also have a positive impact on diversity by attracting and promoting opportunities for individuals considering a judicial career later in life, such as those who may have had non-linear careers or taken career breaks to balance professional and family responsibilities. I will legislate for this change as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Magistrates currently are unable to sit beyond the existing mandatory retirement age unlike many judges who can apply to have their appointments extended or to sit in retirement on an ad hoc basis. To further boost capacity in the magistrates courts, I will include a transitional provision as part of the legislative change to allow recently retired magistrates who are below the age of 75 when the new MRA comes into force to be able to apply to return to the bench, where there is a business need.
As Lord Chancellor, it is my duty to ensure the courts and tribunals have the required resources to continue dispensing justice. I am grateful for the commitment and resilience of judges, magistrates and coroners across the country who have worked tirelessly throughout this challenging period. I know the changes I am announcing today will not immediately alleviate pressure on our justice system. However, this once in a generation change to the mandatory retirement age, alongside the important reforms we are making to the judicial pension scheme, will help to support and promote judicial recruitment and retention, ensuring we are able to continue resourcing our world-class judiciary for the future.
The statement made by Robert Buckland, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, in the House of Commons on 11 January 2021.
The Government are committed to promoting fairness and transparency for homeowners and ensuring that consumers are protected from abuse and poor service.
Last week I announced the most significant set of reforms to how we hold property for at least 40 years and the beginning of even more fundamental change to English property law, through the widespread introduction of the commonhold tenure.
To deliver this, we will bring forward legislation in the upcoming session to set future ground rents to zero. This will be the first part of seminal two-part legislation to implement reforms in this Parliament.
Enfranchisement valuation and lease extensions
In 2017 the Government asked the Law Commission to review the legislation on leasehold enfranchisement, with the aim of making it easier, quicker and more cost-effective for leaseholders to buy their freehold or extend their lease.
The Law Commission have now completed this work and their findings are clear. Under the current system, too many leaseholders find the process for extending their lease or buying their freehold prohibitively expensive, too complex and lacking transparency. I am addressing this, addressing historic imbalance to ensure fairness for leaseholders, whilst taking account of the legitimate rights of freeholders. I will continue to ensure we meet this objective as we bring forward reforms.
The Government will reform the process of enfranchisement valuation leaseholders must follow to calculate the cost of extending their lease or buying their freehold. Taken together these measures could save leaseholders thousands of pounds, depending on the remaining term of their lease.
The Government will abolish marriage value, cap the treatment of ground rents at 0.1% of the freehold value and prescribe rates for the calculations at market value. The Government will also introduce an online calculator, further simplifying the process for leaseholds and ensuring standardisation and fairness for all those looking to enfranchise.
Existing discounts for improvements made by the leaseholder and for security of tenure will be retained, alongside a separate valuation methodology for low-value properties known as “section 9(1)”. Leaseholders will also be able to voluntarily agree to a restriction on future development of their property to avoid paying “development value”.
Leaseholders of houses can currently only extend their lease once at a “modern ground rent” for 50 years, compared to leaseholders of flats who can extend as often as they wish at a zero “peppercorn” ground rent for 90 years.
I am confirming that the Government will give leaseholders of all types of property the same right to extend their lease as often as they wish, at zero ground rent, for a term of 990 years. There will continue to be redevelopment breaks during the last 12 months of the original lease or the last five years of each period of 90 years of the extension, subject to existing safeguards and compensation.
We will also enable leaseholders, where they already have a long lease, to buy out the ground rent without the need to extend the term of the lease.
Commonhold
In 2017 the Government also asked the Law Commission to recommend reforms to reinvigorate commonhold as a workable alternative to leasehold, for both existing and new homes.
Having closely reviewed their report, I am confirming I will establish a new Commonhold Council as a partnership of industry, leaseholders and Government that will prepare homeowners and the market for the widespread take-up of commonhold. I will start this work immediately, including considering legislation. I know this will take time and close working with consumers and industry, and the Commonhold Council will be the critical first step of this.
Restricting future ground rents
Finally, ahead of legislating to restrict future ground rents to zero for future leases, I am also confirming that this policy now also applies to retirement properties. Restricting future ground rents to zero is a basic matter of fairness and including retirement properties will ensure that those who live in retirement housing benefit from the same reform as other leaseholders.
I do not see a compelling argument to exclude the elderly from this new protection, in fact, they deserve it more than most.
In recognition of the previous announcement of the ground rent exemption in June 2019, and wishing to mitigate potential impact on these developers, commencement of this provision will be deferred and come into force (for retirement properties) 12 months after Royal Assent.
This announcement is the beginning of a programme of historic leasehold and property reforms. This package is only part of Government’s response to the Law Commission’s reports. The Government will respond to the Law Commission’s remaining recommendations on enfranchisement, commonhold and right to manage in due course. We will translate these measures into law as soon as possible, starting with legislation to set future ground rents to zero in the upcoming Session. This will be the first part of major two-part legislation to implement leasehold and commonhold reforms in this Parliament.
It is my ambition that together these fundamentally enhance the fairness of English property rights and be seen in the future as landmark reforms to the way we own homes.
The statement made by Robert Buckland, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 11 January 2021.
I would like to provide an update on the whiplash reform programme.
The Government remain firmly committed to the implementation of the necessary and proportionate measures set out in part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2018 and the associated increase to the small claims track limit for road traffic accident-related personal injury claims.
In my written ministerial statement of 21 April 2020, I spoke of the effect and impact that the covid-19 pandemic has had on the medical, legal and insurance sectors and the action that Government were taking to ease the difficulties caused by the outbreak. This included delaying the implementation of the whiplash reform programme to April 2021 in order to enable key sectors of this country’s business to focus on delivering their response to covid-19. This pause also allowed the Government to focus resource on the priority delivery of key justice services during the pandemic.
Despite the challenges the pandemic has presented, the MOJ continues to work with the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to finalise the supporting rules and pre-action protocol. In addition, the MOJ’s delivery partner the Motor Insurers’ Bureau continues to make excellent progress on the build of the official injury claim service.
I do however acknowledge the challenges experienced by all this year in the face of the pandemic. I said at the time of my April statement that the Government will continue to monitor developments in relation to the current pandemic and will, if necessary, make further announcements in regard to the implementation of these important reforms. So we have listened carefully to the concerns raised by stakeholders, in particular the need for as much notice as possible to take the necessary steps in anticipation of these reforms and to prepare their businesses for the changes to how small road traffic personal injury claims are managed. We understand the importance of industry preparedness and, after consideration, it is for that reason we have decided to allow an additional short period of time to further accommodate this. As such, we will implement the whiplash reform programme in May 2021.
This is a sensible and pragmatic approach to take in order to achieve successful and effective implementation of the whiplash reform programme. Delivering these reforms remains a key Government priority and we will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that all are sufficiently prepared for the new measures upon implementation.
The comments made by Robert Buckland, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, on 4 January 2021.
I am delighted to welcome Antonia back to the Ministry of Justice. I know that she shares my passion for renewing the Justice system, protecting the public and reforming offenders, and I look forward to working with her as we build back safer from the pandemic.
I am also extremely grateful to Mike Driver for his exceptional leadership as interim Permanent Secretary, and for his help in navigating the challenges the department has faced over the latter half of the last year.