Sex Offenders Register

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:21

Asked By

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement repeated by Baroness Neville-Jones on 16 February (HL Deb, cols. 714–15) on the sex offenders register, to what extent the statement took account of ministers’ duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary under section 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, Ministers are fully mindful of their duty under the Act. HMG took account of their duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary by taking steps to remedy the incompatibility identified by the court.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is clearly right that we do everything we can to protect the public from sex offenders, but does she accept that the Home Secretary went too far when she described an eminently reasonable judgment of the Supreme Court as appalling? Has her right honourable friend the Home Secretary been reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor and, if not, why not?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I should like to make two points in response to that. First, there was real public anxiety about some of the potential consequences of the judgment, which was being reflected by the Government. The Government have taken appropriate action to meet the court’s judgment and to protect the public interest. Secondly, the Lord Chancellor has no doubt spoken to his colleagues.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure for us on the Cross Benches when the pot calls the kettle black. No doubt the Minister will recall that it was a Labour Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, who wrote in the Evening Standard that he would not give in to the judges. Would the Minister therefore suggest to her right honourable friend that she would do better to follow the line taken by another Labour Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, who, when asked to comment on an adverse court decision, of which there were a great many, would only ever say that he was disappointed?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, it is not a question of giving in to the courts; it is undoubtedly a question of the proper implementation of court judgments and the role of Parliament in making legislation.

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

My Lords, we all respect the independence of the judiciary, but does not this case illustrate one of the difficulties caused by the Human Rights Act, which requires judges to go beyond their traditional role of interpreting the will of Parliament and to substitute their own views on proportionality? Is it not that which justifies the concerns of those of us who believe that these matters should be decided by Parliament?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am sure that the whole House recognises the importance of proportionality and it will note the important point that has just been made.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

In light of the decision of the court on the right of sex offenders to be able to appeal against their place on the register after 15 years, why did the Government come to the view that it was right to exclude a mental health tribunal or any other judicial body from that review process? It is fatuous for the Minister to say, as she did, that a policeman—she meant a police officer, I am sure—will know far more about the person whom he has been supervising than anyone else. Does she not realise that police officers, like offenders, move around? We cannot expect police officers to be as independent as professional and experienced people. A police officer can have a role in going to a tribunal to put a point of view. Will she think again about this?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Government do not accept that the procedure being proposed is fatuous. Police officers concerned have a much better idea than many others about the nature of the conduct of the defendant, both in prison and later, and they are appropriate people to take a view on this. Moreover, they will do so in consultation with other agencies, as the MAPPA process, in which other specialists will be involved, will be taken into account.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

Does the Minister acknowledge that there is great disappointment on these Benches too at the tone of the Home Secretary’s Statement and that we had hoped that that sort of language had been left behind by the coalition Government. Can she explain how the Prime Minister’s statement in connection with the same case, that the Government would do the “minimum necessary” to comply with a judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, was calculated to encourage respect for the rule of law?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I think that the Government should be judged by their actions. In this instance, they have put forward a reasonable, proportionate and effective proposal to meet the judgment of the court.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that the making of judgments, not just about matters of proportionality but also about reasonableness, is an inherent part of the judicial process, which is not just a matter of mechanistically interpreting the law?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am sure that the Government and the House would agree with that sentiment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is right that the judge’s ruling should be observed by the Government and that they should take steps to implement such rulings which are in accordance with our present law? There is no question of the judges usurping the responsibilities of Parliament because of the way in which the Human Rights Act is framed, but we have an obligation, as a matter of treaty and convention, to obey the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The Government accept that the convention has to be observed and that the Act has to be interpreted and they will act on their duties under both.