Grand Committee
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) (Con)
Good afternoon, my Lords. The Grand Committee is due to consider five statutory instruments and one Question for Short Debate. During that time, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Armed Forces (Remission of Fines) Order 2013
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Armed Forces (Remission of Fines) Order 2013.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)
My Lords, there is one instrument for the Committee’s consideration today. The Armed Forces (Remission of Fines) Order 2013 is required because, having introduced arrangements to set a term of imprisonment as a means of ensuring that fines are paid, we must also be able to reduce that term in proportion to any reduction of the financial penalty at a later date. This order does that, reflecting the position of the criminal courts.
Fines are meaningless unless there is a mechanism to ensure they are paid. The risk of imprisonment will help to deter those who otherwise might default on their fines, but for those who fail to pay their due, it is only fair and reasonable for them to expect any consequential terms of imprisonment to be proportionate to their fine. To put this into the service context, the alternative period of imprisonment comes into play only when a financial penalty enforcement order is made.
The services have mechanisms in place to recover fines from serving personnel through deductions from their pay. Financial penalty enforcement orders are the mechanism to recover fines from those who have left their service. Financial penalty enforcement orders apply to a person who is neither subject to service law nor a civilian subject to service discipline, but they also apply to certain personnel who are subject to service law as a special member of a reserve force.
Financial penalty enforcement orders may be made by the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency when such persons have failed to pay all or some of a financial penalty that has been awarded against them. The financial penalty enforcement order may be registered with the relevant court—in England and Wales a magistrates’ court—to be enforced, and in due course, if the fine continues to remain unpaid, the person may be imprisoned for a time in proportion to the fine outstanding.
By way of background, the Crown Court in England and Wales must fix a term of imprisonment to be served in default of any fine imposed on a defendant aged 18 or over. This is necessary and right to enable fines to be enforced. Separately, the civilian courts also have the power to reduce or remit entirely a fine following a review of the offender’s financial circumstances. Where the court does so, and a default term of imprisonment has been fixed, the court must proportionately reduce that default term of imprisonment.
I turn to the service courts. The court martial already has a similar power to reduce or remit a fine, but it has not, until now, been required to set a default term of imprisonment when fining a defendant. The Armed Forces Act 2011 inserts new Sections 269A and 269B into the 2006 Act. The first of these new sections requires the court martial, when it imposes a fine on a person aged 18 or over, to specify a term of imprisonment to be served if the fine is not paid and an enforcement order is made. Similarly, the second new section enables the court martial, when making a service compensation order against a person aged 18 or over, to specify the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed if the compensation is not paid.
These new provisions, which have come into force, are modelled on those in the equivalent civilian legislation. This order completes the necessary legislative framework for the services in dealing with financial penalties.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the need for this order and the objective that it is intended to achieve. I take it from the documentation that we have received and from what he has said that it is only a court martial that is now required under the new Section 269A to fix the term of imprisonment if the fine that it is imposing is not paid, that this does not apply if the fine is being imposed after a hearing before a commanding officer and that, consequently, only cases originally heard by a court martial will be covered by the terms of this order in respect of the term of imprisonment being proportionately reduced if the fine is subsequently remitted in whole or part.
I also understand that the reference in paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum to financial penalty enforcement orders being enforced in “prescribed civilian courts” applies in cases where the offender has left the Armed Forces or is no longer a civilian subject to service discipline and, if the fine was not paid by an offender still in the Armed Forces or by a civilian still subject to service discipline, enforcement would be a matter to be dealt with in the service discipline procedures and arrangements.
Finally, was the discrepancy between the requirements on the service courts and civilian courts in respect of a proportionate reduction in the term of imprisonment one that we well spotted, or did it come to light as a result of an actual case?
We have no objections to this order or to its objective of bringing the service provisions in this specific area in line with the equivalent civilian provisions.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am grateful for the support that the noble Lord has given to the order, which brings the Armed Forces Act 2006 into line with equivalent civilian provisions.
The noble Lord asked me three questions. The first was whether this measure applies only to the court martial and not to the summary hearing. The answer is yes, only a court martial is required. His third question was on whether the discrepancy was well spotted; the answer is, yes, it was not an actual case. As for his question about paragraph 8.1 and whether it would apply to an offender who had left the Armed Forces, the noble Lord was correct in his assumption on that. I hope that that clarifies those questions. If I may, I shall study what the noble Lord said and write if I have missed anything to add to our exchanges.
Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2013
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2013.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, the order will allow car transporters to carry out unlimited cabotage operations in Great Britain during the peak registration periods. Road haulage cabotage is domestic goods operations carried out on a temporary basis by haulage operators registered in another EU member state.
EU Regulation 1072/2009 revised the previous EU rules governing road haulage cabotage with the intention of clarifying the minimum extent to which carrying out cabotage in another member state is allowed. Translated into domestic law, this results in non-UK goods vehicles being limited to carrying out no more than three cabotage operations in the seven-day period following the last delivery on the incoming international journey. Once the limit has been reached the vehicle must leave and re-enter with a new international load in order to undertake further cabotage.
Generally, the clarity provided by the 2009 EU rules has been welcomed by industry in place of less certain application of the former rules on “temporary use”. However, the explicitness of the new rules has had an appreciable and restrictive impact on the ability to move sufficient motor vehicles in the new car registration peak periods each March and September in Great Britain.
Car-transporting vehicles are highly specialised and are not suitable for general haulage. Whereas the core demand outside the peak periods is satisfactorily met by UK vehicles operating domestically, at times of peak demand vehicles from other member states have traditionally been used to supplement the UK fleet. Regulation 1072/2009 has the effect of restricting the amount of work that non-UK hauliers can legally undertake on each visit. When there is a shortage of haulage capacity to move cars and vans, they accumulate at factories and ports during these peak periods. This lack of capacity in the supply chain becomes a bottleneck for UK manufacturers distributing vehicles for domestic consumption and export.
My department considered various options to address this problem and concluded that relaxing the cabotage rules at the peak periods via secondary legislation was the most viable option. We consulted on these proposals and the majority of responses, especially those from motor manufactures and retailers, were very supportive. This order, together with the related Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, makes regulatory changes to allow vehicles, essentially car transporters, to carry out unlimited cabotage operations moving cars and vans during the peak registration periods.
This order amends Article 5 of the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order 1975, which exempts from excise duty certain vehicles brought temporarily into the UK. Relief from excise duty is already available to vehicles used for cabotage operations in the UK in accordance with the limits of EU Regulation 1072/2009. This order additionally exempts vehicles which are being used only for or in connection with the carriage of motor vehicles in Great Britain from excise duty when carrying out unlimited cabotage operations during the permitted peak periods.
I should also draw attention to a minor slip in Article 2(4) of the order. The Committee should have a correction slip for this which makes clear that the additional definitions are inserted after the definition of the “date of importation” and not in the middle of it. It is simply a typo.
This is quite separate from the new HGV levy charge. From April 2014, these operators will be liable to pay the new HGV levy charge for the period they are in the UK, paying up to £10 per day and £1,000 per year. The related Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 created an additional exemption from the need for the user of a goods vehicle to have an operator’s licence under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. This came into force on 15 August 2013.
These changes are intended to assist UK car manufacturers and retailers by allowing unlimited cabotage operations by car transporters at the peak periods. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
First, I thank the Minister for her explanations of the order we are discussing. I have a number of points and queries.
The impact assessment refers to policy options under consideration, but it does not include the option, or the feasibility, of removing the cause of the trouble, which is the GB system of having new registration numbers every six months, and with it the quite dramatic peaks in car registrations in March and September compared to the rest of the year. The impact assessment dismisses this point, when it says on page 3 that:
“The peak registration periods themselves are nothing to do with any regulations”.
Frankly, I would have thought the peak registration system had everything to do with this order. Will the Minister tell us whether the peak registration system is in the interests of growth, since growth is obviously an important issue for the Department for Transport? This order supports the growth agenda, as the Explanatory Memorandum itself states, without answering the question as to whether the arrangement it is seeking to prop up is also in the interests of growth. Would the car industry, including car transporter firms, be better off with a much more even flow of cars being produced and sold each month than is the case at present?
Figure 4 on page 5 of the impact assessment indicates that, apart from some 10 weeks of the year around March and September, capacity in the haulage fleet comfortably exceeds—in some weeks far exceeds—demand for moving new and export cars. I hope the Minister will give us the facts and figures to show that the GB system of having new registration numbers every six months, and its cost consequences, are justified by the additional cars sold compared to what the position would be with a much more even number of car registrations and sales through the year. Frankly, if this cannot be shown, why are we introducing this order?
The impact assessment also dismisses the registration peaks issue on page 8, on the grounds that any changes to the system would be too complicated to implement. However, should we not be trying to do something about peak periods for the longer term, if that is what is causing problems for UK transporter firms, rather than getting in extra UK haulage capacity at peak times, possibly at greater cost? Can the Minister say whether other vehicle manufacturing countries—such as France, Germany and Italy—have the same problem as us over car transporter capacity because of their own systems of registration numbers?
The impact assessment refers to the effect of this order in allowing Ministers to relax selectively the application of EU cabotage rules in Great Britain. What is the maximum number of weeks in the year that we are allowed to do this? The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Association of European Vehicle Logistics and the Ford Motor Company both suggested that any relaxation period should start two weeks before the peak months; that is, it should be the last two weeks in February and August. The Government do not appear to have agreed to that suggestion, since the relaxation periods will begin on 22 February and 25 August respectively. The department agrees that it is sensible to allow the relaxation periods to commence before the start of the two peak months, but does not indicate in the Explanatory Memorandum why it would be inappropriate to agree to the last two weeks in February and August, which was what was being sought. Can the Minister say why not? I note that even the Government’s proposals will put additional heavy vehicles on our roads at a peak holiday time, around a bank holiday weekend at the end of August. Perhaps the Minister can comment on the wisdom, from a safety point of view, of doing that.
We are told that there were three negative responses. They were not exactly from lightweight sources. The traffic commissioners pointed out that foreign goods vehicles were generally more likely to be non-compliant than domestic vehicles. They said there was a risk to road safety and fair competition from the proposal. The commissioners referred to random fleet compliance surveys conducted by VOSA, which show that domestic hauliers attract a prohibition rate from mechanical defects of 10.4%, whereas the average for all foreign hauliers is more than double that, at 21.8%. The impact assessment goes on to say:
“Nevertheless, the Department is not convinced that this is likely to be a significant issue. Car transporters are highly specialised and costly pieces of equipment and we believe they are less likely to be non-compliant with routine roadworthiness requirements than the average HGV”.
That is really not a satisfactory response when rejecting the concerns of the traffic commissioners. The “we believe” school of policy-making is not on a very firm footing compared to policy-making based on evidence and facts. I ask the Minister to provide the non-compliance rates with routine roadworthiness requirements of, first, domestic car transporters and, secondly, foreign hauliers’ vehicles covered by this order, which would provide a factual basis for the department’s statement that it is not convinced that this is likely to be a significant issue.
Although the impact assessment appears a little imprecise on this point, I am assuming that the effect of the order is that more non-UK transporters will be in this country in the peak periods than are currently. That is because the impact assessment talks about the order removing bottlenecks and about exports no longer being delayed or factories put at risk because end-of-line compounds become choked. One of the negative responses came from a UK-based car transportation company which said that it would have to reduce the size of its fleet if transport operators from other member states were able to operate in Great Britain without restriction for two months of the year. Bearing in mind that outside these two months capacity exceeds demand, it seems likely that the months in question are ones when car transportation companies have more business—and more income coming in—than at any other time of the year. How can the department be so sure that non-UK hauliers being able to operate without restriction during those two peak months for business for UK car transporter firms, as a result of this government order, will not have an adverse impact on the UK firms?
The impact assessment states that the cost of non-UK hauliers would be greater. What is the difference in costs between hiring non-UK transporters and hiring their domestic equivalents, both now and under the revised temporary arrangements provided for in this order? How sure is the department that the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum that non-UK transporters will be,
“used by the sector only when the domestic supply is exhausted”,
is correct? On page 8, the impact assessment states:
“DfT Legal could aim to draft the new Regulations in a way that would make it easier to capture further categories of vehicle at a later date by simple secondary legislation”.
Is that actually what the Government intend to do, and if so, why? What other sectors have reported problems with the present arrangements, and would such a step have a detrimental effect on UK hauliers? I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm what I believe she said—that there is no link-up between the thrust or implications of this order and the issue and consultation on the road user levy.
On its first page, the impact assessment states that the review date for the policy change will be April 2018. Why is four and a half years from now considered the appropriate date for a review? Subject to the Minister’s response, we are not particularly enthusiastic about this order, but we will not seek to oppose it.
Baroness Kramer
I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for a series of entirely pertinent questions. Let me try to take them roughly in the order in which he presented them. His primary question was about whether it is possible to level out or do away with these peaks of registration. As he will be aware, until 2000 there was just one registration date, which was each August, and the peak period was even more pronounced than it is today. Indeed, it was in response to pressure from the motor industry that the DVLA consulted on the registration periods. Subsequent to that consultation, it introduced a system of registrations each March and September. It spread the peaks over two periods. The general assessment of the industry is that the system has worked well and there has been no pressure from the industry to change the system in recent years.
I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that it is to every advantage to have a system that is effective for the UK’s very robust car manufacturing and retail industry. Were there to be any review, it would probably be a BIS-driven review, because it would be to ensure that that is working effectively both for the manufacturing and retail industries and for customers. The department’s job is to minimise transport problems related to the system.
Lord Rosser
I take the noble Baroness’s point that that may have more to do with BIS than the Department for Transport. I asked whether in fact having the peak in car registrations in two months of the year was conducive to encouraging growth. I repeat one part of my question in this context which I think is a matter for the Department for Transport: do other car-producing countries in Europe—Germany, Italy, France—have the same problems as we do because of the registration number system?
Baroness Kramer
As the noble Lord will know, Ireland does that on a once a year basis, so it has something closer to our older form of a single peak. Otherwise, that is not the pattern in continental Europe, but then buying patterns are very different in various countries within the EU. I am sure that the noble Lord would not recommend that we change our system in order to follow continental buying patterns which may not fit buying patterns in the UK. I suspect that he would also agree that this has to be an industry-led consideration, because the goal is to ensure that it works well for the British manufacturing and retail industry and for customers.
The noble Lord talked about an adverse impact on the economy. He will appreciate that if we were to have a generally higher fleet at all times, there might be an associated economic cost. There are both winners and losers for the road haulage industry as well in changing the peak.
The noble Lord asked whether there is a maximum time for which the relaxations can apply. Exactly as he said, the relaxations are over two fixed periods, from 22 February to 31 March and from 25 August to 30 September each year. However, there is flexibility, because the normal EU cabotage rules permit non-UK car transporters to carry out up to three cabotage operations in the seven days prior to the relaxation period coming into force. In effect, it allows for up to six weeks of cabotage operations without having to leave the UK. I think that that responds to the issue raised by the industry when it asked for an extra week, because there is that normal process in the period prior to the actual start of the specific exemption. That provides the coverage that meets the requirements of the car manufacturers.
Lord Rosser
I think that I have understood the noble Baroness’s point, but is she saying that the earlier week before the provision comes into force is covered by the existing arrangement that you can do three trips within seven days, and that you can then switch straight to the relaxation—that that vehicle will not then have to go back to its own country, load up again and come back to the UK?
Baroness Kramer
The noble Lord is exactly correct. That is why providing an additional week, as originally requested by the industry, was unnecessary because it is covered by that element. If we added two weeks on, as he asked, we would have yet another week added on, and I do not think that that would be either necessary to the industry or particularly desirable for the system as a whole.
The noble Lord asked about the impact assessment. There is no review date in the SI itself, but the department will be putting in place arrangements to review the impact of the regulatory changes, and I will ask that he is kept informed as that process goes ahead.
The noble Lord asked about language within the impact assessment that might suggest that the DfT is looking at extending the arrangement beyond car transporters. It is not. I agree that the language was somewhat confusing, so I asked questions about it myself. If the noble Lord looks at the SI, he will see that the way in which it is written means that if there were need to look at an exemption in another area, it would be quite easy to do a mirror SI, simply changing the description of the problem and the vehicle. The issue before us is the only one being addressed. Any further exemption would still be required to go through exactly the same parliamentary procedure as this exemption. There is no change in parliamentary procedure but a reduction in the time that legal counsel would have to sit down and work on the written language. That seems a sensible step when we are constantly trying to cut down costs within government. That is all that is implied.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for that explanation, but are there other sectors raising queries over the existing arrangements, or is this the only sector?
Baroness Kramer
This is the only sector.
On safety concerns raised by the Freight Transport Association, the noble Lord will be aware that minimum vehicle road-worthiness requirements exist across all EU member states, and the Commission is looking to harmonise standards in the future. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, or VOSA, carries out regular spot checks of foreign and UK vehicles to ensure that they are roadworthy and can take enforcement action, including issuing immediate or delaying prohibitions, and in the most serious cases can impound vehicles.
The issue of safety is partly addressed by that, but the noble Lord picked up on the point discussed in the impact statement; namely, that vehicles able to access the UK because of this exemption will be car transporters. As he knows and reaffirmed, those are highly specialised, very costly pieces of kit. I do not think that anyone has done the work for the UK domestic market or for non-UK resident hauliers to compare their accident rates versus other forms of haulage. VOSA will keep a sharp eye out and monitor car transporters more closely, and that applies to both domestic and overseas vehicles; but it is generally expected that these highly sophisticated pieces of kit will be less involved in collisions and raise many fewer safety issues than the haulage industry at large. VOSA is on to that and will keep an eye on it. There is no experience that suggests that we should have any particular alarm related to the exemption being provided for under this statutory instrument.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, whether there is anything that I have missed in the questions that he raised, just to make sure that I cover them.
Lord Rosser
There are one or two, but I am not pushing the Minister to give a reply today. One argument advanced by one of the car transporter firms is that it might have to reduce the size of its fleet. I think that the Department for Transport’s answer to that is, “No, you won’t, because the costs of the non-UK hauliers will be greater”. What is the difference in cost for non-UK transporters in hiring domestic equipment under the present arrangements and under the proposed arrangements? Presumably, the argument will be that it may cost less than it does now to hire a non-UK transporter.
Baroness Kramer
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is exceedingly helpful; I thank him for triggering my memory on both this and another question. Only one UK road haulier raised this issue. It is expensive, quite frankly, for the UK industry to have to carry the additional equipment—it is expensive equipment, as we said earlier—to meet peak. From an economic perspective, therefore, I think that most road hauliers regard it as an advantage to know that the peak can be met from elsewhere without a requirement that they carry equipment which would have to sit redundant for much of the rest of the year. As the noble Lord will see, the argument works both ways on this issue.
Lord Rosser
The argument is that if you had the flow of registrations more evenly across the year, the industry would not be faced with the problem of having enough vehicles for capacity in the peaks.
I am not from the industry, but as I understand it, the other argument that has been put forward is that those two peak months are probably the time when companies take in most of their income. What guarantee is there that at the busiest and most profitable—or at least, highest income—time, companies will not find non-UK hauliers over here taking away some of that business, on which their finances for the whole year may depend?
Baroness Kramer
Again, I confirm the point that the noble Lord made himself, which is that, because heavy and highly specialised equipment has to come from overseas—you cannot just throw something together to bring over to provide a service to a motor manufacturer—the costs make overseas hauliers more expensive.
Lord Rosser
The comparative cost is one of the questions I asked. I should have thought that it would have been in this information, because it is part of the DfT argument that the cost of bringing in vehicles from abroad will be higher. Presumably, under the new arrangements, the costs may well be less than they are now for the reasons that we have been discussing.
Baroness Kramer
Yes, under the system that we had in place before we had the new European legislation, but we can look at that. I will ask the department to write to the noble Lord with more detail. Again, much of the evidence has come from the industry itself, rather than merely being put together by the DfT, so that may give him some measure of comfort.
The noble Lord raised another question that I want to answer, which is: what would happen if we did not permit those vehicles, so that every three trips within the seven days they would have to go back to the continent and come back over? That is an exceedingly expensive strategy. That is the situation as it would be today without the exemption order. Unfortunately, the cost of that would get passed on to car purchasers within the UK and to UK manufacturing industry. So the noble Lord will see that there is an attraction in avoiding additional cost. He also raised the issue of peaks on the road in August. Sending all those transporters back on the ferry and then bringing them back again, gives a far worse traffic result than keeping them here and having them service that peak domestic need.
I hope that that covers the issues. I understand that the noble Lord has questions; I have said that we will write to him on those which he feels were not satisfactorily answered by my comments; but I am glad that he has given his support to the statutory instrument.
National Health Service (Approval of Licensing Criteria) Order 2013
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 requires that all providers of NHS healthcare services that are not exempt must hold a licence from Monitor. This is in addition to the existing requirement to register with the Care Quality Commission under the Health and Social Care Act 2008. Existing foundation trusts were licensed on 1 April 2013, and NHS trusts acquiring foundation trust status will be granted a licence on acquiring that status. Independent sector providers will be licensed from 1 April 2014, subject to the agreement of Parliament to this draft order.
The 2012 Act also establishes Monitor as the sector regulator of providers of NHS-funded healthcare services. In this role Monitor will grant licences and will regulate providers under the conditions of the licence. This builds on Monitor’s previous role as the regulator of foundation trusts. The provider licence is a key tool that Monitor will use in carrying out its functions of regulating providers to protect patients’ interests.
As is right in establishing a new regulatory framework, the Act requires the approval of the Secretary of State to some key aspects of the new licensing regime in order to provide a check on their appropriateness. Monitor sets the criteria that providers which are not exempt must meet to be granted a licence by Monitor. Monitor’s power to set those criteria is, however, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Health. In the case of the first set of criteria, it is also subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure—hence the draft order which is the subject of today’s debate. The criteria proposed by Monitor, and which have been agreed by the Secretary of State for Health, are set out in the schedule to the draft order.
Monitor has already set the licence conditions, a set of ongoing obligations, with which providers must comply once licensed. Monitor published its first set of standard licence conditions in February this year after approval by the Secretary of State for Health as required by the Act.
As the Committee will remember, not all providers of NHS services are required to hold a licence. The Secretary of State has set the exemptions from this requirement and these were considered by this House on 25 July 2013.
This order is concerned with the licensing criteria. These criteria set the requirements which providers of NHS healthcare services must meet in order to be granted a licence. The licensing process is the entry point into the regulatory regime and provides Monitor with the tool to regulate providers. The licence conditions, the exemptions and the licensing criteria will give Monitor the tools to operate a regulatory framework on a large but defined pool of providers. It will enable Monitor to fulfil its main duty to protect and promote the interests of people who use healthcare services by promoting healthcare provision which is economic, efficient and effective and maintains or improves the quality of services.
In this context, Monitor has taken a proportionate and balanced approach to proposing the licence criteria and setting the licence conditions. Monitor undertook extensive engagement and consultation on its approach in order to arrive at a framework which protects patients’ interests by ensuring that providers are subject to proportionate regulation.
Monitor has proposed two criteria, which correspond broadly to two of the ongoing standard licence conditions. The first criterion requires providers to be registered with the Care Quality Commission, if required by law, in order to provide NHS services, and acts as an objective measure to assess compliance with standards of quality and safety. In order to meet this criterion, applicants for a licence must be registered with the Care Quality Commission, if required by law to do so, when the licence is granted.
The second criterion focuses on providers’ fitness. The purpose of this criterion is to ensure that people involved in overseeing the organisation and influencing the provision of healthcare services meet certain fitness requirements. In particular, no person who is a director or governor of a provider, or is performing an equivalent or similar function, may fall within the specified description of an unfit person. The description of an unfit person is designed to ensure that individuals performing these functions must comply with the statutory fitness requirements which are equivalent to those set out for directors and governors of NHS foundation trusts, and certain requirements on directors of companies. Examples of these requirements are that an individual must not be an undischarged bankrupt; have undischarged arrangements with creditors; be subject to a moratorium period under a debt relief order; have received a prison sentence of three months or longer during the previous five years; or be subject to a disqualification order or undertaking.
The criterion also requires that any corporate body which holds the position of director or governor of a provider must not be subject to the insolvency proceedings or arrangements listed in the order. Such proceedings might indicate that the company is not effective in governing the applicant and managing the applicant’s financial affairs. Providers must be able to meet these criteria in order to be granted a licence, but they must also continue to meet them to keep their licence, along with other licence conditions designed by Monitor to protect and promote patients’ interests. The department agrees that these are robust, appropriate criteria for Monitor to assess providers against, and I therefore commend this order to the Committee.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl for that very full explanation of this order. In the context of the order, I should declare my chairmanship of an NHS foundation trust, which is subject both to Monitor and the Care Quality Commission.
I thought that the noble Earl’s full explanation of the order really reinforced concerns about the complexity of Monitor’s role and potentially the conflict between its licensing responsibilities, its independent regulation of pricing of NHS services and the general support that it gives for NHS foundation trusts. Now that Monitor has had time to consider these matters, since the passage of the 2012 Act, can he explain how it avoids conflicts of interest between these three separate roles? He will be aware that we discussed that issue when we debated the Bill.
Clearly, a lot of responsibility in Monitor rests on the leadership of Dr David Bennett. The noble Earl will be aware that in the pre-scrutiny hearing in the other place, the Health Select Committee—after examining Dominic Dodd, who had been proposed as chairman of Monitor—said of David Bennett that he,
“was appointed as interim Chief Executive in April 2010, and appointed as substantive Chair in March 2011. Since then he has filled the roles of both Chair and Chief Executive—effectively Executive Chair—and has led Monitor through the whole process of change brought about by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. This has been a period of great uncertainty for Monitor, with the nature of its role in the new system being unclear for most of the 18 months between the introduction of the Bill in January 2011 and its passing in 2012. Dr Bennett has both shaped and interpreted the role that Monitor now plays in the system which makes the transition to another individual taking on the Chair an especially difficult one. We do not think Mr Dodd is the right person to undertake that difficult transition”.
I understand that, following that, Mr Dodd withdrew his nomination, or at least his nomination was withdrawn.
In the context of this order, which sets the framework in which licensing will be undertaken by Monitor in future, can the Minister say a little more about the Government’s intention with regard to leadership, particularly the continuing role of Dr Bennett as both chairman and chief executive? As the Minister will know, in normal corporate governance terms that is not normally encouraged.
My third question relates to the Explanatory Memorandum, rather than the order itself. I was interested to see that, under “Policy Background”, paragraph 7.2 sets out three key functions of Monitor. I have already referred to them as,
“working with NHS England to provide independent regulation of pricing … protecting patient choice and”,
addressing,
“anti-competitive behaviour … and … working with commissioners to secure continuity of services”.
I just wondered where integration had got to. Have the Minister’s officials forgotten that? We debated this at great length and the Bill was amended to ensure the importance of integration. The noble Earl will recall that Monitor was given that express role. I am very disappointed to see that it is not referenced in the policy background but I am not surprised because, frankly, we have seen very little work on integration coming out of the various bodies concerned with the health service.
There has, however, been an awful lot to do with competition. As the noble Earl will know, in evidence to the Health Select Committee—I think it was only two weeks ago—the chief executive of the NHS railed against the way in which competition was being introduced in the health service. He knows, as everyone working in the health service knows, that a huge amount of money is being spent because of the enforced tendering of services that is undoubtedly taking place. It is very important that the Government reconsider the architecture that they have now put in place.
In addition to Monitor, we have the CQC, the NHS Trust Development Authority, the NHS Executive—I am sorry, I meant NHS England; that was a Freudian slip—and Ministers. Compared to the previous Secretary of State, the current Secretary of State takes a very different view of his role, and so we have a very confusing architecture. We also have the Office of Fair Trading making extremely unhelpful and unwelcome interventions, which again seems to act against the appropriate integration of services. It really needs to be sorted out.
I have no doubt that we will talk about this in a few minutes, but after Monitor’s welcome report on walk-in centres—I do not know whether it was as welcome to the noble Earl as it was to me—we have a situation where NHS England has undoubtedly been encouraging clinical commissioning groups to close down walk-in centres to make savings. However, yet another part of the architecture has come out with a report essentially saying that this has been a big mistake and has added to the pressure on A&E departments. One is entitled to ask: who on earth is really driving the policy at the moment?
Although I welcome the Monitor report, I was interested to know why it has produced it. At paragraph 1.2 on page 9 of the report, Monitor says:
“Our decision to review walk-in centre provision is grounded in our main duty as health care sector regulator: to protect and promote the interests of patients by promoting the provision of health care services that is effective, efficient and economic and that maintains and improves the quality of services”.
Well, yes, but is Monitor’s role really to look at this area of service provision? Fine—it is a good and welcome report, but it is confusing as to where one regulator’s role stops and the other starts. I have this great impression of five or six large, powerful bodies, all with well paid executives and strong boards, vying for influence. What that does at a time of huge pressure in the health service is to create uncertainty about who is leading, who is setting the policy and who is responsible for its implementation.
Finally, I come back to the question raised by Don Berwick in his very interesting report on patient safety, which the Government commissioned. In that report, which was published only a few months ago, he said:
“The current NHS regulatory system is bewildering in its complexity and prone to both overlaps of remit and gaps between different agencies. It should be simplified”.
It certainly should be simplified. He went on to say:
“The regulatory complexity that Robert Francis identified as contributing to the problems at Mid Staffordshire is severe and endures, and the Government should end that complexity”.
Does the noble Earl agree that the order he brings before us today is simply a sign of greater complexity? I do not think that we have had a response from the Government on this recommendation. I know that the noble Earl has a regulatory Bill up his sleeve for the next Session. Given what Don Berwick said and the evidence that Sir David Nicholson gave to the Health Select Committee, does he not agree that it might be sensible to go wider and look at this whole business again, to get much greater clarity into what is a complex situation?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his questions. I start with the issue that he raised initially, which was about the role of Monitor and what he perceives as the conflicts within that role. I address that by saying that there is no fundamental conflict, although he is perfectly right to say that Monitor has distinct, separate functions. Different executives within Monitor lead on each of those areas. Monitor has a board, which functions to ensure that David Bennett’s dual role as chair and CEO works effectively. At the same time, the Department of Health, as the steward of the system, keeps Monitor’s performance under review. It does that through quarterly accountability meetings. I suggest that the conflicts that the noble Lord perceives are much more in the perception than the reality. There are mechanisms in place within Monitor to ensure that the functions are kept distinct and that, where appropriate, Chinese walls operate.
The noble Lord referred to the nomination of Dominic Dodd as the chair of Monitor and the Select Committee’s view that he was not the right person to lead the organisation. That was a view which Mr Dodd himself accepted, and he volunteered to step aside. In the light of that, we are currently considering options for a sustainable solution to Monitor’s leadership. We will make an announcement as soon as we can on that, but, meanwhile, I emphasise that we have complete confidence in David Bennett’s leadership of the organisation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I meant no criticism of Dr Bennett in his role. I just point out that if one goes back to Cadbury and all sorts of reports since then, the evidence is clear that it is undesirable to have the same person carrying out both roles.
Earl Howe
I completely take the noble Lord’s point. We will of course be looking carefully at how best to proceed. It was, of course, with a view to appointing a separate chair that Mr Dodd’s name was put forward.
The noble Lord referred to the importance of integration. He is of course right that we debated the issue extensively during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act and have done so since. The Health and Social Care Act established Monitor as the sector regulator of healthcare. That involves a duty placed on Monitor to protect and promote patients’ interests by promoting provision of NHS services which is economic, efficient and effective and which maintains or improves the quality of those services. Within those broad headings, integration fits neatly.
The provider licence is a key tool which Monitor will use in carrying out its duties and in influencing and regulating the provision of NHS services. Specifically, the licence enables Monitor not only to set prices for NHS-funded care, which it does in partnership with NHS England, but to enable integrated care. The fact that that is not explicitly referenced in the Explanatory Memorandum is not something to which noble Lords should attach particular significance. Integration is part and parcel of Monitor’s overall duties.
Age-Related Payments Regulations 2013
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Age-Related Payments Regulations 2013.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the draft regulations before the Committee today confirm the rules surrounding the proposed payments to holders of Equitable Life with-profits annuities which began before 1 September 1992.
This version of the regulations supersedes a previous draft which was debated in this House in July. As a result of that debate, a drafting error was identified in the regulations. The policy as announced by the Chancellor specified that a single payment would be made to each eligible policyholder regardless of the number of relevant policies they held. However, the previous draft allowed for multiple payments to be made to policyholders if they held multiple policies. The previous draft has now been withdrawn. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for identifying the error, and I apologise for our having made it in the first place. However, all policy decisions surrounding the regulations remain the same, and only technical changes have been made to the regulations.
I briefly remind the Committee of the background to the decision to make these payments. As noble Lords will be aware, this Government established the Equitable Life payment scheme in 2010 to make payments totalling up to £1.5 billion to about 1 million former Equitable Life policyholders who suffered financial losses as a result of government maladministration which occurred in the regulation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society.
Since the establishment of the scheme, the Government have received representations suggesting that a specific group of elderly policyholders who bought their with-profits annuity from Equitable Life before 1 September 1992 should be included within the scheme. The Government remain of the view that there is no basis for their inclusion. In short, this is because the scheme is based on the understanding that those investing with Equitable Life relied on regulatory returns that were subject to government maladministration. As such, they had lost the opportunity to make a fully informed decision. If they had had this opportunity, they might have invested elsewhere. The first returns that would have been different if maladministration had not occurred were those of 1991, which would not have influenced policyholders’ decisions until September 1992. Therefore, investment decisions made before this time are not included in the scheme.
It is clear, however, that this group of policyholders is under significant financial pressure in their later years, as they have not received the income that they planned for from their Equitable Life annuity that they bought more than 20 years ago. In this year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced that the Government would make an ex gratia payment of £5,000 to those individuals who bought an Equitable Life with-profits annuity before 1 September 1992 and were aged over 60 on 20 March 2013, the date of the Budget. An additional £5,000 is available to those policyholders who are also in receipt of pension credit.
I can reassure noble Lords that the revision of the regulations has not caused any delay to the planned timing of these payments. We appreciate that many of the pre-1992 with-profit annuity policyholders are very elderly and in financial hardship, so the Treasury intends these payments to be made soon after the parliamentary process has been completed. We are very grateful to the Prudential, which makes ongoing annuity payments to this group of policyholders, for its support in making these one-off payments.
In September, the Treasury wrote to all those who are expected to be eligible under these regulations to give more detail on the payments and to encourage people to check their pension credit status by 1 November with the Department for Work and Pensions. As a result, the Department for Work and Pensions has recently begun work to identify which pre-September 1992 annuitants are in receipt of pension credit. This will allow the payments due to them to be increased from £5,000 to £10,000 without the need for them to make any application. Under the regulations, we also have a provision that should an annuitant be eligible for pension credit on 1 November but is not on the DWP’s records for some reason on that date, they can apply directly to the Treasury for the additional £5,000 due to them.
As I explained on a previous occasion, should an eligible annuitant have passed away after the Budget announcement on 20 March 2013 before receiving their payment, this payment will be made to their estate. As these payments have a more complex administrative process, the Treasury has already begun the process of writing to the personal representatives of those deceased policyholders with details of how to apply for this payment. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations, which engender a sense of déjà-vu. We note that the error in the original regulations has been corrected to ensure that only one payment of £5,000 is due regardless of the number of relevant with-profits annuity policies held by a qualifying annuitant.
Other than the possible delay in payment—I think that the Minister said that this re-run of the regulations would not mean a delay—it would seem that no individual has been disadvantaged by the re-run of the regulations. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that because I think that the same parameters operate for pre-1 September 1992 with-profits annuity policies; that is, that the individual should have been aged over 60 on 20 March 2013 and should have checked their pension credit status by 1 November 2013. If the re-run meant that payments were later than they otherwise would be, there could be a very narrow category of individuals who might have survived to receive pension credit but did not survive to receive the additional payment, but I do not think that that arises if there is no delay in the payments.
We went over some of the convoluted background to the Equitable Life saga. I do not propose to revisit it today as the Minister gave us a summary. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the status of our earlier debate. I cannot remember whether it was reported to the House or whether it just withered on the vine. I do not know whether the Minister has anything further to add to our exchanges on the tax profile of recipients. If he does, perhaps he can do that this afternoon.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his constructive comments on the scheme. I shall do my best to answer them, but there may be one or two things that I need to follow up on in writing.
I understand that no individual will be disadvantaged as a result of this slight delay because we have moved to write to people and to get the process in motion. On timing, the noble Lord raised the fascinating question of how many payments might be made before the current financial year. That is an extremely interesting question to which there is probably an obvious answer.
There are two things on which I may need to write. On applications, 5 July and whether that is a deadline, I think that it is but, if I am wrong, I shall write to him. By 5 July, given that people will have been contacted already, we would have expected them to have responded. The noble Lord asked a number of questions about the Equitable Life scheme, particularly on publicity around the closure of that scheme. I am not in a position to give a detailed answer to those questions now, but I will write to the noble Lord, and I hope I will set his mind at rest.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
On the July 2014 date, if I understood what the Minister said, we could have a situation where the Treasury, based on the engagement of Prudential, has made an error in not making a payment to somebody yet the potential recipient has not applied within the deadline—between April and July is a fairly narrow period—and would cease to have any entitlement. Where the origin of the problem is an error by Prudential or the Treasury, that seems a little harsh.
Lord Newby
Can I write to the noble Lord on that point and set his mind at rest?
Categories of Gaming Machine (Amendment) Regulations 2014
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Categories of Gaming Machine (Amendment) Regulations 2014.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, these regulations are intended to increase existing stake and prize limits for some, but not all, categories of gaming machine. Gaming machines are an important source of revenue for many sectors of the gambling and leisure industries, and these measures will provide support for businesses which continue to experience difficult trading conditions.
The challenges faced by individual sectors, including family entertainment centres, bingo clubs and pubs, have had a marked effect on gaming machine manufacturing and supply businesses. According to the Gambling Commission, the total number of machines in the regulated industry fell by around 10% between 2010 and 2012. The Government consulted earlier this year on proposals to increase stake and prize limits for some categories of gaming machine. The Government received many representations in support of their proposals and remain confident that increases will not risk the licensing objectives in the Gambling Act, which rightly include the protection of children and vulnerable adults from being harmed or exploited by gambling. In fact, the Government have secured commitments from the gambling industry to develop, trial and implement strengthened player protection measures to help to build and maintain the public confidence necessary to accommodate the increased stake and prize limits. Such measures are particularly relevant to the casino industry, where gaming machines offer significantly higher prizes than other sectors of the industry.
Increases to stake and prize limits vary depending on the category of machine and the premises in which they are located. The level of increase is highest in casinos, which represent an appropriate venue for high stake and prize gambling given the stringent regulatory controls they are required to uphold. The new limits provide greater consistency with the level of gambling that is expected to take place in a casino and will stimulate capital investment in the industry, allowing it to compete more effectively internationally.
For machines found in clubs and pubs, the level of increase is lower. The Government are persuaded that these increases will provide support to businesses while remaining consistent with the licensing objectives. The Government propose to maintain stake and prize limits for all types of machine found in seaside arcades and travelling fairs, with the exception of penny-fall machines, where a small increase is proposed. This will minimise any potential risk to public protection from gaming machines accessible to children.
These regulations have been considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I am grateful for its contribution. The committee quite rightly identified the importance of minimising problem gambling, particularly in the context of young people, and requested the Government to keep this issue under close review alongside their efforts to help the gambling industry.
I assure noble Lords that the Government closely monitor the problem of gambling and welcome the contribution of the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board and the Responsible Gambling Trust, working with the industry to strengthen existing mechanisms to monitor the impact of gaming machines, stake and prize limits both economically and socially.
Overall, although it is an important growth measure for many struggling businesses, I believe that this package of measures strikes the necessary balance between creating the conditions for industry growth and maintaining the licensing objectives which underpin the Gambling Act 2005, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the changes. I am also extremely grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has taken such an interest in these proposals and raised many of the questions that I might otherwise have asked.
First, I make clear that I welcome the decision to have a triennial review. It is obviously useful to keep stakes and prizes under review in a structured and timely manner, so that is a useful development.
Secondly, however, I share the concern of many who responded to the consultation, as well as the Scrutiny Committee, that the research evidence on the effects of those forms of gambling on poverty and addiction is so sparse. Given that we are dealing with important aspects of social policy, it is not good enough to argue that because something is unproven, we should carry on as before. Surely, the onus should be on the industry to prove that there is no causal link between the use of gambling machines and addiction before asking us to increase the stakes, and therefore their profits. Is the Minister happy that sufficient research is taking place? If not, what further steps do the Government have in mind to deliver substantive and compelling evidence on these issues? Thirdly, I believe that it is important to have a wider cost-benefit analysis on the impact of those changes than simply measuring the economic advantages of jobs in the sector.
In answer to a question by the Scrutiny Committee on the potential public sector impact on young and vulnerable people who are harmed by gambling, the Government replied that public protection will be secured if the industry delivers on its social responsibility and player protection commitments. However, it is not clear what mechanisms the Government have in place to secure those commitments from the sector. Surely, the evidence so far is of an industry reluctant to act against its own interests in maximising player participation and therefore potential profits. What levers do the Government intend to use to hold the industry to account on social responsibility and player protection?
Turning to the specific proposals in the regulations, I first ask the Minister about the increased stakes proposed for category D coin-pusher or penny-fall machines. I accept that the increase is small and that the impact may be minimal, but what justification is there for encouraging children and young people to gamble at an early age, given the acknowledged link between early gambling and problem gambling later? In reply to the Scrutiny Committee, the Government say that coin-pushers are generally played for amusement and are provided in a family environment. Although that may be true, is it not also true that those machines are usually sited next to other gambling machines that children might then also be tempted to play? A renewed attraction to those relatively small-scale machines cannot be seen in isolation if it is encouraging a more general gambling habit. Why is it necessary to take an added risk when there is a known connection between early gambling and problem gambling?
Finally, I would like to discuss the major concerns over B2 fixed-odds betting terminals. The Minister will know that there is increasing evidence of the harm that those machines are having on individuals and local communities through the proliferation of high-street betting shops, which are increasingly reliant on the profit from those machines. These machines are the source of some of the worst examples of gambling addiction. It is possible to lose up to £100 every 20 seconds, which is £18,000 an hour. The speed of play is faster than a roulette table, and it can happen without any staff contact or intervention. Meanwhile bookmakers containing these machines are being clustered in some of the poorest high streets in Britain, and local authorities have limited control over their expansion as in planning law they are classified in the same class as banks and building societies.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this order and echo many of the concerns mentioned by the noble Baroness with regard to the social protections we need to have in place for young and vulnerable people. But this is a regulated sector in which job losses, business closures and competition with jurisdiction overseas are to be found on virtually every page of the Explanatory Memorandum. Two hundred and ninety arcades have closed since 2009-10, with 900 jobs lost. These arcades are part of the character of so many of our traditional seaside resorts, and we should do everything we can to keep them competitive.
My principal reason for intervening on this order is because of the importance of consultation with sports clubs, which are mentioned in this document. I hope that sports clubs have welcomed this order, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that subject. Sports clubs’ major task is to retain members and increase participation. Substantial investment is needed in sports clubs so that they stay competitive and attractive, whether by floodlighting their premises, segregating their changing rooms or upgrading their facilities—three items on which the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, has always been eloquent and occasionally vociferous. Today, I am sure she will agree with me that licensed gaming machines, properly controlled, are an important source of income for some of our sports clubs, and we need to provide interest in those machines and demand for them from the membership. For that reason, it is important for sports club to view this order, see the changes that are being made and, I hope, welcome them. As I understand it, sports club machines come in category B4, or possibly B3A—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. The proposal is to increase the minimum stake from £1 to £2 for those machines, and potentially the prize money from £250 to a maximum £400, to make it more attractive to players and, in turn, to generate more income for the sports clubs.
The noble Baroness rightly mentioned, and I echo her comments, due social protections should be put in place, with proper regulation in the clubs and protection of young and vulnerable people. With that, it would be right to support the order and recognise that both sport and sports clubs will benefit, in a difficult economic environment. Ultimately, I hope that we will see the goals that many of us who will participate in the next debate, albeit briefly, will want to see on the record—namely, an increase in participation in sport in this country, which can best be delivered by the clubs, which are there in the interests of their membership.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, who have in many ways captured the extent of the debate—the economic problems being faced by many sports clubs and other commercial enterprises around the country and, at the same time, a natural and right concern, which the Government share, about protecting vulnerable adults from exploitation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked a number of specific questions, and I want to give them an appropriate response as best as I am able. But to respond quickly to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who talked about the importance of gaming machines as a revenue stream for sports clubs and other private members’ clubs, that is correct. In the category of machines that will be found there are the B4 machines to which he referred, as well as the B3A and C machines. The clubs observe the Gambling Commission’s guidance and codes of practice to ensure effective social responsibility arrangements are in place.
The noble Baroness asked about research into the effects of gambling. I reassure her that work is already under way to advance our understanding about gaming machines and their impact. The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board, an independent expert advisory body, is working to develop a strategy which will review the impact of regulatory change and any associated changes in gambling behaviour, while the Responsible Gambling Trust is carrying out research which aims to better understand how people behave when playing gaming machines and what will help people to play responsibly. Again, in the context of this, it is important to realise that one reason for the decline is the growth of online gambling, which has no regulation or supervision at all. So drawing people to enjoying this form of leisure in a reasonable way in regulated areas would seem to help towards that. The work being carried out will further our understanding of the social impact of regulatory change and allow for the wider cost-benefit analysis on the impact of these changes to which the noble Baroness refers.
The noble Baroness asked about the justification for intervention and said that there should be an onus on the industry to justify proposals for stake and prize increases. The Government agree with that approach and are satisfied that sufficient evidence has been put forward by the industry to justify the stake and prize limits that the regulation proposes.
On strengthening player protections, the Government have consulted extensively and invited representations about research as part of the review. I should say to my noble friend Lord Moynihan that there were many representations and responses to the consultation received from sports clubs to this, and they were broadly in favour of the measures being put forward for the reasons that he has outlined. The Government have received advice from the Gambling Commission and the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board, and there is scope to increase the stake and prize limits for some categories of gaming machine, provided that the industry makes progress in strengthening player protection. It has twin sides; as the industry gets better at providing protection, it may be possible to consider further changes to the limits. That is the right way in which to proceed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to the risks to children, particularly from the increases in stake and prize limits to penny falls and coin pushers. The Government share the view that a cautious approach should be taken to products accessible by children. It is for these reasons that the Government have rejected the proposals from the industry to increase the stake and prize limits for reel-based gaming machines accessible to children and all other category D machines, with the exception of coin pushers.
The noble Baroness also referred to fixed-odds betting terminals, the so-called category B2 gaming machines. As part of the review, the Government sought quantifiable evidence on the impact of a reduction in stake and prize limits for these machines. However, the evidence received was inconclusive and the Government have been advised by the Gambling Commission and the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board that a precautionary reduction in stake and prize limits is currently unsupported by the available evidence. Despite this, the Government remain concerned about these machines and their potential association with an elevated risk of gambling-related harm. The Government have therefore made it clear that they will consider the future of the B2 machine to be unresolved. As the noble Baroness noted, the Prime Minister confirmed the Government’s commitment to monitor these machines to ensure a fair and decent approach that prevents problem gambling, and that is exactly the course of action that the Government are taking here.
As to the £18,000 per hour loss rate sometimes cited for B2 machines, this is astronomically improbable, one might say. It is an extreme calculation. However, the Government have acknowledged that it is quite possible to lose or win several thousand pounds within an hour within a normal range of behaviour on a machine. It is for these reasons that the measures I have outlined are so important and why the Government consider the future of these machines to be unresolved.
On betting-shop clustering on high streets, to which the noble Baroness referred, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is in regular discussion with DCLG Ministers about the issue. I can certainly reassure noble Lords that these discussions will continue and that evidence will be monitored.
The Government are satisfied that the measures that we are debating today will bring benefits to businesses and sports clubs through much needed revenue and will allow consumers to enjoy a broader range of products in a responsible way. On the basis that the industry has committed to enhance its social responsibility measures and that work is under way to allow for proper assessment of the impact of these regulations, I am confident that the risk to problem gamblers and vulnerable people is minimal.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Perhaps I may briefly prompt the Minister on the B2 issue, an area in which there is an agreed level of concern. He said that the Government’s view was unresolved and that the issue would continue to be under review. It would be helpful if the Minister could give a little more detail of how a resolution will be reached. What timetable and mechanism do the Government have in mind for digging into this issue, analysing it and bringing forward a new resolution?
The only other point I wish to make is that if you rely on the industry to come forward with evidence to show that there is not any harm, you will wait a long time. Somehow such evidence has to be found from other sources.
Lord Bates
That is correct. The noble Baroness has put her finger on a key point. However, it is an incentive for the industry. If it wants to see prize and stake limits increased in the future, it will have to collate such evidence and come forward with it. On her specific point, work is under way to rapidly improve our understanding of these machines. The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board is due to produce a report in autumn 2014, which will be before the next triennial review. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness.
Children: Sport
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Massey of Darwen
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage children from the inner cities to take up sports.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, may I first ask permission from the Committee to remain seated while I introduce this debate? I am suffering not, as it might have been formerly, from a bash on the head from a hockey or cricket ball but from an unforgiving pavement in New York.
I am pleased to have secured this debate and I thank those noble Lords who are taking part, some of them former, and possibly currently, outstanding sportsmen and women, for sharing their expertise and, no doubt, their concerns that the UK must maintain a vigorous approach to fostering young people’s participation in sport.
First, let me say that I do not define sport as simply competitive sport, although that is important. Sport is also about health-related fitness, which may include walking, cycling, gym work, swimming, dance, yoga, pilates and so on. Secondly, I do not wish to confine my remarks and concerns to school sport, although I do have concerns about that. Sporting chances in the inner city may be provided by outreach from clubs who play rugby and soccer, for example, and in communities where dedicated parents and other adults encourage young people to do sport. There is good evidence that an active lifestyle can improve academic performance and health, and that working in a group or team can foster co-operative learning and endeavour. There is also good evidence that taking part in sport can help to cut down crime and fight negative, anti-social behaviour.
However, I begin with school sport, which is where many children begin to take part in sports, particularly those from the inner cities. To have opportunities to deliver sports programmes there must be a structure, particularly in the inner cities. Will this Government restore fully the school sports partnerships structure? I am aware that David Cameron has promised £150 million to cover all of England’s 17,000 primary schools, which is about £8,823 a year each. Why was this money not used to guarantee the school sports partnerships, which worked so well at a cost of £162 million a year? Those partnerships were developed under a Labour Government to rebuild sport in state schools. That £162 million funded specialist schools sport co-ordinators for two days a week and there were 450 such partnerships, reaching across all schools. The results were that, in 2009-10, more than 90% of pupils had two hours of PE a week and that 78% took part in competitive sport.
Ofsted noted that:
“Evidence … is that these partnerships had left a notable legacy in the vast majority of secondary schools and their feeder primary schools over the last four years”.
There were protests at these cuts from teachers, sports professionals and the Youth Sport Trust and there was a partial restoration of funding, with £32.5 million for each partnership for three years to support reduced school sports partnerships, but that money was not ring-fenced and half the partnerships closed. The school sport survey was also abolished but the cricket project, Chance to Shine, more about which in a minute, carried out its own survey and found that 54% of parents said that their children were doing less than two hours of organised activity in school per week—an extraordinary decline.
Without a national strategy with links to communities, health boards and the media, I fear that inner-city sport will be at risk for schools and their children. Not only will we be deprived of possible star sportsmen and women, but young people’s health and well-being will suffer. What is the Government’s strategy for young people and sport? Of course, there are initiatives. One of my favourites for many years has been the English cricket board’s Chance to Shine. I should declare an interest as a Lady Taverner, like my friend across the Room, the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, who, I hope, will build on what I have to say. Chance to Shine works in a strategic way with all 39 county cricket boards to deliver coaching to boys and girls in inner-city schools, not on vast playing fields but in school playgrounds and halls. In 2005, fewer than 10% of state schools played any form of cricket. Since then, Chance to Shine’s initial target of reaching 2 million children in 6,500 schools has been achieved. That is extraordinary. The programme has had structure, dedicated staff and evaluation effectiveness. As I have said already, structure and knowing what works is vital.
Chance to Shine has extended its inner-city StreetChance programme, funded by Sport England, to enable 11,000 16 to 24 year-olds in deprived areas to take part in weekly community cricket over the next three years. That includes the project Girls on the Front Foot, to empower girls through cricket. It is important that, in addition to cricket, Chance to Shine workshops also discuss with young people the dangers of gangs, gun and knife crime and drug and alcohol abuse. Fifty-four per cent of participants say that their attitude towards the police has changed for the better; and 64% say that the project helped them to avoid getting involved in local gangs. That is sport influencing and empowering behaviour in a dramatic way.
Let me mention one or two other initiatives. Noble Lords may recently have seen news of the Ebony Horse Club in Brixton in south London, opened in 2011 by the Duchess of Cornwall. The Duchess and the Queen visited very recently to review progress and unveil a plaque. The club provides a community riding club for 160 inner-city children a week, including those with special needs and disabilities. It offers, as well as access to working with horses, mentoring for children with challenges at home and school. It has nine horses, a paddock and classroom facilities for horse care classes and group work. Again, that is an example of sport going beyond the aim of fitness. The programme enthuses and empowers young people to think outside their lives and to work collaboratively.
Sport England’s Get on Track supports marginalised young people between the ages of 16 and 25 through a wide-ranging tailored sport and personal development programme. Exciting opportunities are delivered by the Youth Sport Trust’s Change4Life, based on the skills developed in a range of Olympic and Paralympic sports, encouraging young people to take part in physical activity. In Birmingham, Sport4Life UK aims to involve the most disadvantaged children not only in sport but in volunteering, education and personal development, and encourages older young people to get back into education, employment or training.
In Camden, a fencing club opened as a community youth project to offer lessons to young people aged between seven and 17. It is based in a school, Acland Burghley, using the sports hall and gymnasium and opens five nights a week. The club also offers fencing classes in primary schools in the London Borough of Camden.
I have given a few examples of sporting initiatives which work with young people, many of whom are disadvantaged and from inner cities. That is invigorating and exciting. The children who get involved are very lucky, but a youth sports strategy should not depend on luck. Again, I ask: when will the Government provide us with a coherent strategy for youth sport? A strategy which is funded, cohesive, visible and dynamic would benefit all our young people, encourage the take-up of sport and encourage the playing of sport to be lifelong, in the inner cities and elsewhere.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for introducing this debate.
The challenge of making an outstanding London Olympic Games truly great is the challenge of matching the exceptional performance of Team GB with an unprecedented stepchange in sport and recreational opportunities for inner-city children. We must translate that inspiration into their participation. It is not too late. Stronger ministerial co-ordination between a wide range of departments, driven by greater government commitment, can still deliver the necessary results.
No school should be an island. Only by working with local clubs, both community and private, can schools add full value to pupils. I hope the pilot teacher training programme which provides national governing body qualifications to promising teachers, so that they can become specialists, can be extended and funded nationwide. Ofsted should take a far more proactive role. Nothing short of a revolution in sports policy is needed to improve the content and time devoted to preparing primary school teachers for working with schoolchildren in PE.
In the run-up to the Games, the Get Set programme reached out to schoolchildren and was an essential part of the sports legacy for our schools. The tireless work of Jan Paterson of the British Olympic Association has ensured that Olympic and Paralympic values are now integrated into a wide range of curricula in a growing number of British schools. It continues to make sense for schools to draw on the expertise of the BOA and of governing bodies, as early and as deeply as possible.
When economic pressure is applied to local authority spending, discretionary spend will always be the first to be squeezed. In England, sport and recreation provision is discretionary spend. We should not forget that local authorities have historically been the largest source of funding for sport and recreation in this country. In educational terms; in aiding the fight against obesity; in providing the only language understood by some of our young people, who find the constraints of the classroom difficult to grasp and would find themselves on an escalator to crime without the medium of sport; in learning teamwork; in realising the opportunity of a growing, multi-billion pound industry with new media and global social networking access—in all these areas many of these benefits will wither on the vine, because of necessary local authority cost savings, unless discretionary spend becomes mandatory. With these cuts, and the loss of playing fields and facilities, the hope and inspiration which was felt by so many young people in 2012 will be dented.
The words of the President of the CCPR, the Duke of Edinburgh, after his half-hour broadcast on active leisure in 1956, which was watched by 10 million people, included the remarks:
“All I am concerned about is people should not be forced to do nothing because there is no opportunity for them to do something in their leisure time”.
We had a great Games. Children in the inner cities deserve a matching opportunity to participate in the sport of their choice, to improved facilities, greater access, targeted investment, qualified PE teachers and high-quality coaching.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, in the two minutes and 59 seconds available to us, it is difficult to add much to this debate, other than to say, like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, that when you ask government to get involved in this you are asking all of government to get involved, and to reorganise in a way that government seems to find extremely difficult to do. Under any colour we have seen so far in government, departments do not like to co-operate. Simply to make a change that will help the country’s youth to take part in sport, you have to cover half of Whitehall. I was just doodling here and have written down Health, Education, DCMS and Ministry of Justice; all these departments have an input into some of the introductory schemes that virtually all sports take part in. The noble Baroness mentioned Chance to Shine, but there are dozens of schemes, involving virtually all sports. They have worked out that, if you offer an introductory package, it allows people to get involved in a sport.
I do not like the use of the term “non-competitive”, because sport is basically a physical competition. Whether or not you record the scores on a board that sits there forever, or in a pile of books that become dusty, along with photographs of people with—shall we say—outmoded haircuts and unfashionable shorts, the essence of what is happening is competition. The idea that you get a ball past somebody or move it into a space where somebody else picks it up and moves it up is the essence—but I probably did not have time for that little bit of semantics today.
Organising sport so that people can come in, try it and get accustomed to it has to be done in conjunction with government and, as my noble friend has already said, local government. Leaving this to a voluntary choice is bound to leave it squeezed whenever times are at all hard or whenever you get somebody who simply does not regard sport as a top priority. My noble friend is, of course, right. Unless government takes on the responsibility for encouraging people to access the great amount of voluntary help outside and co-ordinate across the entirety of it, sport will ultimately always have these peaks and troughs. Our challenge is to make sure that when times are bad progress is not lost and that we do slightly better than stand still. That is effectively all we can hope for—to make it very difficult for somebody to say, “No, that is not important”, because every time you do, you end up paying for it somewhere else, usually in the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health.
Baroness Billingham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Massey for initiating this debate and asking what steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking to encourage children from inner cities to take up sports. The short answer is that the steps are backwards and miserably ineffective. It could have been so different. From 2010, the coalition and Michael Gove, in particular, have systematically demolished school sport, which is at the heart of how and why children eventually love sport. From primary schools to opportunities in communities, the Government have a crucial role to play, and they have failed. They inherited a primary school system which, for the first time, put PE centre stage. School sports partnerships were an inspired and positive innovation. With qualified staff and good ring-fenced funding, our children were at last given proper grass-roots sports education in all our primary schools. As one of its first actions, the coalition demolished that successful formula. Only public outcry forced the Government into a U-turn, but one that provided a very poor substitute for what they destroyed. Why they took these actions is beyond all of us who see PE as an important right in schools and the basis of future sports participation.
The Olympics transformed public opinion, which became pro sport for all as never before. Young and old and people with disabilities were inspired. Volunteers came out in their thousands, and communities, including those in inner city areas, demanded a renaissance. It never came. The Government missed the favourable tide, held back from positive initiatives and failed the unique opportunities that they were given. They also failed to encourage the governing bodies of sport, many of which are doing excellent work in grass-roots sport. They could have had much greater public encouragement and better funding. The volunteers were left wondering what the future held, yet they are the backbone of sport in every club in the country. Where is the volunteers charter when we need it?
The Government have also failed to recognise the crucial role of sports, especially small clubs, in our communities. Why has nothing been done to help clubs enhance their facilities and make them more attractive to potential members by floodlighting, better playing surfaces and nicer social facilities? The Government have been nowhere. It is clearly not a priority for them. An obvious key component of sports facilities is to be found in our public parks. Virtually every sport can be catered for, and at relatively low cost. We already have Tennis For Free, an outstanding charity, successfully staffed by volunteers, which works in local parks. Young and old can be helped to take up that sport, and the same could be said of dozens of other sports which need open space close to home. There has been nothing from this Government for this valuable resource.
There have been many missed opportunities to promote sport, and the Government bear a heavy responsibility. In 2012, we had a unique chance to transform all our lives and the Government’s failure to capitalise on it is inexcusable. They will not be forgiven.
Finally, I thank those who produced the Library briefing pack, which, sadly, only reminded me of what we had prior to 2012 and how bleak the future looks today. The blame sits squarely with the coalition Government.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for bringing forward this important topic.
I wish to refer to a report produced by the Science and Technology Select Committee, of which I am the chairman, entitled Sports and Exercise Science and Medicine: Building on the Olympic Legacy to Improve the Nation's Health. Shortly after the coalition was formed, the DCMS document Plans for the Legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games said that the Games would,
“increase grass roots participation, particularly by young people”.
DCMS’s own figures show that participation in sport by children has declined since the Olympics, with three-quarters of all children under the age of 10 saying that the Games had not inspired them to take up sport.
In the inquiry to which I referred, we anticipated that there would not be a successful legacy of the kind claimed by Ministers. Why did we reach this conclusion? Starting at the top, the then Sports Minister, Hugh Robertson, told us that DCMS was not interested in promoting physical activity through sport. He said that,
“it is not a drive on the nation’s health”.
Our report concluded:
“We find it remarkable that DCMS is not concerned with the health benefits of sport … We recommend that the Government take a strong, joined-up approach to promoting the health benefits of exercise and physical activity”.
Other noble Lords have also referred to the need for a joined-up approach.
In their response, the Government rejected our assertion and listed several initiatives, including the £150 million School Games programme, Change4Life, school sports clubs and the youth sports strategy, which have also been referred to by other noble Lords. All of that is overseen by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Public Health. What mechanisms are in place to assess the impact of these programmes; and what is the Minister’s assessment of their success to date in engaging young children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, in sport?
The Select Committee was also struck by the lack of awareness of health professionals of physical activity guidelines. One survey, recently carried out at the time of our report in 2012, of 48 London GP practices found that not one practice was aware of the latest government physical activity guidelines. In their response, the Government agreed that healthcare professionals should be aware of the benefits of physical activity and said that they were committed to dissemination of the UK Chief Medical Officer’s guidelines. Has the Minister any evidence that awareness among health professionals of the benefits of physical activity is increasing?
In our inquiry, we discovered that although the link between physical activity and health is well established, rather little is known about why exercise has such a wide range of health benefits. Improving this knowledge would help us to improve the health of the nation.
There is no doubt that encouraging young children to take up sport and exercise will enrich their lives and improve their health. Our inquiry showed that there are real gaps in the Government’s plans to realise these benefits.
Baroness Heyhoe Flint (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for initiating this debate. I did not thank her about 40 years ago when she got me out for a duck while playing for Lancashire against Staffordshire. I came into the debate feeling rather uplifted but I am beginning to feel rather gloomy, given the criticism that has emanated from noble Lords opposite.
The Government are making a promising start. My noble friend Lord Coe has a 10-year programme for developing the legacy. You cannot just push a switch and hope that, by a miracle, everything is a box of birds, as they say. Many national governing bodies of sport are developing inner-city projects with government funding. They would not be able to do so without it. We have heard about the wonderful “Chance to Shine” programme involving 2 million schoolchildren and linking schools to local clubs. There is government funding within that project. The ECB—not the European Central Bank but the England and Wales Cricket Board—has two other inner-city programmes funded by the England and Wales Cricket Trust, the Government and the Lord’s Taverners and Lady Taverners. The south Asia programme for inner cities was funded for four years through Sport England’s whole sport plan, while the cricket foundation StreetChance works in socially deprived inner-city areas. These all have some backing and recognition from government. It is early days, so let us please not squash down everything that we are trying to do.
Professional rugby has a 50-week programme, which is an integral part of the Government’s approach to addressing NEETs, or even capturing disadvantaged inner-city children before they become NEETs. The effects of Hitz, the professional rugby campaign, include dramatic improvements in behaviour and reductions in crime. Another scheme ending in the letter Z, Kickz, uses the appeal of professional football clubs to target some of the most disadvantaged areas in the country by engaging youngsters of seven to 11 years old, with Sport England, the Metropolitan Police and Premier League clubs committing £9 million. Yet another scheme ending in Z, Wicketz, sponsored by the Lord’s Taverners, aims to create a sustainable cricket club environment in deprived communities and has been done with huge success in Tower Hamlets, where the oft-criticised Lawn Tennis Association and the Tennis Foundation have also funded projects for a diverse community.
The Government believe in the power of sport. Our previous Minister for Sport, my right honourable friend Hugh Robertson, believes in this philosophy, and I can say with relief that the new Sports Minister, my honourable friend Helen Grant, is just as keen in this policy area. I wonder if she now has the strength to put a judo arm-lock on various government departments mentioned by my noble friend Lord Addington. Inner-city projects need that help, and it needs all departments to pull together.
My noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson urged in the Youth Charter 2012 Games Legacy Report that:
“You can’t wait for someone else to do legacy, you’ve got to take a bit of responsibility for yourself”.
So, with responsibility, Sport England is investing more than £1 billion in youth and community sport from 2013 to 2017 through its whole sport plan. The Government are aware of the need to make youngsters in inner cities and beyond much healthier and happier, but it is just the beginning of a very long marathon.
Baroness Hanham (Con)
My Lords, most noble Lords here will know of the sheer energy and stamina of most children from about the time they can walk. On a scooter, they will outstrip parents, grandparents and siblings; on their feet, they will walk and run further than any of the former might want to do. I speak here from some experience. They are ready for any amount of adventure and are intolerant of downtime, unless it is a short bit of TV at the end of the day. Stillness is not something which comes naturally to children; their natural tendency is towards activity.
To learn at an early age enthusiasm for, and the discipline of, sport is bound to affect the rest of a child’s life. I am convinced, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has said, that many of the troubles caused by “feral” teenagers and gangs come from those children being bored stiff, with few places to go or opportunities for letting off steam, particularly for those living in inner-city communities with peers whose woeful influence they may not be able to avoid. Idle hands are not good news.
If we accept that most children and teenagers are open to well controlled activity, there is a real responsibility on parents, schools and voluntary groups to see that they are provided with those opportunities. That includes ensuring that there are facilities. One of the tragedies that have taken place over time has been the sale of many playing fields for other uses. But I am not as despondent as the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, about local authority involvement; many local authorities already ensure that there are playing fields, that the parks are used properly and that there are teachers and people ready to provide the instruction that these children need.
It says in my notes that most boys know their football favourites, but in the presence of two such responsible cricketers, I had better say that cricketers are known as well. You can then run on through all sports, as noble Lords have with their examples.
The 2012 Olympics opened the eyes of many young people to the possibilities of sport. It is therefore very encouraging to note from the Statement laid by my noble friend Lord Gardiner on the legacy from the Olympics that, far from what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—that there was a decrease in the number of children and young people who had been motivated to do more sport—there was an increase. More than 4,000 days had been given by athletes themselves to community and school sport since London 2012. Also, funded athletes will be required to give five days a year—I hope that that is the least that they will give—to inspire children to get involved in sport. It is not only the expert athletes to whom we need to turn, it is, as has already been mentioned, the volunteers: the fathers who turn out on a Saturday morning and those who run the clubs.
I am reasonably optimistic about the future of sport. I recognise that it needs a lot of support from a great number of people but I think that children’s tendencies are always to be occupied and that sport provides them with the structure to do so.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I tread with trepidation in this field of experts and thank my noble friend Lady Massey for enabling us to discuss this. There is a desperate need to engage women and girls in sport. I am not at all convinced that the Olympic legacy has fulfilled its obligation to women and girls—in particular, those from minority backgrounds. I specifically draw your Lordships’ attention to the low number of Muslim young girls and women taking part in sports and physical activities. Obesity and heart disease are causing concern. It is time that we addressed the issue of their inclusion and its long-term benefits.
I grew up in Bangladesh, played cricket and badminton and climbed trees in a mixed environment. I may be latching onto a bygone era or I was just lucky that I grew up in a family where women and girls were not restrained in the name of culture or faith. On the point about role models, the Bangladesh women’s cricket team has already achieved one-day status. That appears not to be the norm here in the UK, even for the second and third generation of our young women and girls. One piece of research shows that Muslim girls in the UK are more sceptical and reluctant about participating in sports than girls in traditional Muslim countries. It is revealing that Muslim girls in the UK appear to be more unwilling and more negative towards engaging in sports to the extent that a significant number will skip sports lessons.
When girls and young women were asked about their reasons, many cited the lack of adequate, appropriate and available facilities, with communal showers and the wearing of inappropriate clothes considered to be barriers to their participation. I will not dwell further on other barriers cited in that research and will leave further analysis for another time.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to share a few hopeful rainbows on the horizon. Recently, I attended a celebration of the work of London Tigers, a sporting organisation which is encouraging young people, including women, across different boroughs to engage in sports and physical activities.
One of its trustees, Polly Islam, is an incredibly inspirational individual working, in particular, with women. I was inspired by the work of London Tigers. I suggest that any sporting institution which finds it difficult to engage with communities looks no further than London Tigers, which has built up 27 years’ experience of working across boroughs and all communities. I appreciate how difficult it is for women, in particular, to access appropriate sports, and if women are not doing so, that is highly likely to influence their daughters.
I had a seminal moment a couple of years ago when I ran publicly for the first time in a tracksuit for one mile for a charity in my area. It broke a very personal taboo of 30 years. I know of a number of women who run every evening near where I live, all informally organised, often in the quiet of the night so that they are not seen. Very few attend the sports centres or clubs available to them, although Tower Hamlets Council has organised a number of sporting events.
I have no qualms in saying that it is only a matter of time, but we have to ensure that facilities are available in both the public and private sectors. I hope that some private members’ clubs will also consider women-only sessions. It surely makes business sense. We must not allow our prejudice to put up barriers which add to the discrimination that many women and girls experience in pursuing sports and physical activities.
The Earl of Selborne (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for giving us this opportunity to debate participation in sport. We would not be participating in this debate if we did not all feel very strongly that this is an essential cause. Children must be encouraged. The noble Baroness gave us a number of very good reasons why the Government and others should encourage children to participate, whether they be improving performance in school or keeping people from crime.
Above all, the reason I feel passionately that sport must be encouraged is because of the health benefits. Whether we know it or not, we are suffering from an epidemic of obesity. The figures are astonishing. Just under 10% of children coming into reception class can be categorised as obese, and that number will double by the time they get to year 6.
I shall draw on a different Science and Technology Select Committee report to the one to which our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred. Two years ago, we did a report on behaviour change. How do Governments influence behaviour change? This is a very difficult and to some extent intractable problem wrapped up in our lifestyles. We know why this epidemic of obesity is happening. It is because we are sedentary, we eat far too many high-energy foods and drinks and there are computers and games boxes. All those things contrive to make us very much more sedentary, and our jobs are not as manual as they were.
My noble friend referred to a marathon, and it is certainly a marathon we are talking about here if we are trying to change people’s lifestyle. We are trying to participate in partnership with any number of organisations. Of course the Government are one, but there are youth clubs, schools and parents. Parents are the key. Once you get parents on side and get them to take seriously and insist on opportunities, whether in school or youth clubs, you will get traction and momentum. That is why when we looked at all the nudges and prods in the behaviour report, we recognised that although labelling would play an important part and any number of other nudges would be significant, ultimately, if you want to change our attitude to sport, you start in the primary school, get parents involved and make sure that we all change our attitude to what is an acceptable lifestyle, not just for children but for adults as well. I commend those schools which have drawn attention in their policies to how they involve parents in promoting sport. When Ofsted takes the more rigorous approach which we are promised it will take, I am sure that this should be a very strong criterion on which everything should be judged. Partnerships are important. I do not think any one partnership or strategy is going to resolve this problem, but partnership is a very sensible word to use, and it must involve parents.
Lord Northbourne (CB)
My Lords, I shall take just one moment to draw attention to the importance that sport can have for disadvantaged children. I can probably do this best with a very small story. Once, I was sitting with a very wise and experience head teacher at a school near Eastbourne for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and I asked him, “How do you make contact with a new boy when he arrives?”. He said, “I sit him down in my study and I say ‘Tell me about yourself’, and the boy starts and tells me all the awful things he’s done and all the things he can’t do and how naughty he’s been, that he doesn’t have any hope and so on. This usually goes on for about half an hour, sometimes three-quarters of an hour. Eventually, when he dries up, I say, ‘Right. Now you’ve told me all the things you can’t do. Let’s talk about the things you can do’”.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank very much my noble friend Lady Massey for introducing what has been an authoritative and very well informed debate. I also pay tribute to the House for establishing the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Select Committee, which has enabled a powerful body of knowledge and analysis to be assembled. I very much look forward to debating its report in due course.
My main advantage among such an august list of contributors is that I cover both education and DCMS from the Front Bench. I therefore know quite a bit about what has been happening in schools since this Government came to power. As I am sure we would all acknowledge, quality schools sport is essential in addressing the participation of inner-city children, so in the short time that I have I would like to make a few points about this.
Let us face it: it has not been a very happy story. It seems that the Secretary of State took the view that any initiative introduced by the previous Government must, by its very origins, be flawed and should therefore be scrapped. This was not the only initiative to have suffered that fate but, as a number of noble Lords have said, one of the starkest examples of this approach was what happened to school sport. Funding for the well established and well respected school sports partnerships was withdrawn, only to be partially reinstated following massive protests but with nothing like the original coverage and co-ordination, while the target of every child doing at least two hours of PE a week was withdrawn. The latest research now shows that half of children failed to do at least two hours of PE a week and that one in seven teenagers did no sport at all in their last year of school. Meanwhile, as we have heard, Michael Gove is continuing to allow the sell-off of school sports fields, with 50 sold so far, despite pledging to protect them in the coalition agreement.
A recent report by the Commons Education Select Committee—chaired, incidentally, by a Conservative MP—reported that PE lessons are still not good enough in almost one-third of primary schools. It also identified that the Government’s new obsession with children taking part in competitive team sports, such as football, rugby or netball, was deterring many young people, particularly girls, taking part in sport at all. That committee concluded that the Government should reintroduce the target, scrapped by Michael Gove, requiring all pupils to complete two hours of PE a week. It also called for targeted measures for girls. As I say, it has not been a happy story in schools and it feels very much as if there have been three wasted years of dithering in school sport policy over the crucial Olympic period. Obviously, in this respect I welcome the announcement made earlier this year of new primary sport funding for coaches, but that is short-term money and is in place for only two years, and therefore risks failing to embed the training culture in the school.
It feels as if we have had a realistic but rather depressing debate this afternoon. I think we are all united in wanting sport to be a more central part of young people’s lives so I hope that the Minister is able to convince us that, belatedly, if nothing else, a credible school sports strategy is being developed that will encourage all young people to enjoy and maintain an active sporting life while going into adulthood.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very well informed debate and I will do my very best to convince the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about the Government’s policy on sport. It has been a very high quality debate and I was thinking, as we were going through it, that there is probably sufficient talent within this very Room to start a House of Lords ladies cricket team, which would be quite a strong team at that.
There was immense expertise and knowledge, which was particularly evident in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, introduced the debate. There was great passion and concern for the subject of sport in school, to which I think people on all sides of this Committee are totally signed up. What we are arguing about is purely the best way of achieving the ends that we are all agreed on, and those ends are focused on ensuring that people engage in sport beyond their school age. That is the objective which we are aiming for. We know that the earlier people start, the more likely they are to do that.
The movement towards competitive sport is not a thought or a passion based on ideology: it is simply that our sporting clubs in the United Kingdom are primarily competitive sporting clubs, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, and, therefore, if we want people to take part in sport in later life, then probably it will be through competitive sport.
There are two elements to this: the first is to go younger and younger to reach people and inspire them to take part in sporting activity from a young age; and then, secondly, to introduce them to competitive sport, which will enable them to link up with sporting clubs and continue that activity into later life.
With those remarks, I shall try to respond to as many as possible of the points made during the debate. I applaud the discipline shown by all Members of the Committee in constraining their remarks.
I turn, first, to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, who introduced the debate and referred to school sports partnerships. The Government recognise that these were introduced with the objective of increasing participation and that in a number of areas there were some successful partnerships. However, the wider view was taken that they were too bureaucratic, too top down and too expensive and were not delivering the results we all sought. Therefore we decided to distribute that additional funding at school level—and to focus it particularly on primary schools through the primary school premium—so that each school will receive £8,000.
It was often felt that some school sports partnerships were too large. Some of them worked but, where you were talking about eight secondary schools and 40 primary schools linking up with an FE college, sometimes it was difficult to get a sense of where things were tailored to a particular school. The argument we put forward is that focusing on individual schools—not only by writing a cheque but by ensuring that the money is ring-fenced specifically for sport and by ensuring that Ofsted has a responsibility from September 2013 to assess how schools are doing in spending that money—is an important part.
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, referred to the need for a strategy. I understand her argument and where she is coming from but, as so many different organisations are involved in this, the fear is that people are getting lost in the gaps. I commend to her the Sport England youth and community sports strategy which seeks to bring together the sporting clubs and schools. This is not only backed by a strategy but by £1 billion, which can make a real difference.
I took the point of my noble friend Lord Moynihan—who of course has immense expertise and knowledge in this area, particularly in protecting the legacy of the Olympics—when he rightly said that no school is an island. However, the school sports partnerships were not abolished and it is still possible for individual schools to come together if that is how they choose to spend their money.
My noble friend mentioned the Get Set and Plan Your Legacy schemes. Get Set was a great way of involving more than 22,000 schools in the Olympics and Plan Your Legacy is a key part of ensuring that the progress that was made and the inspirational performances that we saw in both the Olympics and Paralympics are not lost.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke about competitive sports, and this is, like rugby, something about which he knows a great deal. We both participated in the winning team—a rare winning team—in the House of Lords versus House of Commons tug-of-war match on the only time the House of Lords has actually won. He reminded us about competitive sports. So this is not an ideological obsession, it is simply trying to link together the satellite clubs—the sporting clubs—with what is going on in schools.
Sainsbury’s School Games have transformed competitive sport in schools. More than 60% of schools are taking part in the School Games, offering every pupil, regardless of ability or disability, more chances to compete in sport, not only intra-school but also between schools and at county festivals. More than 100,000 young people took part, 10,000 of whom were children with disabilities. The national finals were held in Sheffield, and next year they will be in Manchester. That is an example of what we are doing in this area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, spoke with immense passion and knowledge. I know that as a distinguished spokesperson on this issue, and with her involvement in various tennis organisations, she is frustrated about school sports partnerships. I want to reassure her, however, that this is not lost; it is part of a wider strategy. The money is still going into schools. It is going in at a younger age and it is being monitored. There are moves to bring in more sports clubs to link with schools. Another concern she has is over the quality of physical education teaching, particularly in primary schools. Secondary schools have that, and that is why we are now funding extra places for teachers to train in physical education particularly for primary schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, spoke about the health benefits of sport. I think we are all broadly agreed on that. I noticed a survey by the Young Foundation which identified the health risks to the nation. It found that while 20% of people were vulnerable to smoking, 61% to 70% were vulnerable to inactivity, so it is a very substantial concern.
I know that there was some disagreement between the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and my noble friend Lady Hanham over the figures. There was a slight decrease in overall activity from the 2008-09 baseline, from 91% to 88%, but there was a significant increase in some sports, notably cricket, dodgeball and rounders. We are committed to doing more to promote this through the School Games.
The noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, reminisced interestingly about her cricket career against the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and talked very positively about what is being done in schools. The Government believe in the value of sport, and £500,000 has been put in place to continue the legacy of the Olympic Games. Furthermore, physical education remains an essential part of the national curriculum.
The noble Baroness talked about particular schemes, and I was particularly struck by many of the contributions, including that of my noble friend Lady Hanham, who referred to the role of parents and volunteers in delivering much of our sport around the country. It is important that they continue to do so.
My noble friend Lady Hanham referred to the competition between competitive sport and computer games. Let me pay tribute to her. During her time as Minister she did something substantial, which was to block the pathway to the selling off of playing fields. I do not wish to make any party-political points on this but under the previous Government playing fields were sold off at a rate of 28 per year, and the rate has fallen to 16 per year. Now, because an application goes directly to the Secretary of State for Education, the only way that you can sell a playing field is if you can show that all the proceeds of that sale are going to go into new sporting facilities with other schools. That has been done, and it is welcome.
I shall comment briefly on what the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, said. I was fascinated by her example of the London Tigers and I certainly want to learn more about them. She talked about the importance of encouraging girls into sport. There has been a growth in the number of girls-only sporting clubs. One hundred of these clubs have started up and an extra £1.7 million is going into them to promote more opportunities for females. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that we need to address that issue in particular and I am grateful to her for raising it.
My noble friend Lord Selborne referred to behaviour change. This is a critical area where we need to look more at how we change behaviour without legislating for it. We have enough legislation and regulation on the books already. As he said, it is critical that we inspire parents. Again, that speaks to the importance of getting sport into primary schools to do that.
I particularly enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. It was brief, succinct and to the point and reminded us that, in an age of pessimism, we have to focus on the positives. Certainly the optimistic nature of sport teaches us always to think about the future with optimism. That is something that I have had to learn through nearly 50 years of following Newcastle United Football Club. I am still struggling with it although we did slightly better last weekend.
Finally, I come to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. She spoke, of course, very passionately. She is concerned that we get this right. She talked particularly about the two hours minimum of physical education. It is important to recognise that it was never enforced or mandatory; it was always aspirational. It will now be covered by Ofsted and primary school teachers will be encouraged to provide quality as well as quantity of sport, and to enhance that through the school sport premium and the youth and community sport initiatives.
I have run over time. I trust that the Committee will forgive me for that. This has been a fascinating debate and a great opportunity to raise these important issues, the aims of which we are all agreed on. It is also important to monitor progress along the way, and I hope that I have provided some reassurance in that regard.
House of Lords
NHS: Clinical Commissioning Groups’ Funding of Treatment
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many types of treatment Clinical Commissioning Groups have decided not to offer to patients since April 2013.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, clinical commissioning groups are now responsible for commissioning services and treatments for their local populations, with NHS England providing oversight and support. NHS England has advised that it does not routinely collect data on the number and type of treatments that CCGs have decided not to offer to patients. We have been clear: restricting access to services on the basis of cost alone is wrong and compromises patient care. Commissioning decisions should be made using clinical evidence and best practice guidance.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response. Is he not concerned about the recent British Medical Journal survey, which showed that since CCGs took over, one in seven have introduced new treatment restrictions, including treatment for hip and knee replacements, cataracts, and caesarean births for non-medical reasons? What steps are the Government taking to ensure regional and national monitoring and consistency of treatment policies across the NHS? Moreover, the Royal College of Surgeons is concerned that so few CCGs are meeting their legal obligation to publish guidance on how they will provide medicines, surgery and therapeutic interventions. This was meant to provide transparency in rationing decisions. What will the Government do about it?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the availability of some healthcare services is determined nationally; for example, under NICE technology recommendations. Some services are commissioned directly by NHS England, but in most cases decision-making on whether to fund a service or treatment is left to the local CCG or local authority. That is to enable CCGs and local authorities to commission services that best fit the needs of their local population. For such decision-making it is very important that the process is rational, transparent and fair. The right contained in the NHS constitution ensures that that happens. If a CCG decides that a treatment will not normally be funded, it needs to be able to consider whether to fund that treatment for an individual patient on an exceptional basis.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, largely as a result of new developments in molecular biology, a number of highly effective but also very expensive so-called orphan and ultra-orphan drugs are coming on stream for the treatment of patients with rare diseases? If these drugs are approved by the rare disease advisory group of NHS England and by NICE, will it then be incumbent on clinical commissioning groups to agree to their being prescribed for NHS patients?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a patient with rheumatoid arthritis who is on a biologic. What data are available to show whether CCGs follow NICE guidelines for the use of biologics and how long does it take for permission to be granted? I talked to rheumatologists last week at the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society awards ceremony and I was told that there is increasing evidence that CCGs delay treatment for those on biologics. Is there a case for moving chronic illnesses such as RA to NHS England rather than relying on the lottery of CCGs?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the list of conditions for which treatment is directly commissioned by NHS England is reviewed regularly. On the particular question my noble friend asked about transparency, as part of Innovation Health and Wealth the innovation scorecard is now showing up the variations in prescribing rates between different clinical commissioning groups. We expect this information to be extremely informative as regards the decisions taken by commissioners.
Lord Warner (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister seen the recent evidence given by the Nuffield Trust to the Health Select Committee showing that a growing, and increasingly large, number of NHS hospitals are financially unsustainable? In the light of his earlier answer to my noble friend, what arrangements do the Government have for ensuring that CCGs or local health economies are not in breach of the NHS constitution by failing to deliver the mandate that the Secretary of State has given NHS England?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it is for NHS England to oversee the commissioning practices and policies of CCGs. If any deficiencies are brought to the attention of NHS England, they will be followed up. On the specific point made by the noble Lord about the financial sustainability of provider trusts, we would expect commissioners and trusts to engage in regular discussions about how to ameliorate that position, not only for the sake of the NHS but also to ensure that patients are treated in the right setting. As we all know, that imperative needs to be pursued very vigorously over the coming months.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, if patients are turned down by CCGs, can they appeal to NHS England?
Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)
My Lords, as chair of one of the many trusts that are in financial difficulty—
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
I suggest that we hear from my noble friend Lord Harris.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, 55 years ago, I had my tonsils removed on the National Health Service. Had that not taken place and I now needed that procedure as an adult, according to figures from the Royal College of Surgeons I would be extremely unlikely to have them removed in the area in which I live—Haringey—but 22 times more likely to have the same procedure carried out in the Isle of Wight. Can the Minister explain why this Government’s arrangements facilitate that extraordinary postcode lottery, which means that there is no equity of treatment across the National Health Service?
Earl Howe
My Lords, what the noble Lord calls the postcode lottery is, as he knows, nothing new. That is why Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS, has commissioned a project to engage professional bodies, particularly the Royal College of Surgeons, to develop clinical commissioning guidance, in particular, where there is unwarranted variation in the rates of elective surgical intervention. They are currently looking at 28 common types of surgical intervention with more topics under development, and commissioning guidance will ensue from that work stream.
Banking: Lending
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barnett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to encourage banks to prioritise their lending to the manufacturing sector compared to the property sector.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the Government are committed to improving the flow of credit to all businesses, including those in the manufacturing sector. The Funding for Lending scheme has contributed to an improvement in the bank funding environment and banks are now passing this on to the real economy, including to small businesses. The Business Bank and the Business Finance Partnership are developing alternative sources of finance for smaller businesses.
Lord Barnett(Lab)
That is a very different story from the one given by the chief executive of RBS, who, as the noble Lord will know, has told us that the bank is working very closely with the Treasury—by which he means Treasury officials. RBS has now set up an internal bad bank, while the Chancellor, whom I assume the officials talk to occasionally, has refused to set up a bad bank. Between them, they have found £38 billion of high-risk assets which they have decided will go into the bad bank. They have also said that they propose to finish the rest after writing off £4.5 billion by 2016. For those who owe that money, there is now an incentive to wait until the very end, which will mean the bank having to write off even more. Is that something that the officials, with the Chancellor’s consent, have agreed to?
Lord Newby
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, there was a review about whether there should be a formal good bank/bad bank split of RBS. The Government decided that the cost and disruption of doing this was not justified. However, as the noble Lord says, the bank has itself decided to make an internal split, enabling it to have a greater focus on lending and on dealing in a more orderly way with many loans which will not be repaid or will be only partially repaid. Many of these are related to the property sector.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, in March it was noted that lending to SMEs had shrunk by 25% in real terms since 2009 and it has continued to decline since then. The Business Bank is intended to address the problem and BIS forecasts that the first SME loan portfolio guarantees will be in place by the end of this year. Can the Minister update the House on progress?
Lord Newby
My Lords, in respect of SME lending more generally, gross lending is now rising. The picture is clouded by the fact that a lot of SMEs are still paying back loans, so the net position is not as positive, but net lending is down by a much lower amount. As far as lending to SMEs as a whole is concerned, the picture is improving. The Business Bank was launched on 17 October and it aims to support economic growth by bringing together public and private sector funds to improve financial markets for SMEs. Very recently it announced its first commitment of £45 million from the initial £300 million investment programme.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister think that his answers thus far will have given any satisfaction to those vocal critics of the low level of lending by banks to business, who include the director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, the International Monetary Fund and the Business Secretary, Vince Cable?
Lord Newby
My Lords, it is important to look at what is happening in the real world. The CBI’s SME trends survey, published yesterday, showed that SME business optimism was rising at the fastest rate since the survey began some 25 years ago. Among SMEs, output grew for the fourth quarter and is expected to grow more rapidly going into 2014. More generally, vacancies—the best indication of growing or falling demand for labour—are rising at the sharpest rate for more than six years.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, the noble Lord forgot to answer my question. Did the Chancellor agree with his officials in setting up the internal bad bank?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the decision on setting up the bad bank was, primarily, for the management of RBS. The Treasury and UKFI are obviously in regular contact with RBS.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Does my noble friend not agree that one of the reasons that the banks have had difficulty in providing loans for small business is the disastrous state of their balance sheets, which was the responsibility of the ridiculous monetary policy followed by the previous Government?
Lord Newby
My Lords, that was clearly a major contributory factor. However, I refer noble Lords to the review undertaken by Sir Andrew Large for RBS, which found that the bank had failed to meet its own lending standards, had risk-averse staff and took longer to process applications than other banks, and that its treatment of customers in financial distress had led to major negative perceptions of the bank. The bank is now, at long last, moving to tackle many of those issues, but the failures in the way that RBS ran its business were a major contributory factor to its failure in recent years to lend to SMEs the amounts it set itself in its target.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not accept that his characterisation is grossly inaccurate, and that in the past few years the huge fall in output in the western capitalist economies—I use that term advisedly—was due to the way in which Lehman Brothers and others at that time were able to cause that financial bubble and cause output to fall 10% below trend right across the western world? Simply to say that it was the fault of the Labour Government is ludicrous.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I may be mistaken but I do not think that I said it was the fault of the Labour Government.
Lord Newby
I attempt to take responsibility for things that I say at the Dispatch Box; it is beyond the scope of my responsibilities to take responsibility for the views of every other noble Lord.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend on accepting some responsibility at the Dispatch Box. Is that not far better than, in the case of Members opposite, apparently accepting no responsibility whatever for anything they ever managed to do in government?
Lord Newby
That is extremely kind but perhaps I may, as a final word, remind noble Lords—given the subject of the Question—not only that manufacturing output is up but that the Government have adopted a very wide range of proactive measures to promote manufacturing, including increasing the investment allowance to £250,000, supporting the Advanced Manufacturing Supply Chain Initiative, supporting high-value engineering and vastly increasing the apprenticeships scheme, including apprentices in manufacturing companies.
Railways: British Rail
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to mark the passage of the legislation enabling the privatisation of British Rail.
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
My Lords, at the express request of my noble friend Lord Spicer and on his behalf, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to do so but note that a recent European Commission rail comparison study found that since the 1990s Britain’s railway is the most improved in all European Union countries.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, does my noble friend recall that when privatisation was proceeding and being implemented, the Government made two strong and clear commitments: first, that privatisation would reverse 40 years of decline in the use of railways, which has manifestly been the case; and, secondly, that there would be a huge input in private investment over and above anything that the taxpayer could contribute, which has also obviously taken place? Will my noble friend confirm that both those things have been the product of the privatisation of the railways?
Baroness Kramer
I can certainly confirm those comments from the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney. He is absolutely right that at the time of privatisation— 5 November 1993, which I assume is the date to be commemorated in the Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Spicer—the railway essentially was expected to fall into decline, having had a long history of underinvestment and of stop-and-start annual budgets. Since then, the UK has seen a doubling of passenger journeys to the highest level since the 1920s; 4,000 more services a day than in the mid-1990s; a 60% increase in rail freight; and the fastest growth of European railways. The UK railway now carries nearly 20% of the EU’s passenger journeys.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, has any assessment been made of the sort of railway that we would be enjoying today had the British Railways Board received the same levels of support and investment —much of which has come from the taxpayer, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, said, but has been made available to privatised industry—and had the railway not been subject to the negative influences of decline and contraction, to which the Minister rightly referred, largely at the behest of Her Majesty’s Treasury?
Baroness Kramer
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, gets to the heart of the problem. Under a system in which this was a Government-run industry, an essential feature was the constant stop-start and underinvestment. It is by putting in place a structure with the ability to set up arrangements that force the Government into long-term decision-making and long-term commitment that we have been able to rebuild the infrastructure.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Did not the privatisation of the railways simply follow the pattern of previous privatisations, which was that priceless national assets acquired by the great Labour Government of 1945 were sold off at knockdown prices by a Tory Government to a small number of investors, who made huge sums of money overnight? Does the Minister share my near despair that precisely the same pattern has been followed with the sale of Royal Mail, which was grossly undersold against the wishes of its previous owners—that is, me and everyone else in the country? Incidentally, as my assets have been sold off against my will, at the very least I ought to receive a cheque for the value of the assets sold.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I will resist the temptation to go into the territory of Royal Mail. The privatisation of the railways may not have been perfect; we certainly had Railtrack going into administration in 2002, and there have been other issues. The question is: do we have a system that has delivered a significantly better railway for customers and freight in this country? I would argue that we very evidently have. Does this give a basis for moving forward and providing yet further improvement? I think that argument is also made.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
While I am delighted to travel by rail most of the time, all the way down to the West Country, I am very sorry to see, after all these years since 5 November 1993, that raw sewage is still going out on to the lines. Before we rush forward to HS2—to which I am looking forward enormously—I urge our new Minister to think about the men working on the lines and in the stations who have to deal with this excrement.
Baroness Kramer
The comments of my noble friend totally resonate. It is utterly disgusting. It speaks to the fact that customer service has not always been at the centre of the railways, because I think customers are very concerned about this issue. Beginning in 2017, the current InterCity 125 trains will all be replaced by the new Class 800/801 intercity express trains from Hitachi, which will solve that problem on the intercity lines. It is a tougher issue on the local diesel trains, which are gradually going out of service, and we could use some help from the industry in tackling that problem.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
The Question was whether the Government would mark the passage of the legislation. Is this the legislation that, within 10 years, saw the bankruptcy of Railtrack? Is this the legislation that saw the franchise fiasco on the line from Paddington to south Wales a short while ago? Is this the legislation that insists that a publicly operated company, which produces £47 million of profit to invest in the railway and hands £800 million back to the Treasury as extra profit, is disbarred from competing for the franchise against German and French state railways?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, Network Rail plans to invest £38 billion into the system between 2014 and 2019, which will shortly bring into the system Crossrail, the upgraded Thameslink, a northern hub cross-Manchester link that will provide electrification linking the core centres of the economy in the north, the West and East Midlands and Yorkshire. Today, the south of England has 75% of passenger miles on electric trains. I assume that the noble Lord was talking about the east coast main line franchise and, as he knows, it was always intended by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that this would be in public control only temporarily. He said:
“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely”.—[Official Report, 1/7/09; col. 232.]
The public sector—DOR—has done an excellent job of stabilising the system, but now returns it to a period of investment, which requires private sector engagement.
Immigration: Economic Impact
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent analyses of the value of immigration to the United Kingdom economy; and whether they have any plans to revise their target to reduce net migration in response to those analyses.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, the Government have made no official assessment of the recent analyses of the economic value of immigration to the UK economy. Each policy that influences immigration is assessed using the impact assessment process. The Government have a commitment to reduce net migration to tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament and believe that that will be achieved without an adverse impact on the economy.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
I think I thank the Minister for that Answer, but it is disappointing. It seems that the only real criterion that the Government have in dealing with immigration is in numbers, not in need. Do they have any other policy at all to tackle immigration positively? This morning a news item stated that 20,000 nurses were needed for the NHS. In north Wales I know of three general hospitals where a third of the consultants come from overseas. Is it not short-sighted to deal only in numbers and not look at this in a positive and long-term way?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Dustmann and Frattini report looked at the fiscal impact of immigration, and made it clear that continued high levels of immigration—net immigration of, say, 200,000 a year—would be unsustainable. Obviously two of the areas affected would be housing, which I know greatly exercises noble Lords, and other services, including the health service. We intend to attract the brightest and the best, including healthcare professionals.
Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)
While I accept that all those who live in our country should have a legal right to do so, will the Minister condemn the disgraceful scene of vans touring parts of north London inviting immigrants to go home?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, if an immigrant is here illegally I would invite him to go home, but if he is here making a valuable, worthwhile and legal contribution to the economy, I would like him to stay and continue to do that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)
Does my noble friend welcome, as I do, the large number of French people who have come to live in this country, making London now the sixth largest French city by population? Does he think that there is any connection between the presence of those people and the high-tax Socialist policies of President Hollande, whose election was so widely welcomed by the party opposite?
Earl Attlee
My noble friend makes a very good point about the adverse impact of high marginal rates of taxation, but it demonstrates how the free market in Europe works in terms of free movement of labour and capital.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
Does the Minister share my concern that the Government are continuing to talk about net migration figures, yet contrary to the advice of every inquiry in both Houses of Parliament they continue to include overseas students in that net migration count? Would they accept that this is a nonsense that needs to be removed?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but the decision to include students in net migration figures was not ours. As the noble Lord knows, they are international statistics and we need to be consistent with other states. We also need to include students in the total figure because students have an impact on the housing and services that they need to support them while they are studying. I make it absolutely clear that we welcome foreign students and that there is no limit on the number of students that we will accept.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We recognise that, while there are real benefits from immigration, they are not equally shared, due to inadequate labour standards, exploitation of the supply of low-waged migrant labour and the failure to provide young people with the necessary skills. What steps are the Government taking to see that the minimum wage is properly enforced? Do the Government agree with us that the maximum fine should be doubled to £10,000 and are the Government, like us, also prepared to consider whether the scope of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority needs to be extended to new sectors in order to stop exploitation? Finally, are the Government reviewing sectors that have become dependent on migrant labour, to identify where enough has not been done to equip young people with the skills they need to compete?
Earl Attlee
The noble Lord asked rather a lot of questions. I share his concern about the exploitation of migrant labour. All employers must adhere to the minimum wage provisions, which apply to migrants as well as to UK natives. There are very few prosecutions for paying below the minimum wage; however, it is normally dealt with by means of fixed penalties and the income is about £700,000 of fixed penalties.
Philippines: Emergency Aid
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to get emergency aid to the people of the Philippines.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government have so far committed £10 million to support relief efforts in the Philippines. This includes rapid funding for non-governmental organisations, emergency shelter and household items and the deployment of public health experts. HMS “Daring” will also redeploy to the affected region in order to support relief efforts. A UK team in Manila is guiding the UK’s response.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. This natural disaster looks like being one of the worst to have been experienced worldwide in the past decade. Does the Minister really believe that £10 million is sufficient, given that there are 800,000 people in immediate and dire need of water, medical supplies and food? Can she give us an assurance that this figure will be kept under constant review? I understand that HMS “Daring” is on the way and I think that a C17 is being deployed, but there will be a need for vehicles on the ground to get to the isolated communities that those big transport carriers cannot reach. Will the noble Baroness also tell us what advice the Foreign Office is giving to UK nationals who may be in difficulty in the Philippines? What advice are they able to give people in this country who have family members or loved ones in the Philippines about whom they have very understandable anxieties?
Baroness Northover
I thank the noble Baroness for asking this extremely important Question. There is a dedicated team at the moment working continuously on this in Whitehall and things are constantly under review. The noble Baroness mentioned a number of things that we are doing. I shall expand on the points about vehicles. She is quite right that we need to get to some of the affected areas and there are flights going to the Philippines. Two flights are going in at the moment and three more cargo flights will go from Dubai shortly. We are delivering 4x4 vehicles to get to these areas and the noble Baroness mentioned the C17s. Noble Lords will probably be aware that the United Nations has just launched an appeal for $301 million. All the numbers are under review. We have published a Written Ministerial Statement today, but I should point out that it mentions that 4.3 million people have been affected by what is the strongest ever tropical cyclone on record. The figure is now 6.9 million people, and no doubt it will increase.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, given that the Prime Minister is leading our delegation to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka imminently, what discussions will he have with other heads, particularly those from countries in the region such as India, Singapore and Malaysia, which could provide timely logistical support? Of course, Brunei Darussalam could help with financial aid. Will the Commonwealth get behind the relief effort as well?
Baroness Northover
I am sure that all countries, and certainly those that are close by, will wish to help. Our colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, who is the head of UN OCHA, has just arrived in Manila. The Government of the Philippines are in overall control of what is happening, although of course they are working closely with the United Nations. Our NGOs are being co-ordinated by the Disasters Emergency Committee. It is extremely important that everyone works well together, and for that to extend internationally as well as nationally.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, anyone who has seen the distressing pictures on the TV and in the newspapers today will understand the need for urgent relief, and I certainly welcome the Government’s action. I also share the concern of my noble friend Lady Symons that the amount of money needs to be kept under constant review. However, I have another point that I want to focus on. Will the Government combine their efforts with the international community to commit to longer-term aid and support? While there are short-term concerns, it will be a tough job for the country to recover fully and ensure that people can get back their livelihoods.
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord of course knows that the United Kingdom has a long-term commitment, which is why we have committed 0.7% of our GNI to aid. He is quite right to emphasise the need for long-term reconstruction. One of the lessons that came out of the report penned by my noble friend Lord Ashdown was that when bringing in aid in this sort of circumstance, one needs also to look at long-term reconstruction. However, right now we need to deliver immediate assistance to people in the form of shelters, water supplies and so on. I note that we are also bringing in solar lanterns with built-in mobile phone chargers because the need for communication is absolutely essential in these circumstances. However, we are well aware of the need to ensure that reconstruction looks to the long term.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, after Haiti, the tsunami and now this appallingly tragic and devastating catastrophe, is there not a case for the Government to have a larger contingency fund within the aid budget? Some of us are a little concerned that nations which have space programmes are helped, as are nations whose regimes are not beyond the accusation of corruption. We need a much larger contingency fund so that not only can we go in quickly with large sums, we can also deal with what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about—the aftermath.
Baroness Northover
It was in the light of the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, that we set up the Rapid Response Facility, which has been brought into operation here. Money is set aside for just this kind of situation because clearly that is important.
Perhaps I may come back to a question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, about FCO advice, which I do not think I answered at that point. The FCO is advising against all travel to the Philippines, and the embassy in Manila is working to support UK nationals in the country.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, in the context of absolutely indispensable international co-ordination, does the Minister accept that what has been demonstrated over and over again in situations of this kind is the vital importance of local knowledge to the reconstruction effort as well as for short-term relief? A number of distinguished and effective NGOs in this country have been working in the Philippines for a long time. Have they already been consulted and how can we make the most effective use of their assistance?
Baroness Northover
That is why it is important that the Government of the Philippines are in overall charge of this. The noble Lord will be aware that in some circumstances the Government of a particular country are knocked out by whatever disaster occurs, but the Government of the Philippines ordered mass evacuation. They took all sorts of measures to try to reduce the impact of the disaster, but it was an unprecedented typhoon. They have the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, which has been co-ordinating aid. Internationally, and certainly within the United Kingdom, we are well aware of the great importance of making sure that what happens now and thereafter is something that makes sense within the country and that can be best determined within the country.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, the former Leader of the House. Will she accept how many of us appreciate the immensely valuable work that she is doing in her post at the United Nations, particularly in this crisis? My noble friend Lady Falkner also mentioned the current Commonwealth meeting in Colombo. Is she aware, as I am sure she is, that the Chinese and the Japanese—not members of the Commonwealth, of course—are sending enormous delegations to the business forum in Colombo? Will that be an opportunity to remind them that, as aspiring world powers and key players in the international landscape, they too have a task—which I am sure they can be encouraged to perform—to bring the maximum help of their enormous economic power to the Philippines, to which they are considerably nearer than we are?
Baroness Northover
My noble friend makes some very important points. We owe a great deal to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. She is formidable in making sure that she gets assistance from wherever she requires it, as she has sought to do in the case of Syria. I am sure that the points that he has made will be picked up.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1, Clauses 8 to 13, Schedule 2, Clauses 14 to 26, Schedule 3, Clauses 27 to 31, Schedule 4, Clauses 32 to 69, Schedule 5, Clauses 70 to 106, Schedules 6 and 7, Clauses 107 to 114, Schedule 8, Clauses 115 to 120, Schedule 9, Clause 121, Schedule 10, Clauses 122 to 127.
Baroness Thornton
“( ) Where a court makes a sexual harm prevention order in relation to a “child” as defined in section 103B(1), the court must have regard to safeguards in place to ensure the child receives the support he or she needs, including an assessment of their emotional, welfare and behavioural needs, therapeutic or educational support.”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the first thing I need to say is happy birthday to the Minister. I am sure noble Lords will agree with me in wishing him all the very best. I am not sure that this is the best way I would choose to spend my birthday.
As I said at Second Reading, we on these Benches generally support the sexual harm prevention orders and the sexual risk orders as set out in Part 9 of the Bill. The two new orders will replace existing powers, and the threshold for risk will be lowered to cover any case of sexual harm, not just cases of serious sexual harm. These orders seek to improve the protection of vulnerable children at risk of sexual harm. On Report in the Commons, the Minister, Damian Green, provided details of the two new orders. He explained:
“The sexual harm prevention order may prohibit the person from doing anything described in it, including preventing travel overseas. Any prohibition must be necessary for protecting the public in the UK from sexual harm or, in relation to foreign travel, protecting children or vulnerable adults from sexual harm. It lasts a minimum of five years and has no maximum duration, with the exception of any foreign travel restrictions which, if applicable, lasts for a maximum of five years but can be renewed”.
The sexual risk order,
“will be available for those who have not been convicted of an offence but who none the less pose a risk of sexual harm to the public. It may be made by the magistrates court on application by the police or the new National Crime Agency where an individual has done an act of a sexual nature and poses a risk of harm to the public in the UK or adults or vulnerable children overseas”.
Of course, any prohibition in the sexual risk order must be necessary for protecting the public in the UK from sexual harm or for protecting vulnerable adults abroad. Such an order, as I have described it, will last for a minimum of two years. The police are very keen on these orders as their view is that they do not have the right measures at their disposal to intervene to prevent harm to children. We agree with them.
It is also welcome that these orders simplify the current system. In relation to non-conviction behaviour, they reduce the number of acts of harm required for an order to be used from two to one, which means that they can be obtained more easily. Extending the scope of sexual behaviour covered by the orders and lowering the threshold from serious sexual harm will also increase their use. This will help tackle behaviour that poses a risk of sexual abuse to children but which has not yet translated into a criminal offence.
In the Commons, my honourable friend Ann Coffey MP noted:
“The risk of sexual harm orders, which the new sexual risk orders would replace, can be given only to offenders aged 18 and over”.
She asked the Minister:
“Will the new sexual harm prevention orders also only apply to offenders over 18? If they will apply to offenders under 18, what consideration has he given to introducing accompanying rehabilitative provisions for child sex offenders?”.
That is at the heart of what this probing amendment is about. At the time, the Minister, Mr Green, said:
“The two new orders will apply to both over-18s and under-18s”.
He also clarified the situation in relation to the sex offenders register:
“In line with the old order, the new sexual harm prevention order will make the offender subject to the notification requirements for registered sex offenders—it will put them on the sex offenders register. For both new orders, in line with the existing position, breach is a criminal offence punishable by a maximum of five years’ imprisonment. Conviction for a breach of a sexual risk order would also make that individual subject to the sex offender notification requirements”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/13; cols. 472-75.]
Extending the ability to use these orders to protect children under 18, including 16 and 17 year-olds, recognises that older children are still vulnerable and can be subject to child sexual exploitation and abuse. The inclusion of vulnerable adults to the SHPO and SRO is welcome. We know that young adults with learning difficulties or special educational needs are targeted by individuals looking to exploit them.
The amendment seeks to probe how the orders will work for young people under 18 subject to the orders and how they are supported. Some young people who are subject to the orders may also have been victims of sexual exploitation, or become involved as a means of self-preservation, as was the case for a young person quoted in one of the briefs that I received. We are seeking safeguards from the Government for young people under 18 who are subject to the orders, to ensure that they receive the support that they need,
“including an assessment of their emotional, welfare and behavioural needs, therapeutic or educational support”.
We are concerned that a breach of the child SHPO without conviction or the SRO can result in five years’ imprisonment when a child has not actually committed a criminal offence. We know that custody may not be the most effective way to tackle children’s criminal behaviour, and I am sure that we all agree that custody for under-18s should only be used as a very last resort in the most serious and violent offences, so we must question whether this is appropriate where children have not been convicted of an offence. We are very concerned about the use of custodial sentences for under-18s subject to SROs or SHPOs obtained without conviction. That is why we have put forward this amendment.
What measures do the Government propose for under-18s subject to these orders? Will the Government consider prescribing the use of therapeutic support and/or education and an assessment of needs in guidance when the orders are applied to under-18s? Will the Government review and evaluate the effectiveness of the orders, such as through rates of reoffending and the effectiveness of any assessment of needs, when they are applied to under-18s? It is important that we question the detail of how this will work for under-18s.
The Minister very kindly wrote to me on this matter and in his letter he mentioned that the Government will be,
“working closely with the Ministry of Justice on applications for orders relating to under-18s and will ensure that guidance is available to the courts and others to ensure that such cases are heard in the youth court as appropriate”.
Will that draft guidance be available before the Bill has completed its passage through your Lordships’ House? I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the Government have moved forward a great deal, as have the police and the CPS, in understanding that in some cases, particularly in cases of trafficked people, those who may at first be seen as a perpetrator—often of relatively small crimes, but sometimes of bigger ones—are in fact victims and have done what they have done as a result of the way that they have been treated. It seems to me that what the noble Baroness proposes is absolutely in line with that thinking.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and join with her and the rest of the House in wishing my noble friend a very happy birthday. My appearance at the Dispatch Box may be one of the best presents that I can give my noble friend, who is doing a gallant job as my Whip today. This may well be part of the Conservative birthday present allocation.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has explained, Amendment 1 would require a court making sexual harm prevention orders in relation to under-18s to have regard to,
“their emotional, welfare and behavioural needs, therapeutic or educational support”.
Schedule 5 makes provision to replace the current sexual offences prevention order, foreign travel order and risk of sexual harm order with sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders. The new sexual harm prevention order can be applied where an individual has had a conviction for a specific sexual or violent offence and the court is satisfied that the prohibitions are necessary to protect the public in the UK or children or vulnerable adults abroad from sexual harm. The new sexual risk order can be applied to individuals without a conviction but who have committed an act of a sexual nature and, as a result, the court is satisfied that prohibitions are necessary to protect the public in the UK or children or vulnerable adults abroad from sexual harm.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. I will read it in more detail but the Government seem to be taking this issue extremely seriously. I would just like to be reassured that when these orders are being considered, therapeutic and educational support can also be prescribed, as it were, as part of the order. The noble Lord is nodding—I thank him.
Finally, I suggest that the others that are consulted in the process of producing this guidance will include the children’s organisations that are expert in dealing with abused children. Their expertise has certainly been very useful to me in bringing this amendment to the Committee and I hope that the Government will draw on those resources. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
I hope that neither this amendment nor the two that I have in the next group will cause the Minister to run to and from the Dispatch Box. I see that he is already confident enough that that will not be the case. Amendment 2 takes us to violent offender orders, and my noble friend will, I hope, already know what my point is.
Clause 106, the new clause to be inserted in the 2008 Act, will allow the Secretary of State by an affirmative order to amend the list of specified offences, either by adding to or subtracting from the list—the specified offences being those which can trigger the order. It seems to me that this is a very wide power. As I said, it would require an affirmative resolution, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has not chosen to share any concern about this because it is an affirmative power. However, I think that it would be helpful to understand how the Secretary of State will be expected to go about making such a change. Of course, we always have to remember that, although there may be a benign Secretary of State this month, next month or next year the Secretary of State may be less benign in the eyes of some Members of the House.
In order to probe this, my amendment would provide for consultation, before an order is made, with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. I cannot believe that any Secretary of State would undertake such an act without consultation, but you never know. It would be good to have confirmation on record as to the means that would be followed. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising this issue. Amendment 2 would, as she has outlined, require the Secretary of State to consult those deemed appropriate prior to making an order to amend the list of specified offences for a violent offender order.
Clause 106 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the list of specified offences through secondary legislation, subject to the affirmative procedure. Models of offending change over time, and this change will help to ensure that the legislative powers for managing violent offenders can be updated to reflect changes with the appropriate parliamentary oversight.
My noble friend asked specifically about the consultation. I reassure her and the Committee that any changes to the list of specified offences will be considered in close consultation with the police, the National Offender Management Service and others to help to ensure that the police and NOMS are able to manage the risk posed by serious violent offenders. Specialist input will be sought as a matter of course. We do not consider that specific requirement to consult is required on the face of the Bill. I hope that this reassures my noble friend that appropriate consultation will take place and that she will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, that is helpful. It has only just occurred to me that I should have asked whether any change is in mind at the moment. I do not know whether the Minister’s briefing allows him to answer that question.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I have highlighted, there is NOMS and the police will be involved. Additional experts will be sought as part of that process.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 4. This is a very low-key group of amendments as we start the part of the Bill on forced marriages. Many noble Lords will have far more to say on this issue than is appropriate to this little group. I will confine my remarks very narrowly to the points of which I have given the Government notice.
These are two probing amendments. Amendment 3 would take out new subsection (2). The intention is to probe the meaning of “aware” in it, where it says that,
“a person can be guilty of an offence … in respect of conduct engaged in at a time when the person was aware of the existence of the”,
forced marriage protection order. What is the burden of proof as to whether an individual is aware of an order? I assumed on first reading that this meant actually aware as distinct from having been served with an order, which is rather more particular. Is there scope for judicial discretion in dealing with this? As I said, this is just intended to understand what is meant by “aware” in this context. My noble friend Lord McNally accuses me of being too curious about this sort of terminology.
Amendment 4 probes the relationship between criminal proceedings following a forced marriage protection order and contempt of court if an order is not complied with. I agree with what I understand the Bill to provide—that it should be one or the other—but I hope that my noble friend can explain to the Committee how decisions will be taken about which enforcement route will be followed. What criteria will be used? I am not challenging the content; I simply wish to understand how the matter will be approached. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton
I was not completely clear what these amendments concerned when I read them and I assumed they were probing. They are both legitimate questions and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about them.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, first, I reassure my noble friend that her curiosity is always welcome on these Benches. That is well acknowledged by my noble friend Lord McNally.
Turning to her specific amendments, as she rightly said, we are moving on to the subject of forced marriages. This is an important subject to address. It is unfortunate that we have to address it but it is a reality that exists. As my noble friend said, we will move on to other elements of this. I say from the outset that the Government take this particular issue very seriously. It tragically impacts on people in this country and it needs to be tackled and dealt with. I hope that through our discussions this afternoon we will be able to throw further light on what is a very important matter.
The new offence of the breach of a forced marriage protection order mirrors closely the existing offence of the breach of a non-molestation order in Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996. This approach of closely following the non-molestation order precedent is the proposal on which the Government consulted in 2012, as noble Lords will know, and with which a large majority of respondents—71%—agreed.
Consistent with the existing offence, new Section 63CA of the Family Law Act provides that, first, a person can be guilty of an offence under Section 63CA only in respect of conduct engaged in at a time when the person was aware of the existence of the order and, secondly, where a person is convicted of a breach of a forced marriage protection order, they cannot be punished subsequently for contempt in relation to subsections (3) and (4).
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful for that and will of course withdraw my amendment. With regard to my first amendment, the clause refers to awareness,
“of the existence of the order”.
My noble friend said that one can be aware of the existence of the order without knowing what it prohibits, and so awareness of its existence is not the same as being aware of its content. I would like to think about whether “without reasonable excuse”, to which he referred, is an adequate protection in that situation. Obviously a range of circumstances could be covered by that.
On the two distinct remedies, if that is the right term for them, I believe the Minister is saying that the decision is very much in the hands of the victim. That, of course, is completely in line with what I have read about the Government’s approach to this and the rest of the Bill. This may perhaps be an issue for us later in today’s debates. On a later amendment, I will be looking to understand what guidance the police may have as to the advice they give. On paper, it looks easy for a potential victim—I would like to start calling them “survivors”—to take that decision, and it may look easy to us sitting in this Chamber, but when one is caught up in the situation, how does one assess the right course to take? That is a sort of trail for some of the points which may come up later. Unless the Minister wants to come in again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
“( ) It shall be a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish guidance about the effect of this section before it comes into force to such descriptions of persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
( ) A person exercising public functions to whom guidance is given under this section must have regard to it in the exercise of those functions.”
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, in moving Amendment 5 I also speak to Amendment 10; both are in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece. Amendment 5 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish guidance about the consequences of forced marriage and breaching a forced marriage protection order. We all agree that criminalisation, whether through criminalisation of a breach of a forced marriage protection order or through direct criminalisation, is not enough to tackle forced marriage alone. The previous Government recognised this and that all the authorities which come into contact with victims of forced marriage—schools, colleges, the police, doctors and health services, social services, local authorities, airport staff, FCO staff and the courts—must be aware of forced marriage, how it manifests itself, what to look for and, most importantly, the appropriate action that needs to be taken.
For example, in August this year, the Government issued a warning to teachers, doctors and airport staff to be alert to forced marriages over the summer holidays. Between June and August, the Forced Marriage Unit—a joint operation between the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—received over 400 reports. This year the unit handed out leaflet cards called Marriage: It’s Your Choice, to provide help and information to potential victims, signposting them to confidential advice. The cards reminded young people to speak to police or airline staff if they found themselves at an airport with nowhere to turn. That is an important initiative. Of course, it referred them to the Forced Marriage Unit, which was set up in January 2005 as the Government’s one-stop shop for dealing with forced marriage policy, outreach and casework. It does an excellent job, operating both inside the UK, where support is provided to any individual, and overseas, where consular assistance is to be provided to British nationals, including dual nationals. I pay tribute to my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland and other noble Lords who set up this important initiative.
However, we need to look at what has happened since that time. We must recognise that, if we look at the evidence, the action we want to be taken throughout all those authorities and public bodies is certainly not uniform or adequate. We can look, for example, at the evidence that Karma Nirvana and the Southall Black Sisters gave during Committee in the Commons. Karma Nirvana’s evidence showed that little had changed in schools since 2008, and that schools were often reluctant to participate in the charity’s work on forced marriage, for example. Other evidence confirms that schools do very little to ensure that pupils are informed about forced marriage and to offer them the necessary support if they need it. There was even evidence that some schools were putting students at risk by contacting family members when children had consulted teachers in confidence.
Southall Black Sisters said in its evidence:
“Our experience shows that the education system has been the slowest to respond to the need to address forced marriage. There needs to be considerable attention on increasing awareness and creating monitoring mechanisms for all forms of gender-related violence and equality issues in schools … We are of the view that heads of secondary schools and further education colleges have an obligation to provide clear and well publicised information on a range of gender-related violence issues”,
which includes forced marriage,
“and Ofsted has an important role to play in monitoring how these issues are addressed”.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some information that will help to reassure us that this will happen and that it will have teeth. However, in addition to that evidence, in 2011 the Home Affairs Select Committee wrote to the Secretary of State for Education to express its concerns about this matter. I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State rejected its views and said that he did not believe that his department should be directive or prescriptive to schools on this matter. Does the Minister think that that is satisfactory, on a matter of child protection that lies at the heart of forced marriage for young people?
There have now been two Select Committee inquiries and the Forced Marriage Unit report, and still the Department of Education does not treat forced marriage as a child protection issue in many schools—a reason why this amendment is so important. We have to recognise that the voluntary sector is doing an excellent job in trying to remedy this situation. I know that were he here, my noble friend Lord Harris would tell us about the organisation he chairs, the Freedom Charity, which first and foremost wants to protect the lives of children and young people by raising awareness of forced marriage in the UK and the associated problems of dishonour-based violence, giving young people the tools and confidence to deal with the problem. The charity plays a vital role in spreading the word and helping to prevent forced marriage, and runs the country’s first 24-hour, seven-days-a-week helpline to raise awareness and prevent abuse. It should be commended for the work it does. However, we have to accept that it is almost certainly not enough.
My second point, which I will raise very briefly with the Minister on this matter, is on whether and how legal aid will be available to victims of forced marriage when they come forward. Again, many of the organisations that deal with forced marriage have raised that as a concern. Statutory agencies have a legal duty to ensure that safeguarding policies and practices are implemented, and that is what lies at the heart of this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I, too, have added my name to this amendment. I wish to make just a few comments as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has covered most of what I would have liked to say about this amendment. I come to this issue with personal experience of some of the problems that I encountered as a young teenager living in my community. I like to think that we have moved on considerably in the intervening 35 years or so, but this is still a real issue. Too many young women are still exposed to this problem and are victims of it. We need to do far more to tackle it than is currently the case.
The guidance needs to be uniform and all the agencies that come into contact with potential victims need to be very clear about what they can do to support these young people who come forward needing help. I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on schools. There are huge concerns about schools because they follow their own principles and guidelines. In addition, we now have far more free schools, whose practice in this regard may not be in line with that of local authority schools. I would like assurance that the role of schools, which are pivotal in this regard, will be looked at very closely.
I have had conversations with survivors and some of the organisations working in the front line of forced marriages, particularly Jasvinder Sanghera of Karma Nirvana, who is very supportive. As most noble Lords who have worked in this field know, Jasvinder is herself a survivor of forced marriage and has set up the organisation to support other women in this situation. I was struck by the advice that Karma Nirvana gives girls who are forced to travel overseas to marry; namely, to conceal a spoon or fork, for example, about their person so that an alarm will be set off when they go through the airport X-ray machine. Then the airport security staff will have to take them aside to speak to them, thus giving them the opportunity to speak privately with security staff and try to enlist their support. It is sad that this advice still has to be given to young women and some young men. If everything worked effectively, presumably they would not need to resort to such tactics. Is my noble friend the Minister confident that there is consistency across the country regarding the guidance and support given by airport security staff to young girls who are being forced out of the country and who follow the advice to activate an alarm, or is it just up to individual staff to decide what support to give? The amendment is important to ensure that there is uniformity in this regard.
Young people in this situation who are accompanied by their families also need to be listened to. I know that schools contact the families of pupils who have raised this issue. If schools or other authorities contact the families of victims, it is important that the young person is taken aside and is spoken to privately to enable them to explain their situation rather than relying on family members to speak on their behalf.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)
My Lords, I support both amendments in this group, not least because guidance in this area is critical. Noble Lords will know that the previous Government produced stringent guidance. However, it is not just a question of producing guidance but of implementing and monitoring it to ensure that it is effective in raising standards and offering greater protection for the victims and survivors of this most pernicious form of abuse. What assessment has been carried out of the current guidance and of any implementation strategy that the Government are minded to put in place if this amendment is accepted, which I hope the noble Lord is about to tell us he energetically supports?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of a forced marriage commission which is currently hearing evidence. An interesting aspect of that is that we went to visit the Karma Nirvana organisation just outside Leeds and the victims to whom we spoke were all very anxious that forced marriage should be criminalised. I have had my doubts about that. I took part, with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in the original initiative on this issue, which led, I am very glad to say, to a government Bill being produced some years ago under the previous Government. I know that the noble Lord is very opposed to the criminalisation of forced marriage. However, there is no doubt that all the victims to whom members of the commission spoke considered that this was an essential next step, which I thought was very interesting.
I am very concerned about how the immigration authorities, or emigration authorities, can cope with this problem. I talked to an immigration official at Gatwick and asked him what he did about girls going out to Pakistan with their parents and those coming back, or a young man coming into this country, where a girl is waiting with her parents to welcome him as her intended husband. The official told me that he had spoken to these girls on many occasions. One such girl was waiting for an intended husband to come through the airport and the official took her aside and asked her whether she wanted to marry that man. She replied, “No, I do not”. When he asked her whether it was a forced marriage, she replied, “Yes, it is”. He said that he could stop the forced marriage by preventing the young man entering the country but that the girl would have to declare publicly that she was being forced into a marriage. The girl replied, “I cannot do so in front of my parents”. This is a major problem. We know that a lot of girls and some young men, many of whom are under 18, are being forced into marriage in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India and, indeed, other places. This is by no means only a Muslim problem. It is also a Sikh problem and occasionally a Jewish problem, but it is a problem across the world. One of the major problems in this regard I have been told about concerns disabled young people, particularly those with learning difficulties, as the parents think they are doing the young woman concerned a favour by marrying her off as she will be protected for the rest of her life. Nevertheless, she does not want the marriage and this is a very real problem.
I very much support Amendment 5, particularly because I think it is time that everyone, from the Government through to the Department for Education and schools in particular, should do as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, suggests and treat this as a child protection issue. If you force a girl or boy to marry under the age of 18, particularly under 16, when they do not want to marry, this is a very real child protection issue. However, another extremely worrying issue arises. These girls—it affects particularly the girls—are being married in other parts of the world with an Islamic ceremony. That ceremony is not registered overseas and it is not registered in this country. Therefore, the girl is not married according to English law. The husband can divorce her under Islamic law and she can obtain no redress in this country for herself. She does not have to be married to get financial help for her children but she gets no financial help whatever for herself because she is not married according to English law. Interestingly, there is a law that gives the second wife in a polygamous marriage some financial assistance.
I have not tabled an amendment in relation to forced marriages that are not considered valid marriages, but I hope that the Government will look at that as there is no shortage of women in this country and abroad who are not considered married according to English law although their marriage ceremonies are considered perfectly adequate in some communities. I particularly underline what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said about child protection. I am not at all sure whether Amendments 5A and 6 are entirely necessary, although the Government should certainly look at them, but Amendment 5 is vital.
Baroness Hamwee
My noble friend Lady Berridge is not in her place at the moment, but I know, from a very short conversation I had with her yesterday, that her Amendment 11 is intended to address the second problem to which the noble and learned Baroness referred. When I first read it, I thought it was simply about annulment but she tells me that it is, in fact, about property.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece for tabling the amendment. The noble and learned Baroness made a point about forced marriages. As I said when we moved on to this part of the Bill, there is evidence to suggest that this is a reality and we have to deal with it. I can assure her that the Government take this very seriously. The issue of unregistered marriages which take place abroad or even on home soil, and which do not provide the protections afforded by the rule of law, is one that must be looked at and the Government are looking at how this can be done. An example of good practice within Muslim communities is where the nikah—one aspect of Islamic marriages—is not performed by the imam until a registration certificate is provided. Many Muslim communities adhere to that principle and we should be encouraging that kind of practice across the board.
I turn to the amendments which concern the publication of guidance for front-line professionals working in this area. We know how important guidance is if the new legislation is to work effectively. I join other noble Lords in saying that this must not just be issued but, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, said, adhered to as well. I align myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on the Forced Marriage Unit and pay tribute to the work done in this field, over many years, by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland.
First, I will explain the existing statutory provisions in relation to guidance. These are contained in Section 63Q of the Family Law Act 1996, which was inserted into the 1996 Act by the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007. I join noble friends in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill whose Private Member’s Bill resulted in the 2007 Act and provided a widely used civil remedy for victims and potential victims of forced marriage. Subsection (1) of Section 63Q of the 1996 Act provides that the Secretary of State may, from time to time, prepare and publish guidance to such descriptions of persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate about, first, the effect of Part 4A of the Family Law Act 1996, and, secondly, about other matters relating to forced marriages.
Clause 107 amends Part 4A to make the breach of a forced marriage protection order a criminal offence, so the preparation of guidance about the new breach offence is already covered by the power to issue guidance provided for in Section 63Q. Clause 108 creates a new offence of forced marriage which is undoubtedly a matter relating to forced marriages, so the preparation of guidance about the offence in Clause 108 is also already covered by Section 63Q.
Baroness Thornton
I am grateful to the Minister for giving this detail, but can he clarify whether the Department for Education regards forced marriage as a safeguarding issue?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Safeguarding and the protection of people in schools or elsewhere are central to every department of government. The Department for Education takes that responsibility very seriously. As I have already said, schools work very closely with the Forced Marriage Unit and children’s services at a local level. It is right that decisions are taken with the full consultation and engagement of schools, and intervention will be available to them if they require it.
Perhaps I may address the other points that were raised. The noble Baroness mentioned legal aid, a subject that has occupied your Lordships’ House at various levels over the past few years, but there was a reality to address. I am conscious that my noble friend Lord McNally is sitting to my left but I will not ask him to take over the Dispatch Box; he has answered many a question on this issue. However, there was a reality and a challenge that needed to be faced. However, I assure the noble Baroness that we have retained legal aid in key areas impacting on women—in particular, in relation to injunctions to protect victims from domestic abuse and in private family law cases in which domestic violence is a feature. Legal aid is also available for victims of forced marriage, who can seek a forced marriage protection order.
Finally, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out, given that we will come on to discuss elements of a later amendment that relate to forced marriage—a subject raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—I hope that, given my explanation, the Committee is assured that there is appropriate provision for guidance and that the Government are fully committed to addressing and tackling this issue. We are looking to update existing guidance to support professionals in the field. This is not just about passing laws but about applying them too. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that detailed and comprehensive answer. I also thank my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, for her support.
This has been a useful discussion because this issue is important. I had a look at the guidance, which, as my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland pointed out, is comprehensive and impressive. Were it to be implemented in the way that is intended, it would be extremely effective. It is detailed and tells all public officials how they should deal with this issue and what they should say. The guidance is very impressive but implementation is the point. I also agreed with the noble Lord when he told the House that this is also about cultural change, changes in community and so on.
I might say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that I come from a community in Bradford, have links across West Yorkshire and have spoken about this issue to many different groups of women in those areas. I have to say that the enthusiasm for criminalisation, which we will come on to talk about, is not by any means uniform among the groups, including, for example, a group of Somali women in Halifax with whom I had conversations only in the past year. Criminalisation of breaches of the Forced Marriage Act is important, as I think everyone would agree. However, the discussion that we are going to come on to is slightly more nuanced.
I should be grateful if the Minister could answer the question mentioned by his noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece about free schools. He does not need to answer now; a letter would be sufficient. Do the rules relating to this issue apply also to the new free schools? I should like to read what the noble Lord has said about the Department for Education’s role in this and about the safeguarding issue. We may need to have discussions and return to it at a later stage. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(1) Where a person commits an offence under the law of England and Wales, it shall be considered an aggravating feature if he or she—
(a) uses violence, threats or any other form of coercion for the purpose of causing another person to enter into a marriage, or(b) believes, or ought reasonably to believe, that the conduct may cause the other person to enter into the marriage without free and full consent.(2) Where a person commits an offence under the law of England and Wales, it shall be considered an aggravating feature if he or she—
(a) practices any form of deception with the intention of causing another person to leave the United Kingdom, and(b) intends the other person to be subjected to conduct outside the United Kingdom that is an aggravating feature under subsection (1), or would be an aggravating feature if that person were in England and Wales.(2A) In subsections (1) and (2), “a person” refers to any individual who commits an offence for the purpose of causing another person to enter into a marriage.”
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I should make it clear right from the beginning that this is a probing amendment at this stage. I seek to amend the proposed criminalisation of the offence in order that forced marriage becomes an aggravating feature that a court will be minded to consider and have to take into account.
Perhaps I may explain to the Committee my concern in relation to the current government proposals. In doing so, I immediately endorse and commend the Government for caring about this issue, for seeking to address it and for understanding the sensitivity that surrounds it in relation to all communities, because, regrettably, forced marriage happens in all communities. Whether it involves an Irish farmer, someone in this country from a strict Christian denomination, Jewish communities or various forms of Asian communities, forced marriage happens in all our families. It is wrong and it is an infringement of human rights. I therefore do not hesitate to say that the Government are right to care about this, to work on it and to commit themselves to its eradication. All that is correct.
The question that I raise through this amendment is: is criminalisation the right course? Noble Lords will know from my noble friend Lady Thornton that we worked very hard on this matter and during that time we learnt a number of lessons. During the whole of my legal career—from 1977 to date, which is not very long—I have had the privilege of working with families in which both boys and girls have been subjected to forced marriage. During that time, my experience in the Foreign Office caused me to seek to create the Forced Marriage Unit and then to pursue the issue with vigour through each of the departments in which I was privileged to be a Minister. Lastly, as noble Lords will know, as Attorney-General I had the opportunity to assist victims of domestic violence, of which forced marriage is part. The prosecution of those who unlawfully seek to coerce others into a marriage to which they do not consent is something which all of us, no matter which party, pursued with vigour. The question for all of us is how best that should be done.
I looked with interest at the Government’s response to the consultation. I want to ask the Minister a number of questions in relation to the notice, if any, which was taken of some of the answers given—particularly in relation to Imkaan, which the noble Lord will know submitted a response from 48 organisations. I shall mention a few: Jewish Women’s Aid, Latin American Women’s Aid, Latin American Women’s Rights Service, various professors, the Newham Asian Women’s Project, Race on the Agenda, Rape Crisis (England and Wales), Respect, Rights of Women, Scottish Women’s Aid, Solace Women’s Aid, the Southall Black Sisters, Welsh Women’s Aid, Women and Girls Network, and Women’s Aid, England. These front-line organisations have been dealing with this matter for a very long time—indeed, as far back as I can remember.
To the Government’s question:
“Do you believe that the current civil remedies and criminal sanctions are being used … effectively?”,
those organisations answered no. In answer to the question:
“Do you think a criminal offence should be created for the act of forcing someone to marry against their will?”,
the answer was no. In answer to the question:
“What issues should be considered to ensure that a new offence does not deter people from reporting the crime?”,
the answer was:
“The creation of a specific offence on forced marriage would in itself create a significant barrier to reporting. As highlighted earlier, women and girls will not always prioritise prosecution. Women and girls want the choice to reconcile, where appropriate, with family members and often prefer to access support services before making any other decision”.
In answer to the question:
“Do you think there should be an offence of luring someone abroad”,
the answer was no. In answer to the question:
“Do you think that the creation of a new criminal offence would make the law clearer?”,
the answer was no. Then, in answer to the question:
“Do you think the creation of a new criminal offence would make it easier for professionals to tackle the problem?”,
once again, the answer was no. That made me pause because here were the most significant front-line services in our country, which have been dealing with these issues for many years, saying no.
Lord Faulks (Con)
Would not the answer to the dilemma that the noble and learned Baroness quite rightly identifies be for the prosecuting authorities to have different counts on indictments so that they include, for example, Section 18 or Section 20 and the offence of forced marriage?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, that, of course, is the way forward. However, the question that I pose is this: how are the prosecutor and the police officer to decide which offence to go for? Criminal prosecutions, as the noble Lord will know, will be carried out on the basis of proving things beyond reasonable doubt. If you look at the forced marriage provision, you have to identify a course of behaviour that is coercive. In so doing, the prosecutor will have to identify what criminal act was alleged against the defendant. For example, is it alleged that the accused hit the person or that they threatened the person? It seems to me that in order to prove the forced marriage provision, you have to identify a substantive criminal act which it is asserted that person committed. If one then has a jury, what will we say to the jury? How do we differentiate the forced marriage allegation from the substantive allegation made in relation to the other offence? I am asking this probing question to understand how the Government expect this to be done, because you cannot have an alternative in the way that we have just debated unless there is clarity about what the prosecutor is seeking to establish. In the case of a kidnapping, in order to satisfy the jury that a forced marriage offence was committed, how do you differentiate between those two if the accused is found not guilty of the kidnapping but guilty of the forced marriage based on the kidnapping? There is an inherent difficulty.
The only element of this offence that seems not to be currently covered is coercion on an emotional basis. I take as an example a devout Jewish family which discovers that one of its children wishes to marry outside the faith. A matchmaker has arranged a marriage within the community and the child rejects the suggestion made by the parent. The parent then says, “If you do not do this, I will rend my garments, I will sit shiva for you”—which means, in effect, “I will treat you as if you were dead”—“and you will break my heart”. That is coercion inasmuch as it is emotional blackmail, perpetuated for the sole purpose of making the child change their mind, but it is genuinely felt by the parent, who believes that to refuse will be detrimental to the child’s long-term being. Looking at this offence, it seems to me that it would be possible to prosecute such a parent under this legislation. I want to be clear as to whether the Government believe that such a prosecution would be merited and is what they wish to achieve.
The whole question of forced marriage is a very delicate and difficult issue. If emotional blackmail, which is not yet on the statute book, is the only offence, do the Government intend this provision to apply to parents who use it? Emotional blackmail can be devastating; if you think your mother is going to kill herself, that the family are going to be shamed, that your father will never again be able to raise his head and that you will be thrown out of your community, that is very powerful coercion, directed specifically to cause the child to comply with the request. It seems to me, looking at the offence created, that that behaviour could be caught by this provision. I would very much like to know from the Minister whether that is the Government’s intent. Let us be clear. If a loving parent disagrees with a child and seeks to persuade them to do something, which the child does not want to do but which the parent believes to be right—no matter how wrong that parent is and if they do it lovingly—they could find themselves in difficulties. I need to understand from the Minister whether that is indeed his intent.
The other issue is to see how the legislation is currently working. From the evidence that I have been able to cull, the forced marriage protection orders appear to be a very effective tool. Between November 2008 and the end of 2010 there were 257 applications for forced marriage protection orders, of which 181 had power of arrest attached. By June 2011 339 orders were recorded. A study carried out in 2011 at Roehampton University shows that of the 74 written responses received from a range of groups, including local authorities, organisations concerned with domestic violence, faith groups, police and lawyers, 50% of respondents thought it should not be criminal, 38% were in favour, 13% were unsure, 57% thought it would be more difficult for criminals to come forward, and 64% thought that the existing legislation was enough. So 64% thought that what we have now is enough. The real issue that came forward strongly was the enforcement of the forced marriage protection orders.
Before we step into an area where there may be unforeseen consequences, I should like to hear from the Minister how it is proposed that this offence will operate and what guidance the enforcement agencies—the police and the CPS—should be given. If, however, as my amendment proposes, the Government were minded to make it an “aggravating feature”, that would be a very useful tool for the courts. Forced marriage involves a breach of trust. It is not just that you kidnap, falsely imprison or assault someone you are supposed to love, it is that you do so to force them to enter into a relationship that will have lasting impacts on their lives, and maybe negatively so.
Just as we punish more severely those who breach our trust if they steal from us as an employer, it is equally important to say that if you commit any of these substantive offences which are grievous and egregious in their own right, and you do so for the express purpose of forcing someone for whom you have responsibility directly or indirectly into a marriage or otherwise, you deserve more trenchant punishment than if you did it to a stranger—somebody that you did not know. We would be able to keep all the substantive offences, punish them appropriately in accordance with the gravity of what was done, using the legislation that is already there, but we could do so more trenchantly because they did it in the framework of forcing someone into marriage. We would do what the Government want, which is to make it very clear that it is a criminal offence, will be taken seriously and needs to be punished, but we may be able to do it within a context that will not bring about some of the unforeseen consequences that some of us foresee now.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, coming back to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, said earlier on forced marriage, I, too, am glad that the Government are taking this seriously and are trying to do something about this awful practice involving many victims whose lives are made miserable. At the same time I, too, wonder whether the measures that the Government are trying to take will be helpful or counterproductive, as I said at an earlier stage. As has been suggested by other noble Lords, I fear that by making forced marriage a criminal act, a lot of young people will not come forward to report it, so it could be pushed more under the carpet, rather than being dealt with.
Will the Minister shed some light on the background from which forced marriage comes? I share the view that it is not an issue from one particular community or faith. However, many noble Lords will know that most cases registered with the Forced Marriage Unit of the Home Office come from the Pakistani Muslim community. I speak from that community, as I belong to it and know what is happening. Does the Minister understand that one of the major factors in forced marriages is the clan system? The tribe system strongly exists within the Pakistani community in the UK, although we have been settled here for 40 or 50 years. In the tribes, sects, brathries, clans or castes—whatever name we use—people are divided into those groups and many of them do not want their sons or daughters to marry out of their clans, brathries or castes. This is where many forced marriages are taking place.
Does the Minister recognise that and what will the Government do about educating people to come out of the brathries system? I get invited to many community meetings and have spoken many times about this. I have written in the Urdu language, which I am able to do, in newspapers against this practice. For example, 15 years ago in my home town of Luton, there was a big community meeting where we discussed community issues. There were a couple of hundred people there, and I spoke on this issue. By the time I had finished, every leader of every clan or caste gave me a dirty look, as if to say, “How dare you?”. That is how strongly the caste system is built into some of these cultures. We need to educate them not only through the normal education channels but through the ethnic media, which has hardly been mentioned but which can play a positive role in educating people.
Then there is the film industry. I was watching a film on one of the satellite channels; many Pakistani-origin people watch dramas and films on these channels. In this film, a female was to be married to someone out of her caste. Another female tells her, “My dear, you will have to give up this idea”, and points to the cemetery outside their house, saying, “It is full of virgins”. They are the virgins who were not allowed to get married outside the caste. This is how strongly this is practised outside the UK and these films, when they are shown, have an impact on people’s lives and behaviour. We need to understand that as well, and maybe we need to educate our own people in how to look into it.
On the particular issue of the media, DfID is giving millions of pounds to media outlets operating in the UK and in Pakistan. I hope that some of that money will be used for programmes to educate on forced marriages by the media that are supported financially by DfID. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how he thinks he can prevent the criminalisation of forced marriage discouraging reporting. I strongly feel that that may happen and we need to look at it very carefully. I hope that he can satisfy us.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I stand somewhat hesitantly and ask for the House’s leniency, as I did not take part at Second Reading. I hope that the House will indulge me for a few minutes, as someone who chaired the initial work on forced marriage in 1998, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, instructed by the then Home Secretary. I was inspired by the comprehensive understanding of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland. I have no words of expertise to be able to relay the issues she laid before the House. I was also deeply inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Hussain. All those years ago, in 1998, such a speech would have been unthinkable from a Member of the House of Lords coming from the Pakistani community. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, also comes from the Pakistani community and, although he took a little pulling in on my sisterly part to bring him along to the discussions, when he did, he did so with vigour. We are standing on the shoulders of giants regarding much of the work that was done across the country.
We went across the country for 18 months, talking to various sections of the community: we left very few stones unturned, whether it was the Jewish community, the Irish community, the Scottish borders or the Welsh community. We did not leave any of the women’s organisations out of the debate. Out of it came the Forced Marriage Unit, which is very laudable, and the work it has subsequently done. I support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, because it is critical. All those years ago, women really wanted some protection and their consensus, which was right across the board, led to forced marriage protection orders. However, our report made it very clear that we proposed that this should have been done under the protection of domestic violence legislation and child protection legislation. Whether it is kidnapping or murder, we wanted to mainstream the issue of forced marriage into the criminal legislation. That did not happen at that point.
The women’s organisations listed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, have played a critical part in leading to the changes that have occurred and we have to acknowledge how much change there has been, led by community organisations, faith organisations and the women’s organisations themselves. If they are now saying that criminalisation will impact on the numbers of women and young people reporting, I suggest to the Committee that we take that very seriously. I have attended a number of meetings with these organisations, both here in the House and outside, and they have consistently asked that the Government recognise their work and expertise. They are saying that criminalisation will make it very difficult for them to work because, whatever we say about the amount of resources available outside, we have done very little since 1998 to empower those marginalised women economically and to address their welfare needs and their education. Women, in particular, will not be confident to come forward, whether it is to report violence against them or to report rape or forced marriage, unless we address the issue of their economic well being. I suggest that this added burden of criminalisation will be a very deep-seated aggravation, compounding the levels of pressure women face within the community. I hope that we will listen to some of the women’s organisations. I think that the amendment moved by the noble and learned Baroness is the right way to go about it and I hope that the Government will concede.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which looked at this issue, as with other issues in the Bill, and realised that there was a great deal of knowledge and experience in your Lordships’ House, some of which we have heard today. We came to the conclusion that we cautiously accepted the Government’s reasoning for the criminalisation of forced marriage, but we recommended, among other things, that the Crown Prosecution Service should develop a strategy on prosecutions over forced marriage and that, in developing such a strategy, there should be consultation with the relevant stakeholders. It was very much a cautious acceptance of the Government’s reasoning.
I appreciate that the noble and learned Baroness has put this down as a probing amendment rather than anything more and I accept it in that spirit. I counsel some caution, however, about having an offence which one commits if there is an aggravating feature in relation to another offence. It causes difficulties in sentencing in other cases in which this form of offence has been introduced. It seems to me, as I suggested in a brief intervention on the noble and learned Baroness, that it would be perfectly possible to have an offence of forced marriage and to have an offence if the context required it—a further offence, perhaps, in Section 20 or Section 18—of whatever other offence had been committed. However, I understand the spirit of the amendment and I look forward with interest to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Thornton
Did the human rights committee consider the proposal that has been put forward by my noble and learned friend? If it did not, does it think it would be a good idea if it did now do so, if there is time?
Lord Faulks
I do not, of course, speak for the committee, as I am only one member. This particular amendment was not considered; I can certainly take it back to the committee and ask that we consider it.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble and learned Lady, Baroness Scotland, for all the work she has done in setting up the Forced Marriage Unit and for her commitment and dedication over many years on this issue, as well as on domestic violence and related issues. She speaks with great authority. My concern is that we need a clear message, a deterrent, to go out to many of these communities and my fear is that some of the messages we are hearing in the debate today are not as distinct as they could be.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Hussain that education is needed and that far more should be done within all the various communities. We are talking about a range of communities; it is not just one or two. Moreover, we are seeing people coming here from the first generation, particularly from certain African countries, who are still bringing these sorts of customs with them. They do not always understand what is and is not acceptable in the United Kingdom in the 21st century.
As I said in my earlier contribution, I have some personal experience of this. I know what it is like to be threatened with being ostracised from your family and to have to leave home. No child wants to feel the pressure of being ostracised and losing contact with their family. They cannot be in touch with their extended family. For many of us, our communities and families, particularly the immediate family, are very important to us. It is our whole world. Let us make no mistake, this is a terrible thing to happen. It is not always done with violence, but certainly with intimidation.
I want something that will work. Whatever we agree to, it has to be able to prevent this happening to young women. Unfortunately, the evidence shows that although we have made a lot of progress, this is still happening to far too many young women and, as my noble friend said earlier, to boys as well. Many young people are at risk and are being affected by this. The figure must still be in the thousands and that cannot be right. We have to do something about it.
On prevention, I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, said about the voluntary organisations. The vast majority of community organisations that are working with their respective communities do not want to see the people who are in their communities being criminalised. No one would want that. The idea is that this would prevent people doing these things and entering into this sort of behaviour. It would prevent criminalisation.
Baroness Uddin
Does the noble Baroness accept that organisations such as the Newham Asian Women’s Project and Southall Black Sisters have a long and honourable history of campaigning against such violence? There is no way that they would want to associate themselves with what she is suggesting; that is, that they just want to see more education or protection because they want to save their communities from such allegations. They are very clear about this issue and that comes from their experience, which has been acquired from more than 30 years of protecting women.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
I accept what the noble Baroness says. I have worked in the past with Southall Black Sisters on domestic violence issues in the Turkish and Kurdish communities when I was setting up a women’s refuge for them. Indeed, I worked very closely with them; I know the work the women do and I pay tribute to them. However, I think that we need some sanctions in order to prevent this. I am sure that the same arguments were deployed in the debates on the proposal to criminalise FGM. Perhaps that is not a good example because there have been no convictions, but it is illegal. Whatever we may think about it—which is obviously for another debate—that sends out the message that FGM is wrong. If something is wrong, it should be against the law. I have listened carefully to the debate and I have thought long and hard about the issue. I have not come to this view over the past few days. It is something that I have considered for many years, and of course there needs to be far more education.
Let us look at the facts. No religion supports forced marriage and it is not a religious requirement. It is also a barrier to integration. These girls, when they behave in what is perceived to be too pro-western a fashion and perhaps are friendly with members of the opposite sex, are considered to have lax morals. The barriers then come up and the pressure starts. I go into schools and talk to girls whose families do not want them to move on into further education. They do not want them to go into further education because they then start to lose control. They think, “Oh, they will have boyfriends and get into relationships where they have sex before marriage”. That is when the oppression starts. It is a barrier to integration and goes against the opportunity for girls to reach their full potential. That is something I feel very strongly about. Moreover, it is a form of slavery and rape. I will be clear on this because that is what happens in many cases. It is about being held against your will in a marriage, which is slavery and rape, and I have no other form of words to describe it.
At the moment, many families feel that their young girls, particularly those under the age of 18, are their property. They belong to the family and the honour of the family rests on them, so the family feels that it has the right to impose its will. I shall quote what I think I might have said, and what one young girl who is a survivor and very much in favour of this legislation said to me: “I wish I had been able to say to my parents at the age of 14, ‘You can’t do this to me because it is illegal’”.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am at the cautious end of the spectrum as well. Being cautious, I noticed in the fact sheet on this issue published by the Home Office the lines:
“Victims of forced marriage, their families, and society may feel better served by a specific criminal offence. There may also be a deterrent effect”.
I read into the second sentence that that might also cover a reluctance to approach the health and other authorities simply because they are authorities.
I share the concern that has been expressed about stigmatising one’s own family and the ostracism of not just the family, but of the whole community. However, as I have said already today, I am not yet convinced that this would be answered by there being a choice between civil and criminal proceedings. Indeed, the fact sheet also makes it clear that choice is a key message of engagement. That is because there is still the dilemma of how one’s family and community will react to either type of proceedings. I then asked myself whether, conversely, it could produce the reaction of, “Well, they are civil proceedings, not pursuing the criminal route, so it is not that serious”. That worries me as well. I have said to my noble friend that I am concerned about training in this issue for the police and prosecution authorities, although that probably goes to the guidance: how will they put to those who are victims in this situation the choice they have and yet not put pressure on them?
Finally—at this point at any rate—my noble friend said that female genital mutilation is not a good example. I think that it is a good example because the criminal route has not been chosen. I am not sure what we have learnt from that; I have not picked up that we have learnt anything.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, this has been a remarkable debate and I thank my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland for introducing what is a very serious and important issue to our discussions. I want to make a point about the legislation on female genital mutilation. The reason we had to create an offence was because our law was silent on the matter of female genital mutilation at the time. We created an offence because it was the only thing we could do.
We should not be in any doubt at all that forced marriage is an offence. We need to be clear about that, and I do not think that my noble and learned friend’s—
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, I want just to clarify a point. Perhaps I did not make myself clear, but what I meant was that in the debates around FGM at the time, it was argued that criminalisation would force the practice underground. There is an area of comparison because the point about this issue is that it is underground already.
Baroness Thornton
The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. What we are being presented with here, as the result of the proposal of my noble and learned friend, is a choice about how to deal with the crime of forced marriage: which is the best way to deal with it? At Second Reading I think I indicated to the Minister that the Government would have to make a good case for going down the road they are proposing. They need to have a robust justification for criminalisation. As yet, the Government have not produced the evidence that would be the justification for doing so.
My noble and learned friend has done the Committee a great favour here, because she has said that there are two ways of achieving this. This side of the House is very keen to strengthen the law on forced marriage; indeed, my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper and my honourable friend Gloria De Piero—my new boss, the shadow Equalities Minister—have both said that we are keen to do so.
I would like to ask a couple of questions, because I know that some of us are quite keen to have our lunch. In what way did the Government examine this as an alternative route to the criminalisation that is on the face of the Bill? What was the discussion? Where did it take place? In particular, was this discussed with the CPS and police and what were their views on the most effective route to take? If the Minister thinks it is appropriate, we may need to have further discussion about this.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in a very detailed and expert debate on this issue, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has already said. On a lighter note, I will address a point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, who knows I have a deep respect for her professionally and personally. She talked about how parents would react to children who said no to them. I can assure noble Lords that as a father of two myself, that is a regular occurrence in the Ahmad household. A firm line—more from mother than father—normally does the trick. However, we are on a serious subject and it is important that we have had this detailed debate.
I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, for all the work that she has undertaken both in and out of government to end forced marriage. We have different perspectives on this. Let me also assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, who is not in her place at the moment, that this Government are building on what has been done already. I am sure that I speak for all in the Committee and in your Lordships’ House when I say that we are at one in trying to get the best solution on this most important issue. I am therefore very grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for raising her important points and I welcome the opportunity to explain to the Committee how we have considered these points fully in the development of the Bill and will continue to take them into account as we move forward on the issue of forced marriage.
Let us be absolutely clear: we all agree that forced marriage is a fundamental abuse of human rights and needs to be tackled. We are as one on that. In criminalising forced marriage it is the Government’s intention to prevent this appalling abuse, to protect victims and prosecute perpetrators. By criminalising forced marriage, we are sending a very strong message that this abuse will simply not be tolerated and we are empowering the victims, who are at the centre of what we are proposing, to come forward in the knowledge that this issue is being and will be taken seriously, and perpetrators will be punished.
The proposal is to replace the new offences of forced marriage in England, Wales and Scotland with provisions that would make the same conduct an aggravating factor when sentencing a person found guilty of another offence. I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that the Government have considered making false marriage an aggravating factor for sentencing. However, in England and Wales, the courts already have an overarching guideline on the principles of seriousness which they are required by law to follow. Within this guideline, abuse of power, position, trust and the deliberate targeting of vulnerable victims already apply, as supplemented by a guideline on domestic violence issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which courts are required by law to follow. The guideline uses the current definition of domestic violence which covers forced marriage. It is therefore difficult to see how the amendments of the noble and learned Baroness would make any difference to the way in which the courts currently sentence forced marriage—the behaviours often associated with it are already aggravating factors.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the Minister but can he tell me whether Imkaan’s submission was counted as one or 48?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I shall come to that. I will ask the officials to look into that and respond accordingly. Some 297 responses were received in total. People who looked at this issue are on the front line and deal with these issues day to day. Aneeta Prem from Freedom says:
“One of the arguments is that, if you criminalise forced marriage, you will drive it underground. Well, it already is underground. Nobody advertises that they are forcing their son, daughter or anybody else into a marriage. It could not be further underground than it is already. People are using that as an excuse”.
Jasvinder Sanghera from Karma Nirvana writes:
“Criminalising forced marriage will give the police more effective, formal powers, but it would also send out a very strong message that it is child and public protection”.
I recognise that there is a fear that criminalisation could serve as a deterrent to victims. Tragically, as I have already said in a previous debate on this subject, it is already there, it is happening—it is underground, it is tragic, it is real. The question is what we are going to do about it. Forced marriage is already a hidden underground practice. While we take these concerns very seriously, I do not believe the answer is to avoid criminalising forced marriage.
In drafting this Bill, we have sought to provide the best possible protection for victims. That is why we have made provision to establish jurisdiction over new forced marriage offences where they are committed overseas by or against a UK national or where they are committed by or against someone who is habitually resident in England and Wales. The amendments would then result in these provisions not being available for the protection of the victims at the centre.
In answer to the question raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Imkaan’s submission was counted as one response. However, Karma Nirvana submitted 3,000 responses in the same vein in favour of the Government’s proposals and we also considered those 3,000 responses as one.
The question is one which, of course, taxes—
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I am sorry to press the noble Lord further but I want to make it plain to him why I am concerned. I am sure he will want to deal with this. My worry is that the list of 48 covers the national front-line agencies that have been dealing with this issue for a very long time. Women’s Aid operates throughout our country and represents thousands and thousands of women, as do the Jewish societies and Refuge. I estimate that all those organisations counted in the 48 would account for millions of voices as opposed to thousands. I would be very grateful if the noble Lord would look with a greater degree of acuity as to the quality of the list of the 48.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I always assure the noble and learned Baroness, I listen attentively when she speaks. I take on board what she has said and will write to her about it.
To those who say that this is going underground, and in respect of the cultural pressures that exist, I would say that young women and, indeed, young men may not take the issue forward because of the fear of being ostracised in their community and for fear of shopping their parents or close relatives. I say that with some understanding of the cultural challenges faced by some communities across Britain. Although I do not claim any expertise in the field, I certainly travel quite widely, along with other noble Lords, and I hear about and deal with some of these cases directly.
Irrespective of whether it goes down a criminal or a civil route, the step forward is a difficult one. That is the focus and the emotion that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, spoke about with such eloquence. It is the first step. We are leaving the civil route open but, equally, we need to ensure that the deterrent of this being a criminal offence is also available for the victim. I defer to the noble and learned Baroness’s expertise in this field but the difficult part for anyone involved is taking that first step of reporting this kind of coercion or abuse, irrespective of what route is available. That is what we need to overcome. We need, as a responsible Government, to address that issue. As I am sure the noble and learned Baroness will acknowledge, I have listened to her words quite carefully. I reassure noble Lords that, in drafting the Bill, we have sought to provide the best possible protection for victims. That is why we have made provision to establish jurisdiction over the new forced marriage offences, whether they are committed overseas or against a UK national.
The noble and learned Baroness raised several other questions, which I shall address briefly. In respect of the emotional element in decision-making, Clause 108(1)(a) covers any other form of coercion, which includes emotional coercion or emotional blackmail. That forms part of the mischief that we are seeking to address via criminalisation. However, in practice, the CPS will prosecute in cases only where it is in the public interest to do so. That will also involve an analysis of all the facts of the case, including the gravity of the offending behaviour and the harm caused. The definition of force in the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 already addresses coercion by other psychological means, which could encompass emotional coercion and emotional blackmail. This is not a new proposition but something that Parliament has already endorsed. The inclusion of emotional coercion is also consistent with the non-statutory cross-government definition of domestic violence.
The CPS has existing guidelines on the selection of charges in cases where a number of different offences have potentially been committed, and our expectation is that the CPS will apply that existing guidance. We will, of course, consider carefully with the CPS whether any additional bespoke guidance is required in this context to deal with the new forced marriage offence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked whom we discussed this with outside of the general consultation that I and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, have referred to. Discussions were held with ACPO, the CPS and the Attorney-General’s Office about how this offence could work in practical terms. The Government considered the option of making it an aggravating factor, but we took the view that this was already adequately covered by the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council, to which I have already referred.
The noble and learned Baroness’s amendments to Clause 109 would make identical provision for Scotland. This is a devolved matter and Clause 109 has been included in the Bill at the request of the Scottish Government. I cannot, as noble Lords will appreciate, comment on behalf of the Scottish Government. The noble and learned Baroness is, of course, also aware of the convention that the UK Parliament does not legislate on devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
As I said in responding to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, to complement the legislation, the Government’s Forced Marriage Unit is rolling out a nationwide engagement programme to support practitioners such as those that the noble and learned Baroness highlighted in tackling forced marriage. The unit also continues to give direct assistance to victims and potential victims. Last year, for example, the unit provided advice or related support in almost 1,500 possible forced marriage cases.
My noble friend Lord Hussain talked about education and about Pakistani dramas and Bollywood. I certainly did not expect that element but nothing surprises me in your Lordships’ House. He is right, but I would ask how many of these families watch these films and dramas, watch this man fall in love with a woman who is the wrong caste or even religion and say, “Oh, it’s tragic isn’t it?”. Yet what do they practise themselves? Why do they not have the same emotions as when they watch what are often fictional accounts? That is the education that needs to be given to the community—to realise that, whether this is about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity or humanism, what should prevail above all else is the rule of law, which prohibits coercion in marriage. That is what the Government are seeking to address through their proposals.
I pay full respect to the experience of the noble and learned Baroness and, once again, acknowledge the hard work that she has undoubtedly, historically and over many years, put into the area of forced marriage. I know that she will continue to share her expertise in the field, and I hope that, based on the explanations I have given, she will be minded to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. I very much value his commitment, sensitivity and understanding in relation to these matters. I reiterate that I absolutely accept that the Government are committed to doing what they believe to be right to support victims of forced marriage.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said but cannot promise him that I will not bring this back, not least because I would very much like a full answer on how these issues are going to be prosecuted. One of the delights I had for three years was being in the position where that burden was mine. I therefore hope that the House will forgive me if I look at this role that is going to be foisted on my successor, Dominic Grieve, and worry a little about what he is going to do with it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, asked about the plea made by a young girl who said, “I wish I could say you cannot do this to me because it is illegal”. The answer is that she can. Today, in our country, forcing someone into marriage is illegal. Someone will commit that offence by doing a number of the things that we went through in the debate. I urge the Government to make it clear that it is illegal today, because that is what people need to hear. I also invite the noble Lord to consider how we are going to differentiate between domestic violence and forced marriage, which is a feature, an aspect or a species of domestic violence.
At the moment we do not have an offence of domestic violence, because domestic violence can be committed in a plethora of ways. I should like the Government to consider again, a little more deeply, the fissure that might be created by this disparity in the way in which we treat these offences. Everyone in this short debate has made it clear that prevention is the most important element. I ask that the Government consider very carefully whether the current system, with strong implementation, is not the better course.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, regarding the sentencing guidance, the current amendment has been framed in such a way as to enable us to have this debate. Obviously, if the Government were minded to follow the suggestions that we have raised, it could be done by strengthening the sentencing guidelines together with creating, with ACPO and the CPS, appropriate strengthened guidance to make sure that we prosecute more of these cases and that we do so successfully by enabling those victims to have the courage not only to come forward but to stay forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I will be back.
NHS: Urgent and Emergency Care Review
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question tabled earlier today in another place on the subject of urgent and emergency care. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, in January this year the board of NHS England launched a review of urgent and emergency care in England. Urgent and emergency care covers a range of areas, including A&E departments, NHS 111 centres and other emergency telephone services, ambulances, minor injury units and urgent care centres. The review is being led by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS England’s medical director. A report on phase 1 of the review is being published tomorrow and it is embargoed until then.
This is an NHS England report. NHS England is an independent body accountable to me through the mandate. The report being published tomorrow is a preliminary one setting out initial thinking. The final version will be published in the new year. Sir Bruce has said that he will outline initial proposals and recommendations for the future of urgent and emergency care services in England. These have been formed by an engagement exercise that took place between June and August this year. These proposals will be further consulted upon through a number of channels, including commissioning guidance and demonstrator sites. Spring 2014 will see another progress report.
Decisions on changing services are taken at a local level by commissioners and providers in consultation with all interested parties. That is exactly as it should be, as only then can the system be responsive to local needs. It is vital to ensure that both urgent and emergency care and the wider healthcare system remain sustainable and readily understandable for patients.
A&E performance levels largely have been maintained thanks to the expertise and dedication of NHS staff. A&E departments see 95% of patients within four hours and this figure has not dropped below the 95% target since the end of April. However, urgent and emergency care is falling behind the public’s needs and expectations. The number of people going to A&E departments has risen historically, not least because of an ageing population; 1 million more people are coming through the doors than in 2010. Winter inevitably further challenges the system, which is why we are supporting the A&Es that are under most pressure with £250 million. Planning has started earlier than ever before this year, and the NHS has been extremely focused on preparing for additional pressure.
We will look at Sir Bruce’s report extremely carefully. Reform of the urgent and emergency care system may take years to complete but that does not mean that it is not achievable. We are exceptionally fortunate in this country to have in the NHS one of the world’s great institutions. NHS staff are working tirelessly to ensure that the care that people need will continue to be available for them wherever and whenever they need it”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Earl Howe, for repeating the Answer. I declare my interests as chair of an NHS foundation trust, president of GS1 and a consultant trainer with Cumberlege Connections.
There is no question that A&E services are under pressure—in crisis, according to the College of Emergency Medicine. Earlier this year, the Health Secretary announced that Professor Sir Bruce Keogh would lead a major review of emergency care in the NHS. It is clearly a significant piece of work, which is why I would have expected the Government to come before your Lordships’ House and the other place to make a Statement. I object very strongly to this being briefed to journalists this morning, yet Ministers were not prepared to come to the House until the Speaker granted an Urgent Question in the other place.
The noble Lord has said, quite remarkably, that because this is to be published by NHS England, it is not appropriate for Ministers to come to Parliament. He says that the NHS is independent. He must be the only person who believes that the NHS is independent. It is a wholly owned subsidiary and quango of the department. Why does a Secretary of State insist on seeing the leader of NHS England on a weekly basis if it is an independent body? I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on that. The Government should have brought this to your Lordships’ House with a proper Statement.
When the Bruce Keogh report was commissioned, the Secretary of State said that it was intended that we would learn lessons for this winter. What are those lessons? What immediate actions are now being taken ahead of winter? Weekend briefings and leaks suggest that Sir Bruce emphasises alternatives to A&E, such as walk-in centres and the 111 service, yet we have had a report from Monitor saying that NHS England has overseen the closure of walk-in centres. He cannot pass that on to clinical commissioning groups as it is well known that NHS England put pressure on clinical commissioning groups to close those walk-in centres. Will that closure programme stop now? Will he put nurses back on the 111 helpline in order to make amends for the debacle of the launch of that inadequate service months ago? What will he do about the recruitment crisis in A&E?
Bearing in mind the Birmingham health system, can he assure me that the £250 million allocated to A&E hospitals under the most pressure will be spent to alleviate the pressure on those hospitals and not be filleted away for other purposes?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions. To start where he did, NHS England, as he knows full well, is legally and constitutionally an independent body. It is, however, accountable to the Secretary of State through the mandate, as it is accountable in a number of other ways, including regular meetings. I do not think that there is anything wrong about those meetings; indeed, noble Lords would be surprised if the Secretary of State took a detached view of what NHS England did. There is a balance to be struck. We believe that the direction of travel of NHS England is one for Ministers to set through the mandate and through the outcomes frameworks, in particular, but it is then for NHS England to adopt a clinically led approach to how it configures itself and how it oversees commissioning in the system. That is the balance that we have struck through the legislation that the House is familiar with.
It is not unusual to have an embargoed press conference the day before a major announcement. I see nothing wrong with NHS England having done that. It would not be appropriate for Ministers to come to the House the day before such an announcement when this piece of work has not been led by Ministers or the department.
The noble Lord asked what actions the Government had taken. Because this is not a normal Statement—we have 10 minutes in all—I shall be very brief. The work that is now in train is not just about A&E. We have recognised, as has NHS England, that joining up health and care services is a big factor. We have the 10 pioneer pilot schemes. We have launched the biggest ever commitment to making co-ordinated care a reality by 2018. We are looking at how we improve services for frail older people. We are developing a vulnerable older people’s plan. There is £250 million going into the system over the winter to ease the pressures on the hospitals that are struggling the most. In the longer term, we will have the solutions laid out by Sir Bruce in his report, which is published tomorrow.
Anyone who knows the history of walk-in centres will be aware that this was an initiative begun by the previous Government with the very best of intentions but as a top-down exercise, which in many cases resulted in the duplication of services and not the best use of NHS funds. Even under the previous Government we saw the closure of some of these services. We expect clinical commissioning groups to take a holistic view of the needs of patients in their area and to configure services cost-effectively. Sometimes that does mean closing walk-in centres that do not provide value for money.
NHS 111 is now available in more than 90% of England. Despite the problems that the noble Lord is familiar with in some sites that launched around Easter, performance has stabilised significantly. NHS 111 is now the principal entry route for access to the urgent care system.
On recruitment to emergency medicine, the point that the noble Lord rightly raised was the reason we set up the Emergency Medicine Taskforce in December 2011 to address workforce issues in emergency medicine. That group published an initial report last year, making a number of recommendations. Those recommendations are being pursued. The £250 million that I referred to is being distributed to 53 trusts, as the noble Lord will be aware. I have a breakdown here of how the money is to be deployed but, in the interests of other noble Lords who may wish to intervene, I shall not read it out.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, given the urgency of this crisis, what are the Government doing to meet the request from the College of Emergency Medicine that the exit block be urgently addressed, so that other disciplines support emergency medicine consultants in moving patients on from A&E departments out into the community or into in-patient beds if they are not fit enough to be discharged?
Earl Howe
We have been clear with Health Education England that this is not just about A&E consultants; it is about the entire workforce in A&E, including all relevant disciplines—nursing and others. We have tasked Health Education England with putting even greater emphasis on the need to recruit A&E consultants from medical students over the coming years.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I know that my noble friend the Minister cannot comment on Sir Bruce Keogh’s review but I wondered, separately, if there was evidence in areas that have already reorganised their urgent and emergency care—such as the West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, which reorganised in 2009—that services are performing well or indeed better than under the old arrangements.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I do not have that evidence in front of me but, where there is a case for change, the local NHS has to agree a number of measures to be effective before any changes to services take place. That will include ensuring additional capacity at neighbouring hospitals, where that is appropriate, or in the community, where that is appropriate. If CCGs can properly satisfy themselves that a case for change can provide safe, effective and sustainable services, that is a legitimate justification for moving forward with local proposals.
Lord Warner (Lab)
My Lords, what light can the Minister throw on the recent report in the Financial Times that the Prime Minister has put the private hospital sector on standby for capacity over this winter? Is that true and is that part of the Government’s preparation for winter pressures? What impact do the Government assess has been made on the capacity of A&E departments by the 12% cut in the tariff paid by NHS England?
Earl Howe
I am aware that the tariff has been the subject of active discussion on the part of NHS England and Monitor; in particular, the 70% of the emergency care tariff that has been withheld under the arrangements put in place a number of years ago, and how that money should be used.
As regards the independent sector, the noble Lord is correct: discussions have been taking place with representatives of the independent sector to see whether and to what extent there is capacity to absorb elective care patients over the winter when needed. I see everything to be gained by that. It was something that the previous Government did and we think it is right that the independent sector, where appropriate, should play its part in relieving the burden from the NHS.
Schools: Non-attending Pupils
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brinton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what the relevant bodies are doing to ensure that pupils who have not been formally excluded but are not attending school are provided with a full-time education.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the subject of this debate may affect only a small number of pupils in terms of the total school population—some thousands of children a year—but their education is put at risk either by a lack of co-ordination by their school when they are out of school and getting help elsewhere or, I am afraid, the complete absence of any support.
The statutory guidance, Ensuring a Good Education for Children Who Cannot Attend School Because of Health Needs, which was reissued this May, is helpful but sadly not followed by all schools. The main categories of children that I have met or heard from recently are those with medical conditions, children who are so severely bullied that they cannot face going to school, or those who have been excluded informally by the school and pressured by the parent.
Perhaps we can tackle that last one first. Over recent years there have been anecdotes about children with emotional and behavioural difficulties not being quite difficult enough to be excluded, and this is worsened when the school does not want them on the premises during an Ofsted inspection. I had hoped that this habit had died down, but recently I heard from the National Deaf Children’s Society about two very different cases from different parts of the country.
In the first, a parent was repeatedly called to her deaf child’s school from work during lunchtime and told to take her son home because of “social disruptions” caused by his learning difficulty. The repeated phone calls acted informally to exclude the student from school and to burden the parent, and very few formal steps were taken by the school to remedy the problem. In the second case, the support assistant of a deaf student was called to jury duty for 12 weeks and the school failed to provide any supplementary support for the student. An Ofsted inspection was taking place and the mother was pressured into not sending her child into school so that the inspector would not see the problem.
Schools are also very anxious about recording authorised and unauthorised absences. One student received multiple “unauthorised absences” from school because he had to attend his medical appointments. His parents had informed the school of the medical needs but the school still held him accountable and required the parents to meet officials to discuss the absences. The parents said that they felt under pressure to avoid their child going to necessary medical appointments so as to improve the school’s attendance figures.
I ask the Minister whether there are robust systems in place to ensure that schools are being held to account for these informal exclusions. How will Ofsted be made aware that they are happening? Who can parents report things to if they are worried that the school is not listening or behaving properly? This is true especially for academies and free schools, where there is no recourse to a local authority for help.
Last month I had the privilege of meeting, here in the Palace of Westminster, a number of pupils and students from the Alliance of Healthcare Conditions. Some of their stories are also worrying. I met an 18-year-old girl who, at 14, had been diagnosed with osteosarcoma and had a tumour removed. This meant she was out of school, either in hospital or at home, for the best part of a year just as she was starting her GCSE courses options. Her maths teacher, who was also the deputy head of the school, called every other week to check in and offer her support for maths, which the girl then passed very well at age 16, having returned to school. But there was absolutely no co-ordination between the school, other staff, and the hospital school or her home tutor provided by the local authority when she was at home.
I talked last week to Dr Clarissa Pilkington, a pediatric rheumatology consultant at Great Ormond Street Hospital, who confirmed that this problem is widespread among hospital schools. She said that hospital schools would welcome more contact with children’s schools, not least because they can target support at the right level of learning, especially for students working towards exams or qualifications. The statutory guidance I mentioned earlier talks about liaising with a school when the child is going back to school, but it does not talk much, if at all, about the school liasing as the child goes out of school and into alternative support.
Dr. Pilkington also commented that appropriate learning and short bursts of concentration can help her patients manage their pain and other symptoms, so learning is useful to the medical process too. Will the Minister please say whether there is a requirement for such co-ordination in cases where it is obvious that children will be out of school for an extended period? Who checks the level of support that a pupil or student gets at home if they are out of school for a period, and are the local authority and the relevant home tutor given access to staff at the local school so that they can set the appropriate level of work?
I know that my next example is an independent school, but the Telegraph recently reported that the parents of a student attending an independent boys’ school were pressured, by threats of exclusion, into removing him. The student, who was eventually diagnosed with severe ADHD, had passed his entrance exams with high marks, tested well, participated in athletics, but struggled with homework and long tasks due to difficulty concentrating. That is not uncommon with ADHD. He also struggled with sleeping. Eventually a meeting was called at the school. The deputy head promised to provide details of an educational psychologist but failed to do so and recommended a school counsellor instead. His parents were eventually told he would be excluded if he continued to behave in that way. They felt compelled to remove him before he was excluded. Following his formal diagnosis by a pediatric neurologist, he now attends a new school with smaller classes and full-time SEN staff. The pupil was very distressed by the behaviour of his former school. I raise this example to say the problem is not confined to the maintained sector.
I now move to children so severely bullied that they cannot go to school. The Minister and I have talked about alternative provision for these children, but that is not the focus of this debate, even though much more of it is needed across England and Wales. I want to know what happens to the pupils defined as school refusers but still on the school roll, often because the school will not accept that bullying is happening in the school. Last week I heard of a young man who was the victim of homophobic bullying, who was last in his school two years ago. He cannot get to alternative provision elsewhere because the school insists that he must return to the specialist support unit inside the school, as the school believes it can handle the problem. It has failed, however, to take into account that he is still taunted and bullied on his walk to and from the school and inside the school on his way to the unit. He is now 17. He is approaching the end of his school career with no qualifications, clinical depression, and despair about the whole education system. Can the Minister say what a student and their parents should do when a school behaves in this way?
Admissions is another issue for children with medical conditions. An 11-year-old girl I met has very serious allergies, causing life-threatening anaphylactic shock. Because of her allergies, the hospital consultant has said she should not travel on public transport. Her mother applied for her to go to the local school. Her appeal to go there was refused because the school said it was not a medical condition despite the intervention from her consultant. Worse, the staff at the school said they would refuse to use the EpiPen if she went into shock, so she could not attend the new school from the beginning of term. When I last talked to her mother 10 days ago, she was still out of school. Are schools allowed to decide what is and is not a medical condition? Medical need for admission has always been prioritised. It is shameful that some schools are running away from their responsibilities. I know that the Government are being very helpful in the Children and Families Bill on the issue of staff giving emergency medication, but refusing a child a place in school is patently ridiculous.
To conclude, there are too many pupils out of school for extended periods who are invisible to the system. I ask the Minister whether there is any record of the level of educational attainment for these young people out of school for a long time. Is there an opportunity to disaggregate the data from the whole-school figures to show those on the roll but not currently attending, and, perhaps more importantly, is this something Ofsted should be asking schools to account for? Most importantly, what are the Government going to do to ensure that this very vulnerable group of pupils gets access to the education that it deserves and is entitled to?
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for ensuring that this important issue is debated today. I should also like to pay tribute to the tremendous efforts made by schools and teachers up and down the country, who work tirelessly to educate our children, often despite the efforts of many ill disciplined and disruptive students to put them off.
Every child matters, yet there are times when exclusions become necessary. The child, however, must not then be deprived of education. We on this side of the House understand the critical importance of discipline. It provides a bedrock for sound learning. We also understand that there are times when there is a need, for the sake of discipline, to exclude pupils from school. The vast majority of teachers do everything they can to ensure that pupils get the best start possible. I particularly applaud the efforts of teachers and head teachers on the reduction in the number of children who have been officially excluded from school over the past few years.
We are, however, concerned by the increasing number of children who have been informally excluded—or, to put it another way, illegally excluded—from school. I say “illegally” because the rules on informal exclusions are absolutely clear. The rules state that if a child is excluded from school in any way at any time, this should be formally recorded. A due process has to be followed, which includes a referral to the board of governors. A child can be legally excluded only for disciplinary reasons. Head teachers must tell parents and carers formally, in writing, why their child has been excluded and for how long.
Guidelines have also been set for what kind of activity would lead to exclusion. It states clearly that a school cannot exclude children because it feels it does not have the resources to deal with them or because it believes a child needs time to cool off. The guidelines specify that any exclusion of a pupil, even for a short period, must be made and recorded formally. Are the rules being followed? The answer to this, according to the Children’s Commissioner for England, which published a report on this issue in April, and according to the charity Contact a Family, which published a separate report in February, is a resounding no. The Children’s Commissioner for England has found evidence to suggest that one in 10 secondary schools is forcing pupils to stay away from lessons but failing to record the punishment formally in the register.
The problem seems to be that many head teachers simply do not realise that asking parents to collect a child at lunchtime to cool off, or to keep them at home for a few days, counts as exclusion. There is increasing evidence to suggest that head teachers use this as a method to exclude children for minor misdemeanours, such as larking around in the classroom, breaking uniform policy or a bad haircut. Some academies are attempting to avoid scrutiny of their exclusions by external independent appeals panels and are refusing to hear appeals from parents. That right has been removed. Part of the problem is that we cannot be sure of the scale of the problem. Is the Department for Education collecting figures or monitoring local authorities’ and academies’ performance on this issue?
According to the Children’s Commissioner, the scale of illegal exclusions is enormous. Who is affected by this? As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned, children with special educational needs, disabled and bullied children and poor children feel the brunt of these exclusions. According to the charity Contact a Family, 22% of disabled children are illegally excluded at least once a week and 15% are illegally excluded every day for part of the day. Pupils with special educational needs are eight times more likely to be permanently excluded than their peers. Pupils with SEN statements are seven times more likely to be excluded while those without statements are nine times more likely to be excluded. More than two-thirds of all permanently excluded children have some form of identified SEN. It is clear that informal exclusions now follow the same pattern.
Of course, it is not just the children who are affected. Parents also suffer as they often feel constantly on call. Many have to drop everything to pick up their children. That means it is impossible for them to hold down a job, forcing them into further poverty, according to the Children’s Society. Parents are often afraid to take on the school and challenge illegal exclusions because of the impact that might have on their child’s school record.
If we know this is happening, why is nothing being done about it? Who is responsible for enforcing these rules? Ofsted is the lead body responsible for policing these policies but its sanctions on the issue are mixed in with an assessment of the school as a whole. It would seem highly unlikely under the present system that this one issue would have a dramatic impact on the overall assessment of the school. It is very difficult for Ofsted even to know that these temporary exclusions are happening as they are not recorded. Local authorities have a duty to provide full-time education to children, but in the face of tremendous budget cuts imposed by the coalition Government, the resources that local authorities have to police this problem and to track these cases are being put under increasing pressure. There is a responsibility to educate but the follow-up of excluded children is sporadic at best. If the issue is as large as the Children’s Commissioner suggests, and if we know that these actions are illegal, how does the Minister intend to tackle this issue? Currently, it seems as if there are very few sanctions for illegal exclusions.
It is right to dwell on the consequences of illegal exclusions on children. Informal exclusion means that children are more likely to fall through the education net. If local authorities are not informed, children are unlikely to be given the statutory schooling that they have a right to receive. Once children fall behind, it is very hard for them to catch up and they are likely to become even more disruptive. Their chances of finding a job are diminished and they are forced on to the state and the taxpayer for support. Fixing this problem early is therefore an economic imperative for the country.
Could the Minister answer the following questions? Does he agree that head teachers and teachers should be given training and guidance on the rules, so that they are aware that informal exclusions are in fact illegal? Part of the reason for unofficial exclusions from school is the lack of the teachers’ ability to instil discipline and manage behaviour. These skills are taught to teachers with teaching qualifications but we are deeply worried that the Government are allowing unqualified teachers into schools on a permanent basis who have not had this training. Does the Minister believe that we should look to best practice and encourage schools to ensure the professional development of school leaders, teachers and trainees, including formal teaching qualifications that teach strategies to create a good learning environment and prevent exclusions?
Will the Government reinstate the independent appeals panel for illegal exclusions? The Education Act 2011 removed the right of parents to appeal to an independent appeals panel against permanent exclusion. That has been replaced by an independent review panel with reduced powers that cannot require a school to reinstate a pupil it judges to have been unfairly excluded. Will the Government issue further, more specific guidance on the principles of exclusion thresholds? For example: “Exclusions should happen only to protect the health and safety of pupils and prevent disruption of learning”. This would stop schools excluding children for having a bad haircut or for other trivial reasons. That is happening today in our society.
As I mentioned at the start, schools should be congratulated on the reduction in the number of formal exclusions over recent years but there is a danger that the problem is simply being displaced to children being informally excluded from schools. The Government need to nip this issue in the bud and save these children from a life of disruption and exclusion. That will not happen unless there is a sanction against those who transgress the rules.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Brinton for securing this important debate and for her eloquent speech. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for her excellent contribution. I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Brinton in championing the cause of children who are excluded, particularly those who have been subject to bullying. I am also aware that Ofsted intends to publish next week a report on children who are not receiving full-time education, which will highlight weaknesses in the system and make recommendations for improvement, with examples of good practice. I hope noble Lords will find that helpful. I welcome this opportunity to set out the other actions the Government are taking to help ensure that pupils outside mainstream schools receive the good quality education they deserve.
I hope that the instances to which my noble friend referred will be helped by the managing medicines amendments we have tabled to the Children and Families Bill. She raised a question about ensuring co-operation between hospitals and mainstream schools. Where a pupil attends hospital while at school, the local authority retains its duty to ensure that they receive suitable education. We enforced in statutory guidance the role of the local authority in promoting co-operation between schools and children who cannot attend because of health needs.
On omissions, while there is a clear omissions appeal procedure, I will look at the particular point that my noble friend made about who can decide what a medical condition is and will write to her about that. On the point about who records the educational attainment of these pupils, if they are permanently excluded the AP provider would retain that and Ofsted would report on it. The results would show that. If they are not permanently excluded, the school would continue to hold those results.
She raised briefly the subject of bullying. In this Government’s view, bullying is completely unacceptable. Every school must have a behaviour policy which includes specifically what it does about bullying, including homophobic bullying. Ofsted will inspect against that. We have provided considerable support to a number of organisations to help schools in that regard. Where a child has been permanently excluded, it is the responsibility of the local authority to organise full-time education through an alternative provision provider. Where the child is temporarily excluded under a fixed-term exclusion, it is the school’s responsibility to make other arrangements.
On unlawful exclusion, there is no excuse for a school to exclude unlawfully any pupil. As I have said, the Government have given schools greater powers to manage behaviour. We are also addressing the underlying causes of disengagement, for example by reforming SEN and identification, particularly in relation to early identification. Ofsted is fully aware of this issue and we have toughened up the Ofsted inspection regime. Should evidence that exclusion has been used unlawfully come to light during an inspection, this will be taken very seriously. Unlawful exclusion would raise serious questions that may be linked to leadership, management, school safeguarding procedures, governance, behaviour and safety.
If a parent thought that their child had been unlawfully excluded, their first right of redress would be to the school governing body. If it is a maintained school, it would be to the local authority, or, if it is an academy or a maintained school, they could complain directly to the Department for Education. We would take a dim view of any school that we thought was gaming the system in this way. Certainly, the academy sponsors that we are supporting to turn around schools that have been left to languish in failure for years up and down the county are passionately committed to inclusion and are completely against the concept of exclusion, as I am. In five years at my school, we have permanently excluded only two children, in those cases reluctantly.
As the noble Baroness states, statutory guidance on exclusions is clear: exclusions must follow the legal process. The Children’s Commissioner report made clear that the majority of schools follow that process. In the past, some schools might have taken an “out of sight, out of mind” approach to alternative provision. That is why, since last September, school inspection has included a specific focus on the education, health and safety of pupils in off-site alternative provision. It is important to note that an increasing number of schools are making excellent use of such provision. The Government are also currently trialling, in 11 local authorities, the benefits of schools taking greater responsibility for permanently excluded children. The lessons learnt from that trial will be available to be rolled out across the country.
There are examples of excellent provision. Sawston Village College in Cambridgeshire, of which my noble friend may be aware, uses funding devolved from the department to provide an excellent on-site centre for children in need of short-term respite, including any pupils who have experienced bullying. The centre provides one-to-one support, maintaining a rigorous focus on education and successful reintegration. It also works with a local charity, Centre 33, to provide counselling for those children, including pupils guilty of bullying. A similar approach is used by St Benedict Catholic voluntary academy in Derby. It has a sanctuary to nurture the emotional needs of pupils who may have been bullied. The school has also had a number of pupils trained as anti-bullying ambassadors by the Diana Award, funded by the department.
Revised guidance sets out a clear expectation that pupils in alternative provision should receive an education on a par with that provided in mainstream schools. That is something that the Government are determined to see happen. This came into force only in January and it will take time to have an impact, but it has been widely welcomed and I am grateful for comments from noble Lords during the passage of the Children and Families Bill in support of this. Local authorities are provided with funding for alternative provision, at £8,000 per pupil, and they are free to top this up.
Our focus on alternative provision was highlighted in Charlie Taylor’s report and we have followed all his recommendations. Ofsted is conducting a detailed three-year thematic survey of schools’ use of alternative provision. It is in its second year and early indications are that overall schools’ use of this provision has improved. The final report will make recommendations to supplement better practice. Ofsted has also increased its focus on local authorities’ use of alternative provision. Under the revised framework for integrating looked-after children and safeguarding inspections, published in September of this year, inspectors will now ask local authorities to report on school-age children for whom they are responsible, but who are not in receipt of full-time education. The first inspections under this new framework are expected later this month. Increasingly, local authorities and school partnerships are developing robust quality-assurance frameworks for alternative provision. A framework developed by Waltham Forest, for example, has formed the basis for a more co-ordinated approach to commissioning across 10 other local authorities.
Alternative provision is not solely for pupils with behavioural needs. While it is not possible to identify precise numbers, our best estimate is that around half of pupils in alternative provision are there for reasons other than behaviour. Many so-called pupil referral units, for example, are expressly set up for the purpose of educating pupils with health needs. Among this excellent provision is Hawkswood therapeutic school in Waltham Forest, which caters specifically for pupils unable to attend a mainstream school because of complex emotional reasons. Ofsted noted favourably the success rate in this school.
Despite the examples of good alternative provision, we recognise that the overall quality and range of providers have not always been sufficient. We have already taken steps to raise standards by increasing the role of maintained schools in PRU management committees, for example, and allowing trainee teachers to undertake placements specifically in alternative provision providers. Eight PRUs took up this opportunity in the first year and their experience has formed the basis of a toolkit to support others to do the same. We are also allowing PRUs to benefit from the freedom of academy status. Eighteen have converted already, such as the outstanding Bridge AP Academy in Hammersmith and Fulham. We are also supporting new, high-quality providers to enter the market and 18 AP free schools have opened already, with a further 16 scheduled to open in September 2014.
Noble Lords have spoken with great passion and insight on this issue. The Government are committed to the plight of all children and will not tolerate schools gaming the system in the ways that have been suggested, and we will do everything that we can to ensure that this does not take place. I hope that I have provided some reassurance that we are taking effective steps to ensure that children who are not attending school are provided with the high-quality, full-time education that they deserve. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s commitment to this cause and I am always happy to meet her to discuss any further concerns.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 9. I thought that after the previous debate on the Bill I would be faced with saying, “Follow that”, but lunch overtook us. However, it is in fact a question of “Follow that”.
Amendment 6 would alter the definition of “force” in the new provision. Noble Lords might wonder why I am worrying about that. In fact, I propose that the definition be the same as the definition in Section 63A(6) of the Family Law Act 1996—in other words, the definition for the forced marriage protection order. I had wondered why different definitions were used in the Bill and existing legislation.
I wonder that even more after the previous debate on the Bill. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, referred to psychological means of coercion which are not referred to in the Bill but are referred to in the 1996 statute. She talked about emotional blackmail which might be exerted by members of the very observant part of the Jewish community.
My noble friend Lord Ahmad certainly used the term “psychology”. If there are intentional differences between the grounds for the two different offences—as we are calling both of them—then the Committee ought to be clear that that is intended. If it is not intended that there are differences, then, again, the Committee should be clear that that is the case.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, talked about “emotional blackmail”; I would include that with the term “psychological coercion”. There may be quite porous demarcation lines in attitudes and the way in which one deals with one’s children. However, trying to stand back and look at it objectively, given the emotional blackmail which she described, from what we have heard from other noble Lords and what we know from our own experience, psychological means should not simply be left aside without noble Lords addressing their minds to them.
My Amendment 9 is much more straightforward. Its purpose is merely to obtain confirmation that a habitual residence—“habitually” is the term used in the Bill—is as it is understood under the Hague convention and the case law which has developed from that. It is obviously not defined within the Bill. I believe that it is used elsewhere in legislation, although I have not been able to find it myself—although I found myself going down different byways of reading, looking at reports of cases on the internet. However, if my noble friend could confirm that, I would be grateful. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for explaining her Amendments 6 and 9 to Clause 108. It is important that we get the definitions of the new offences right and I welcome this opportunity to explore them in more detail.
Amendment 6 would amend the definition of a forced marriage. Clause 108 defines it as including the use of,
“violence, threats or any other form of coercion for the purpose of causing another person to enter into a marriage”.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee proposes that this should be replaced with alternative wording that, as she explains, would mirror the language used in the Family Law Act 1996 in relation to forced marriage protection orders.
The main difference between the two formulations is that the amendment refers to “psychological means”, while Clause 108 refers to,
“any other form of coercion”.
This is intended to make it very clear that the offence recognises the different types of pressure that can be put on victims. Victims are continually faced with different types of pressure in the course of being forced into marriage, including physical, emotional, financial and sexual pressures. It is therefore right that the definition of the offence should fully cover all of the behaviours that could be employed by the perpetrators of this absolutely horrendous practice. That is what Clause 108 does. On that basis, therefore, I do not believe my noble friend’s Amendment 6 to be necessary.
My noble friend’s Amendment 9, as she has explained, is designed to probe the meaning of the word “habitually” as used in Clause 108(5)(b). The clause provides that an offence is committed outside the United Kingdom if either the victim or perpetrator is a UK national or “habitually resident” in England or Wales. This means that the new law will apply, for example, in a situation where someone who lives in England or Wales is taken abroad in order to be forced into a marriage.
The term “habitual residence” simply means the ordinary residence of a person. As my noble friend alluded to, in fact, the term was introduced into English law from the conventions under the Hague Conference on Private International Law, where it was developed due to the perceived problems with establishing the domicile of some persons, in particular children. The term is commonly used in legislation without further definition and I am satisfied that that is the correct approach to adopt here. Based on those clarifications and explanations, I hope that my noble friend will be minded to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I will probe the first one a little further. Of course I agree with my noble friend that we have to cover every situation, or as he said, “every type of pressure”. However, as regards the definition, is there a distinction between the provision in the Bill and the provision in the 1996 Act? If there are differences, can we know them? He has not addressed that point. If they are the same, can we know that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, as I said about the language to which my noble friend alluded, Clause 108 has been drafted to ensure that it clearly covers the wider range of factual scenarios that exist in forced marriage cases. That addresses why there is a difference between Clause 108 and Section 63A. Clause 108 is intended to be all-encompassing.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, that begs the question of whether the 1996 Act is not all encompassing. I do not want to make life more uncomfortable this afternoon—I stress this afternoon—for my noble friend, but would he be able to write to me about that, following today’s Committee proceedings? This looks like a lawyer’s point, but it is a very real one. We have already talked today and will continue to talk about the choice between the two routes. Of course, one of the factors in the choice will be if the definitions are different, and therefore if the criteria for choosing one route are not the same as the criteria for choosing the other. I gave notice to my noble friend—although probably not directly to him—of the points that I wanted to raise on these two amendments. I will not tease him about the fact that he has not told us which other legislation the term “habitually resident” is in. However, that is probably enough from me for now, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.
Baroness Thornton
“( ) A person also commits an offence under the law of England and Wales if he or she causes another person to enter into a marriage and that other person lacks the capacity to consent to that marriage.”
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, this amendment, in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Smith and the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, seeks to test whether the Bill adequately covers the issue of capacity; in other words, the capacity of a vulnerable adult who may be forced into a marriage. Almost by definition, they are very often not in a position to give free or full consent to a marriage, or otherwise. We are looking at Clause 108(1)(a) and (b). Paragraph (a) says,
“A person commits an offence … if he or she … uses violence, threats or any other form of coercion for the purpose of causing another person to enter into a marriage, and”,
paragraph (b) continues,
“believes, or ought reasonably to believe, that the conduct may cause the other person to enter into the marriage without free and full consent”.
Both those points assume that the person has capacity either to resist or to consent to a marriage. Of course, we know that a proportion of the cases dealt with by the Forced Marriage Unit concern people who have not given consent to a marriage. An article published in the Guardian in August which quoted the Forced Marriage Unit said that,
“The government dealt with 114 cases of forced marriage last year that involved mentally disabled people”.
However, the Forced Marriage Unit recognises and admits that that is probably only the tip of an iceberg and does not reflect the full scale of the abuse. I think that everybody would agree that we should be concerned that disabled or mentally disabled people are protected in this legislation and do not suffer forced marriage.
My second question, which is linked to but is not only about capacity, is: how can marriages be voided in these circumstances? When is a forced marriage voidable? How does it go forward and, in particular, if there is no capacity to agree to the marriage, how can it be ended? In recent times there was a judgment in which the courts decided not to end the forced marriage of somebody who they admitted lacked capacity. That has troubled many people who are concerned about this area. That is the issue we would like to probe, and I would like to know whether the Government have taken that into consideration. I beg to move.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I also put my name to this amendment because this is a matter that needs clarification and warrants a bit of debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, there have been a number of these cases. I read the same article that she quoted, on the 114 cases that the Government had dealt with, with some concern. In August there was the case of a woman from a Sikh background who was married to a man who had mental disabilities. He did not annul the marriage because she pleaded that that would cause her stigma. It seems that the interests of the man—who was the victim in that case—were not taken into full consideration, and that needs to be looked at. If this amendment were agreed, would that mean that these sorts of cases could be declared void because people did not have the capacity to enter into marriage?
There was an article in the Times last week about another case concerning a girl of 14. Could we argue that that girl, who was forced into a marriage at gunpoint in Pakistan, had the capacity to enter into that marriage, given that it was forced? The local authority, which has now taken her and her child into her care,
“applied to the family court to have the marriage declared void”.
However, Mr Justice Holman said that he could not do that. He accepted that the marriage was,
“‘on the balance of probability void’ under English law. However, he said that he was prevented from making a solemn declaration to that effect by a section of the Family Law Act 1986”.
I am not a lawyer but, as I read it, it does not make sense that in these types of forced marriages where people either do not have capacity because they have a mental disability or they are under age, or whatever the reason may be, they find themselves at a disadvantage when they try to get the marriage annulled and voided. We have to consider that loophole, and it must be taken into consideration.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Freedom charity. I apologise to the Committee for not being present for the earlier part of our discussions on these topics due to a commitment at the Department of Health.
This is an important principle. If the Minister is planning to respond by saying that the issue is adequately covered either in the clauses we have before us or elsewhere in legislation, I urge him to think again before giving the Committee that response. It needs to be made absolutely explicit that a forced marriage is not valid where there is any question at all that the person being coerced into marriage and who has entered into it does not have capacity. That capacity may be related to age—elsewhere in our legislation there has been all sorts of discussion about capacity and age, and some of the girls concerned are of a very young age—or it may be related to learning difficulties of various sorts. We therefore need to make it absolutely explicit in the legislation that this is intended to cover those circumstances where the individual concerned does not have capacity.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her amendment. I also thank my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece and the noble Lord for their contributions. The noble Lord alluded to the Freedom charity, which carries out notable work in this field, and I acknowledge his work and engagement in that arena.
Marriage without consent or the capacity to consent is totally unacceptable. Clause 108 specifies that an offence is committed if the perpetrator uses coercion and believes, or ought reasonably to believe, that their conduct may cause another person to enter the marriage without free and full consent. A person who lacks capacity to enter into marriage is incapable of providing free and full consent to marriage. In the cases that have come to the attention of the Forced Marriage Unit, some form of coercion has invariably been involved in forcing a person who lacks capacity to consent to a marriage. The new offences would therefore cover this behaviour.
Although I totally understand the noble Baroness’s concerns and those of other noble Lords, the definition of the new offences in Clause 108 already captures in practice the types of cases intended to be covered by this amendment. I take on board the point that the noble Lord made about looking specifically at this issue. Certainly, between Committee and Report we will look at the issue once again in the context of Clause 108. However, I assure noble Lords that Clause 108 is intended to capture that particular element. Marriage is voidable under Section 12(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 on the grounds that,
“either party to the marriage did not validly consent to it, whether in consequence of duress, mistake, unsoundness of mind or otherwise”.
The issue was also raised of a vulnerable person getting a decree of nullity. The procedure to do so is available and a person can apply for a decree of nullity by filing a petition at any time after the marriage ceremony. If the application is not opposed, there is unlikely to be a court hearing and the person will not have to attend court. Following the petition, the court will issue a decree nisi and, following this, the applicant can apply for a decree absolute. The Family Procedure Rules make provision to ensure that these matters are straightforward for unrepresented applicants. However, having said all that, I fully acknowledge the points made by noble Lords about the special circumstances that they have mentioned. Having explained the scope of Clause 108, I hope that the noble Baroness is minded to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the noble Lord for that explanation, which was a good attempt to describe the position. However, I am not convinced that capacity is covered in the Bill. Therefore, I will ask a lawyer what they think. Depending on what they think, and perhaps after further discussions with the Bill team, we shall see whether we need to return to this at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) A person commits an offence under the law of England and Wales if he or she—
(a) is the parent or guardian of a child, and(b) gives consent for that child to marry before the age of 18.”
Lord Rea (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving this amendment because the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, is in Addis Ababa attending a conference on women’s health in Africa. I wish to speak also to Amendment 12, which would apply the relevant law to Scotland. Amendments 8 and 12 in this group are small and in some ways run parallel to the amendments on forced marriage we have discussed. However, if accepted, they could transform the lives of many vulnerable 16 and 17 year-old girls.
These amendments arise from the findings of a report published last year entitled A Childhood Lost by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, is chair and I am a committee member. The report looks into the effects of child marriage in the UK and overseas and is based on a parliamentary hearing held to gather evidence on child marriage—its causes, consequences and ways to reduce or combat it.
Evidence came from a range of experts, including survivors of child marriage, representatives from UN and government agencies, academics, doctors and NGOs. Our witnesses testified that child marriage had many undesirable consequences. I will not run through the whole gamut but will give a few examples of those. It is associated with violence, rape and sexual abuse, resulting in emotional and psychological problems, desertion and divorce. It takes away opportunities for education—that is perhaps the most important consequence—undermines self-confidence and reaffirms gender stereotypes. It is associated with, and helps perpetuate, harmful traditional practices, including female genital mutilation and contributes to infant mortality and poor child development. There are more consequences. UNICEF says in its report The State of the World’s Children that an infant born to a mother under the age of 18 is 60% more likely to die in its first year of life than one born to a mother over the age of 19. Research from the International Centre for Research on Women found that girls who marry before the age of 18 are more likely to experience domestic violence and depression than those who marry later.
As many noble Lords have said, child marriage is a major problem in the developing world and we are increasingly seeing it here. In England and Wales, marriage under 16 is illegal, but between 16 and 18 it is permitted, providing there is parental consent, which is not required in Scotland. In some cultures, child marriage is virtually the norm and parents are likely not only to give consent, but to force marriage on girls who may not wish to marry yet go along with it. We heard earlier, from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about emotional blackmail. A major problem which has not been mentioned is that, as with female genital mutilation, girls are taken outside the UK to get married. This amendment does not cover extraterritorial marriage but, as with FGM, we hope that a way can be found to make this illegal.
I would be grateful if the noble Lord could put his mind to this. We would be grateful if the amendment could be adapted, before Report, to include extraterritorial child marriage or if the Government brought something forward. I will not press the amendment at this stage, but would welcome discussions with the Minister about this issue between now and Report. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I have every respect for my noble friend and appreciate the genuineness of his concerns, but I am not persuaded—and neither is the Opposition—that it is appropriate to change the age at which people can be married from the current age of 16, with the condition, to which my noble friend has already referred, of parental consent. We have to recognise that 16 year-olds and above are increasingly sexually active. They can serve in the Armed Forces. Many people, including me, feel that they should have the vote at 16; indeed, they will do so in the Scottish referendum next year.
I accept the legitimacy of the concerns cited by my noble friend. However, the number who might be involved in marriage from 16 to 18 is not clear—or, at least, the evidence is not before us—let alone the number who are adversely affected in the way that my noble friend described. It is a large step to alter, on the basis of what we have heard, what has been the law for some considerable time. This is quite different from matters such as female genital mutilation and the forced marriage issues which we have discussed fully today. The Opposition will not, therefore, support this amendment if it is brought forward again on Report.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Tonge and for explaining that the rationale for it is, in effect, to raise the age of marriage to 18 years. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his comments. This is one of those occasions when the two Front Benches are at one which people sometimes smile about.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I shall merely rise to reply, not rise to the challenge.
As noble Lords know, in England and Wales it is possible to marry from the age of 16, with parental consent, and from 18 without consent. The consequence of Amendment 8 would therefore be to make it impossible for a 16 or 17-year old to marry. While I understand my noble friend’s concerns, I do not believe this amendment is necessary because the law already provides adequate safeguards for children entering into marriages.
In England and Wales the provisions for the age at which a child can marry are contained in the Marriage Act 1949 and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Section 2 of the Marriage Act 1949 and Section 11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 provide that any marriage, whether civil or religious, conducted in England and Wales, where either party is under the age of 16, would not be a valid marriage. If a marriage is solemnized and either or both of the parties is under the age of 16 that marriage will be void. For a child aged 16 or 17 to marry, the law requires the consent of the child’s parents or guardians, unless the child is a widow or a widower. These provisions recognise that, while children of this age may have the maturity to enter into marriages, it is still necessary to ensure that they are afforded some level of protection in doing so.
The Government believe that the current provisions provide appropriate safeguards for children entering into marriages. We therefore do not consider it necessary to amend the age at which people can enter into a marriage. The noble Lord has referred to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child but the convention does not address the issue of marriage. Accordingly the law relating to marriage, including the age at which a person can consent to marriage and can marry, is a matter for determination by the national law of those states, including the United Kingdom, that are a party to the convention.
My noble friend Lady Tonge is also understandably concerned, as we all are, about forced marriages. While I share her desire to do more to stamp out this abuse, the amendments as tabled are not the best way of doing this. We have just debated provisions to strengthen the law in respect of forced marriage, thereby making it a criminal offence to breach a forced marriage protection order and making it an offence to seek to force someone to marry. This is combined with a significant nationwide engagement programme and the work done by the Government’s Forced Marriage Unit to give direct support to victims and potential victims.
Amendment 12 to Clause 109 seeks to make identical provision in the case of Scotland. Marriage law is a devolved issue and Scotland has its own marriage laws. I therefore cannot comment on behalf of the Scottish Government. The noble Lord will be aware of the convention that the United Kingdom Parliament does not legislate on devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
I take on board the noble Lord’s point about further discussions between stages of the Bill. I am always open to discussions on all these matters. As I said earlier, this is an important matter and this is about getting it right. If the noble Lord or my noble friend wishes to meet me I shall be delighted to do so. Based on that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Berridge
“( ) If an offence has been committed under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to any marriage (as defined in subsection (3) and whether conducted in England and Wales or elsewhere), then that marriage shall be treated for the purposes of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 as if the marriage was valid but annulled on the date that the offender was first charged with the offence.”
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, this amendment relates to Clause 108. For the purposes of the new criminal offence of forced marriage, the Bill has adopted the definition of marriage found in the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act, which states that.
“‘marriage’” means any religious or civil ceremony of marriage (whether or not legally binding)”.
At first glance this seems to be a sensible definition as it is clear that some marriages, although not valid in our law, have such community, cultural or religious significance that the couple behave as if they are legally married. Forcing someone into such a de facto marriage should also be a criminal offence. Consenting to such a marriage is fine; forcing someone is not.
No one underestimates the variety and complexity of situations that lead people to find themselves in forced marriages. A cursory glance at the case law reveals that children are sometimes subjected to such marriages by their parents, and the law needs to be flexible in its remedies. Under Clause 108(3), let us imagine that a woman takes a brave step to come forward to complain about a forced marriage in a religious ceremony which is not, as the Bill envisages, valid in UK law. She may take that step after many years of marriage and it will take enormous courage. She will almost certainly have to testify in court against her so-called husband and perhaps other community or religious leaders. This may affect her acceptance within her community. Her husband and others may be convicted and sent to prison.
Of course, this woman may need supporting financially and there may be family assets such as a car, a pension, a business, inherited wealth and most probably a home. However, they could all be in the legal name of the husband, who is in prison. Ordinarily the woman seeks a divorce or an annulment, and in both types of proceedings the courts have wide-ranging powers to transfer or split the family assets—but herein lies the problem: this forced religious marriage cannot be annulled and cannot be the subject of divorce proceedings. It is not viewed in law by the family courts as a marriage; it has been inelegantly described as a “non-marriage”. Without the legal means to get an annulment or divorce, the woman cannot put in a proper claim for the family assets. In those circumstances she will most likely be making a claim for benefits, supported by the UK taxpayer instead of by any family assets. I also shudder to think of what she may feel like if after a few years in prison her so-called husband comes back to the community and waltzes back into the family home with all the assets. I very much doubt whether any other women will come forward and take such risks if, on top of everything else, by doing so they make themselves financially destitute, with recourse only to the benefits system. Without giving her the remedy of an annulment, which is what the amendment gives her, there may be a grave injustice.
Conversely, if a person is forced into a marriage that is valid under UK law the marriage is void and can be annulled, and the family assets divided up. The Bill therefore currently gives rise to the different treatment of women forced into a marriage that is not recognised in our law, as opposed to women forced into what would otherwise be a valid marriage. There is extensive human rights case law on such differential treatment. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister can outline, if he does not accept the amendment, what reasonable and objective justification the Government have for such differential treatment of women in analogous situations. In the absence of any such justification, the law should be amended to give women the option of petitioning for an annulment. A woman will not be required to do so, and there may be cases where it is not appropriate, but the law should give her the option. This legal definition of marriage has not previously been an issue under the civil protection order regime, as that was aimed at preventing such a marriage, as the name indicates. As the law is now dealing with criminalising a forced marriage that has occurred, obviously the remedies when that marriage ends—namely, divorce or annulment—have now become relevant. If religious marriage is recognised for the purpose of a civil protection order regime and now criminal law, should it not be recognised for the purpose of family law?
This amendment has been drafted narrowly, but we will need to ensure that it does not inadvertently give financial remedies to cohabitees. I was made aware of the general issue of religious marriages during the presentation of evidence from excellent women’s rights groups to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which said that many women, even when they consent to the marriage, are not aware that the ceremony is not valid in UK law. In some cases they discover this only when, after many years of marriage, the husband says three times that he divorces them and walks out. Literally, the first person to explain the situation to her is a divorce solicitor, who says that he cannot help her as she is in a non-marriage. Coincidentally, I was visited this morning by Dr Siddiqui, from the British Muslims for Secular Democracy organisation, who said that the situation that there may be family assets after many years of marriage can, indeed, occur.
I would be grateful to know the Government’s view on this amendment, which I believe solves an obvious injustice, and whether the Government are going to grasp the issue of non-legally binding marriages, which is causing so much harm, and look at the matter comprehensively. The Government need to take a step back. Once a different definition of marriage has crept into our law, there can be many inadvertent consequences. They need to consider different solutions, such as making the provision of a civil marriage certificate a requirement before any person conducts a religious ceremony. Such an inquiry could also look at whether the basic legal requirements of how to be married under UK law need to be part of citizenship teaching, especially given the popular trend of travelling to sunnier climes for wedding ceremonies. I fear this is not common enough knowledge; your Lordships may remember that Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall had to get an annulment as they were not married under UK law. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 13, grouped with this amendment, I apologise for missing Second Reading as I was in South Sudan, where it was rather difficult to engage with parliamentary business here. I understand that a primary goal of the forced marriage provisions of the Bill is to increase the protection of victims of honour-based abuse while bringing perpetrators to justice. As noble Lords may be aware, this is also the primary concern of my Private Member’s Bill, the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill, which seeks to ensure that all citizens resident under the jurisdiction of England and Wales have equal access to the law, and to increase protection for those who suffer abuse and gender discrimination. One of the concerns underlying the reason for that Bill could be addressed by this amendment, which would make it an offence to solemnise a marriage in England and Wales according to the rites of any religion or belief in circumstances where the marriage is not also solemnised as a legal marriage under the terms of the Marriage Act 1949 if either or both parties to the marriage wrongly believe that they are married according to the law simply because they have been through a religious ceremony.
The amendment would tackle the problem that arises in some communities where those getting married, particularly women who are not familiar with English law or the customs of this country, undergo a religious marriage without understanding that they are not married according to English law. They are therefore unaware that they are without any legal protection. I think there are parallels here with the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge.
In most cases, religious celebrants would not need to be concerned about committing the offence created by the amendment. They would not need to act any differently. Most marriages solemnised by religious celebrants are in registered buildings under the terms of the Marriage Act 1949. They are legal marriages. Under the Marriage Act 1949, a couple who have already entered into a civil marriage may go through a religious marriage ceremony after giving notice to a minister of religion, and on the production of a certificate of their marriage before the superintendent registrar.
Therefore, in circumstances when no certificate is provided, ministers of religion should already be on notice that a couple may not be married legally. In those situations when they are not sure that the parties properly understand the status of a religious ceremony, they may choose to say something about this publicly during the religious ceremony to ensure that there is no doubt, or they could choose to obtain a written declaration of understanding from the couple before proceeding with a marriage service. How they go about that procedure is a matter for them and the amendment does not seek to prescribe any particular means. What matters is that when there is some doubt as to the understanding of the parties, my amendment would effectively require celebrants to ensure that the couple they are marrying only according to religious rites are fully aware of the status of the ceremony and its implications.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to say anything about this amendment, but two points occurred to me in listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, which I mention in case they might be of any assistance to the Minister in looking into the matter. First, I should have thought that it would be plain that if the individual is not capable of entering into a marriage at all, because he or she was underage or simply did not have the mental capacity to agree, one could not treat that as a valid marriage for the time being until it was annulled. There may be something to be said for some categories which are not in that very stark situation; where there was initially the capacity to marry, but there has been enforcement or something like that which has persuaded the individual to enter into it. It is rather as in the law of contract: there are some contracts which are void ab initio and some which are voidable. There may be room for that distinction: no doubt the Minister will wish to research that further.
Secondly, when I was at the Bar in my junior days I used to do cases in Scotland which were described as “nullity of marriage cases”. The ground of nullity in those cases was lack of capacity to consummate the marriage. An individual who found that the husband or wife could not consummate the marriage was entitled to come to court and if that fact could be proved—it was very often not disputed, which was just as well—the marriage would be set aside. I do not know how the law is in England, but there must be a similar process where the marriage cannot be consummated. It may be that those cases are precisely in the category that Amendment 11 is talking about, where somebody has a choice. An individual who finds that the marriage cannot be consummated may feel that the marriage should go ahead for other reasons—simply because they enjoy living with each other. Nobody forces them to apply to the court to have the marriage set aside. It may be that there is an analogy there which can be drawn upon, to follow up the point that the noble Baroness is making.
Baroness Thornton
The noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Cox, have raised very valid but different points. The issues to do with property and assets and differential treatment are very valid indeed, particularly with regard to Amendment 11. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say because these issues need to be addressed.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Berridge and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for raising these important issues, which I shall address in turn. As both noble Baronesses will know, I take this issue very seriously: it needs to be addressed and the issues that have been raised are perfectly valid, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has said. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his contribution. He has raised one or two matters which I shall certainly take back to officials to discuss further.
As my noble friend has explained, it is crucial for victims of forced marriage to be able to ensure that the marriage that they have been forced into is subsequently rendered void as a matter of law. While I agree that this is important, especially to the victims of this crime who rightly want clarity on where the marriage stands in the eyes of the law, there are reasons why the Government feel that this amendment is unnecessary. Under the current law, if a forced marriage takes place, victims can apply to the court to end the marriage by divorce or annulment. If a victim wishes to apply for an annulment, it must be shown that the marriage was either void or voidable. The grounds on which a marriage is void or voidable are set out in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
A forced marriage is voidable by virtue of Section 12(c) of the 1973 Act, which provides that a marriage will be voidable on the grounds,
“that either party to the marriage did not validly consent to it, whether in consequence of duress, mistake, unsoundness of mind or otherwise”.
If a victim wishes to apply to the court for an annulment on these grounds, and the court grants the decree of nullity, the annulment will take effect on the date on which the decree of nullity is issued. This amendment would mean that if a conviction for an offence of forced marriage occurred, the court would be required to issue a decree of nullity. The date on which that decree of nullity would take effect would be the date on which the perpetrator was first charged with the offence. I understand totally the sentiments behind the amendment tabled by my noble friend, but I do not agree that the process by which a victim can seek to end a forced marriage, and the date on which that marriage ends, should be determined by reference to whether a conviction for forced marriage has taken place. Such an approach provides no flexibility for victims whose perpetrators are convicted of an offence of forced marriage to choose how they wish to end their marriage. It would also be unfair to those victims whose perpetrators are not found guilty of the offence of forced marriage, and who would have to continue to rely on the current law to end their marriage.
Victims of forced marriage experience a range of specific extenuating factors, as a consequence of which they may wish to have a divorce rather than an annulment. For example, there may be children involved, as my noble friend pointed out, and property rights to consider. As a result, they may prefer a specific legal route to end their marriage. Preserving a victim’s choice is the intention behind the Government’s proposals. We are seeking to provide flexibility to victims who, on seeking legal advice, can end their marriage as and when they see fit. I hope that, having heard this explanation, my noble friend is reassured about where the Government currently stand on this issue.
Perhaps I may now turn to religious marriages, the issue focused on by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I pay tribute to her because I know that she represents women’s interests very widely and that this is an issue on which she does not seek to target any particular faith or community. However, she recognises fully that many, if not all faiths, protect such marriages. Unfortunately, it is the case that some of the practices do not live up to the theology. As the noble Baroness has explained, the purpose of her proposed new clause is to create a new criminal offence, under Section 75 of the Marriage Act 1949, of solemnising a marriage according to any religion so that the couple getting married believe they are validly married when in fact the marriage is not valid under that Act. This proposed new offence clearly arises from a desire to help couples who have a religious marriage ceremony that they think is perfectly valid, but which has no legal status because the requirements of the law in England and Wales have not been complied with.
The legal position in respect of religious marriages in England and Wales is that anyone who wishes to contract a religious marriage and acquire a legal marital status has two options. They can either have a religious marriage and a separate secular civil ceremony or they can choose to solemnise their religious marriage in a place of worship registered to conduct marriages, thus removing the need for a separate civil ceremony. Where a marriage is invalid for want of the appropriate formalities or other elements, this does not necessarily leave the parties without any remedies. If the marriage purports to be in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Act but does not fully comply with those provisions, it may be void under Section 11(a) of Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. This section enables a party to the marriage to apply to the court for a decree of nullity and the court is able to make orders in respect of children and the division of property in the same way as on divorce. We believe that this will provide protection for some of the couples whom the noble Baroness seeks to protect with her amendment.
The Government accept that there will be some religious marriages to which Section 11(a) will not apply. In such cases, the courts may be able to view the marriage as being valid in principle and, as such, susceptible to a decree of nullity. The court will determine such issues on a case by case basis and will consider issues such as whether the ceremony or event set out or purported to be a lawful marriage, whether it bore all or enough of the hallmarks of a marriage, and whether the parties acted in good faith. If the court is not able to make such a finding, again, that does not mean that the spouse will be left without any form of redress. For example, it would still be possible for the court to make an order for financial relief in respect of any children under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989. While the Government are keen to ensure that any person who enters into a purported religious marriage in good faith has adequate protection before the law, we do not consider that making the solemnisation of purported religious marriages a criminal offence is the correct way forward. This would, in our view, involve unjustified interference in people’s private and religious lives.
However, the Government take these matters, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, very seriously. Even though we may differ in how best to deal with it, the sentiments are certainly much the same. We want to ensure that couples seeking a religious marriage are aware of the need to have a civil marriage as well. If this is to be achieved, it must be with the support of religious leaders and must not be seen as an attempt to dictate to them or undermine them.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his outline in relation to this matter, but I believe I should join the club opened by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and take yet more legal advice, having consulted, of course, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, before raising this matter. I will specifically check the section outlined in the Matrimonial Causes Act, which I think applies only to marriages already valid under UK law. With that in mind, we may be back on Report to look at this matter further. I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Manzoor
“Report to Parliament
The Secretary of State shall report to Parliament annually on the effectiveness of the criminalisation of forced marriage under Part 9 of this Act.”
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, I should start by saying that I am very sorry that I was not able to speak at Second Reading. However, as I am keen to make a contribution, I hope that the Committee will excuse and indulge a new girl. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has added his name to this amendment, has asked me to apologise for his being out of the country.
My noble friend Lord Lester was, of course, the author of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, which has been such a huge success in using the family courts in a sensitive way to address a serious and complicated problem that particularly affects young British Asian girls, women and boys. I pay tribute to him and other noble Lords who have worked so hard on this issue over the years.
Amendment 14 comes from the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to report annually on the effectiveness of the criminalisation of forced marriage. This is only right if we are to ensure that the law has been effective and to aid transparency.
Along with the JCHR, I understand the Government’s reasons for criminalising forced marriage but am concerned about whether criminalisation is a step too far and whether this is the most effective method for dealing with this issue. One needs only to look at the case of female genital mutilation to see that criminalisation is not always sufficient. As the JCHR report points out, there has not been a successful prosecution for female genital mutilation in 28 years—although I take my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s point and am not quite sure what that shows. Can the Minister explain why the Government believe that the criminalisation of forced marriage will be different?
It is very important that nothing is done to undermine the effectiveness of the 2007 Act in enabling the victim to apply to the family courts to obtain a forced marriage protection order. I am concerned that if a young child knows that her parents may be criminalised as a result of such protection, she will be alarmed by the involvement of the police and the criminal courts, as well as by the publicity and the dishonour to her family that the stigma of a criminal offence will bring. Invariably, it will affect, in negative ways, not only the victim but other siblings and family members not party to the forced marriage decision. I hope the Minister can assure the Committee that the civil protection route will remain the preferred way forward and that clear guidance will be given to the CPS and the police that everything should be done to use the family courts for civil protection first and that the criminal process will be used only as a last resort.
Even if the Minister can reassure me on both those points—he has already gone a long way in this discussion to show the Government’s commitment—I believe there remains a real need to monitor the effect of criminalisation to ensure that we can evaluate the progress being made. If the Minister is minded to accept my proposal, the annual report should include, for example, the number of cases going to the family court, to allow benchmarking, the age, sex and ethnic origin of the victims, the number of cases sent to the CPS, the number of people convicted, and what financial or other aid has been given to the victim, including accommodation and legal aid to support individuals through the criminal court process. I also look forward to seeing the Government develop these ideas in their response to the JCHR. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain what steps the department will take, if it is unable to accept the proposals in my amendment for an annual report, to ensure that the effect of criminalisation is kept under review so that, if there are unintended consequences, they are identified quickly and can be dealt with.
Finally, I believe that it is important that we also look at other approaches, including working internationally, and do not just focus on criminalising the practice as the only way forward. As the Forced Marriage Unit knows well, victims can be taken to Pakistan, India or Bangladesh and coerced into so-called marriages. They may be victims of rape and bodily injury; if they do not comply, they may be victims of what are disgracefully called honour killings or of forced suicides. Tackling these issues through working with international partners is, in many ways, more important than criminalisation here in the UK, as we already have laws in place in relation to this heinous crime. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that criminalisation will form only part of our approach to tackling forced marriage, and that Ministers will continue to work internationally to put an end to the practice across the world and ensure a more joined-up approach to the criminal justice system in the UK on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, has put forward an interesting amendment. The principle behind it, that Governments ought to report to Parliament regularly on the effectiveness of pieces of legislation, is one that I am sure that we would all wish to see more widely spread. However, I have a reservation about the terms in which the amendment has been put.
The noble Baroness said that she has reservations over whether criminalisation will have the desired effect. She implied, and I believe that all of your Lordships would agree, that criminalisation is not a panacea as far as this problem is concerned; it will not solve all the issues. Therefore, I would hope that if we were to receive a report to Parliament, it would look at not just the effectiveness of criminalisation but also at the effectiveness of the totality of policies on forced marriage.
My noble friend Lady Thornton moved an amendment earlier that would have broadened the scope of this and placed obligations on various public authorities in terms of the actions that they should take. I hope that the report requested by the noble Baroness would look not just at whether criminalisation makes a difference for good or ill, but also at whether all the other activities that the Government and public agencies undertake to try to eliminate forced marriage are effective. I think that that would be very valuable in terms of taking these matters forward.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I have little to add to what my noble friend Lady Manzoor said so expertly in moving this amendment. As a member of the JCHR, this was one of the recommendations that we made in our report.
I very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. I hope that the reporting to Parliament would not just be a dry recitation of the effect of criminalisation in terms of statistics, but would go wider. I am sure that the Minister will reassure us on that. This should not be simply a formality. We are stepping into an acutely sensitive area and, although we said that we approved cautiously of the decision to criminalise forced marriage, it is a matter that must be looked at very carefully for fear that more harm may come than good.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support the noble Baroness in her amendment. I saw her nodding at the suggestion that any reporting back should be more comprehensive than simply reporting on the criminal aspects. There should be many other opportunities taken up by Government to press for the changes that underpin what the Government are seeking in criminalising forced marriage.
One factor that I would press upon the Government is that there should be greater discussion in families, for example about marrying close relatives, such as cousins. I used to chair the Human Genetics Commission and there was considerable sensitivity about this kind of discussion and about the implications of marriage within certain boundaries and how it perhaps increased risks for future generations. I think that when people are well informed that often changes social practices.
I also think that imams should be well informed about the ways in which the women in their congregation are disadvantaged by not having the cover of civil marriage so that they have rights that can be enforced in the courts. My clients have sometimes invoked Sharia law as being generous towards women at the ending of marriages or after death. Although that might have been the case in the past, nowadays women are more advantaged by what is available to them through the civil courts in the United Kingdom. I think that such pieces of information should be much more widely disseminated to communities where these issues arise.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, in the Government’s response to the JCHR, they reject the proposal for an annual report but say that they will be,
“happy to update Parliament on the progress of our work in this area in due course, including as part of the normal post-legislative scrutiny of the Act”.
That is a shame. To many parliamentarians, “in due course” means something rather longer than it does in normal language—but maybe I am too cynical.
Like other noble Lords, I think it is important that what is kept under review—that is another phrase I should avoid because it also has connotations—is far more than the narrow impact of the legislation. I have written down “prevention strategy”, “safeguarding”, “professional training”, “update on CPS strategy and outcomes”, “continuing work with stakeholders”—the list could continue. As I have said before today, I am concerned at the overreliance on girls coming forward for help. Another thing that I am sure stakeholders are very aware of is the impact on the whole family, with other family members, siblings of the child in question, being at risk if they do not support the parents’ decision. There is a range of victims as well as perpetrators in this situation, and that is another thing that we need to keep an eye on.
I hope that, having had the advocacy of a number of very effective Members of this House, the Minister can be a little more encouraging than the Government were in their response to the committee.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, earlier today we had an interesting and worthwhile debate on whether it was better to deal with forced marriages by criminal or civil sanctions. In the light of that, there is a need for reporting on the effect of this legislation. I support the intention of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, although the precise wording may need to be widened.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I added my name to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, on this amendment because we think that if we end up criminalising forced marriage, we need to look very carefully at how that works out. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Harris that this should be about the totality of the work of the Forced Marriage Unit. How the Government decide to do it is not the point. It is important that these things are monitored regularly, so I think that “in due course” is probably not a satisfactory answer on this occasion.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lady Manzoor for her amendment. I welcome her to what I think is her first contribution to legislation in this Parliament. As has been demonstrated today and in her maiden speech, her contributions are always welcome and based on her great expertise and experience, of this issue in particular.
The proposed new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the effectiveness of the criminalisation of forced marriage under Part 10 of this Act. The Government are indeed happy to update Parliament on the progress of our work in this area. I hope that the various exchanges and discussions we have had, which I have certainly found very valuable, as I am sure all members of the Government and, I hope, the House have, underline the Government’s commitment to look at this issue very seriously.
Noble Lords are correct: this is not about coming back “in due course”. I say to my noble friend Lady Hamwee that I will not be saying that. What I will say is that the Government are concerned that this issue is addressed and dealt with appropriately and that the appropriate debates, discussions and questions take place as and when, but the issue remains one of Parliament. Parliament has open access here. Questions and debates can be tabled as appropriate. I do not, however, believe for a moment that an issue as important as this will be left, for us to return to at some future point. I am sure that the Government will be seeking to update Parliament regularly on work in this important area.
I will allude briefly to the issue of female genital mutilation. I accept that although a law has been enacted, prosecutions have not followed, but let me again reassure my noble friend, the Committee and the wider House that the Government take this seriously. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made this a personal priority. I will talk about it in a moment.
Once this piece of legislation receives Royal Assent, there is a period of three to five years for post-legislative scrutiny. As I have indicated, the Government accept that, on an important issue such as this, we will be returning to it earlier than that. In the case of the forced marriage provisions, the Government’s Forced Marriage Unit, through its direct work in assisting victims and those at risk of forced marriage, has the capacity and function to monitor the difference that legislation will make to victims of forced marriage. The unit, as many noble Lords will know, runs a helpline providing confidential advice and support to victims and to practitioners charged with the responsibility for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults, ensuring they are fully informed on how to handle such cases. The number of reports to the helpline has steadily increased since the unit was established in 2005. In 2012 the Forced Marriage Unit provided advice and support in almost 1,500 cases. It will regularly update Ministers on any issues identified with the new laws and make recommendations on any necessary policy changes.
My noble friend Lady Manzoor referred to the lack of prosecutions for FGM and asked whether forced marriage will be different. I would like to reassure my noble friend that we will also monitor the number of prosecutions brought, and we will want to understand the reasons why cases are either not referred to the CPS or not proceeded with by the CPS if that should prove to be the case. That said, it is important to remember that the Government’s priority in criminalising forced marriage is prevention, a sentiment I know is shared across the House. This legislation has been designed to send the clear message that forced marriage is unacceptable, it is a breach of human rights, and perpetrators will be punished.
My noble friend talked about options. We know that legislation alone is not enough to address issues, and we will endeavour to work with partners across government, with non-government organisations and other experts in the field to ensure that victims and potential victims of forced marriage are aware of the support and options available to them. As I said to my noble friend Lady Hamwee in an earlier debate, it is important that a civil remedy remains available to victims. This means that victims could choose to take a civil route or go to the police, as they can now. I reassure my noble friend that, in respect to FGM, the Government will do everything in their power to ensure that victims can come forward and their abusers face the full force of the law.
The Department of Health is working to improve the information collected by the NHS on FGM. The Home Office has recently announced it will help fund a new study into the prevalence of FGM in England and Wales. The Department for International Development has established a £35 million programme to address FGM in Africa and beyond, with the ambition to end FGM in one generation. The level of international co-operation to which my noble friend alluded is certainly working well there.
The Government have also joined forces this year with the NSPCC and the Metropolitan Police to establish a dedicated FGM helpline. But as we know, there is much more that needs to be done, which is why the Home Office is working closely with the CPS to ensure that the Government are doing everything they can to help secure a prosecution. I am greatly encouraged by the assessment of the Director of Public Prosecutions that it is only a matter of time before a perpetrator is brought to justice.
I will just pick up on one or two other issues that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and my noble friend Lord Faulks mentioned the importance of coming back to Parliament on this. As I have already said, the Government take this issue seriously. I hope that has come across in today’s debates. I also acknowledge the very important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that education must be a major component of how we start to address some of these issues of marriages, particularly those that take place in certain communities. As for marrying into families and that continuing, my noble friend Lord Hussain talked about how clans and tribes work. He used the word “brathries”—I am not sure Hansard needs a translation, but it generally means within a brotherhood. I hope that clarifies that for the Hansard writers.
This is the last amendment in the group on forced marriage. I share my noble friend’s desire—and that of all noble Lords—to ensure that new legislation is effective. I will be happy to update the House on the progress of our work in this area. The Government would of course expect to be held to account through the usual parliamentary oversight channels.
Before I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment, I just say this: forced marriage is a terrible act; it is a heinous crime. Coercion in marriage has no place in our or any society. The Government seek ultimately to strengthen a victim’s access to justice. I know that is a sentiment we all subscribe to. Our country is an incredible place, one that encompasses all people, all communities and all faiths, but we must hold those who commit these crimes to account and help those who suffer as victims to ensure that they have the opportunity to take to task those who commit these crimes. On that basis, and with the explanation I have given on this issue, I hope that my noble friend will be minded to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Manzoor
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his considered response. I know his personal commitment to this issue. I also thank the many noble Lords who took part in this debate. They have been both passionate and certainly much more eloquent than I have. I entirely agree with the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lord Faulks—noble Lords will have to forgive me as I am just getting to terms with knowing everyone’s names. I am very pleased by the Minister’s response but when he says that he will come back and report to Parliament, how often is that likely to be?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
All I will say to my noble friend is that, as I have already indicated, the Government will be held to account. That is something that will be discussed through the usual channels, but my noble friend has an opportunity, as a Member of your Lordships’ House, to raise a Parliamentary Question or debate. As I said, the Government take this issue seriously. Once this becomes legislation and passes into law, as I hope it will, it is certainly an issue that the Government will return to, not least because we believe it is important to update the House. It would not be appropriate for me at this time to give a specific target date: that would be presumptuous. Nevertheless, as I said, the option is even open to my noble friend to hold the Government to account.
Baroness Manzoor
I thank my noble friend. I will, along with other noble Lords, do that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Smith and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. It relates to Clause 151, dealing with compensation for miscarriages of justice where new evidence comes to light some time after—indeed, sometimes very long after—a criminal trial procedure has been concluded and the defendant convicted and sentenced, and which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the conviction was unsafe. In those cases, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 requires the Secretary of State to pay compensation where the conviction has been reversed or the claimant pardoned. It should be emphasised at the outset that such cases are few and far between, with only two cases a year succeeding out of around 50 claims.
At Second Reading we heard in a compelling and powerful speech from my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws of an inquiry that she chaired into sudden death cases of infants whose mothers’ convictions were ultimately overturned. We also heard of a case in which a woman whom she represented served 11 years in prison for an arson attack that killed two people but of which it eventually transpired she was innocent. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, reminded us of what might be termed the Irish cases, in which after a very long time compensation was also paid for serious miscarriages of justice.
Lord Cullen of Whitekirk (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has correctly drawn attention to the ostensible reasons given by the Government for including Clause 151 in the Bill. I noted that at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, referred to the clause as the “new test”, which would be in aid of clarity and “much-needed certainty”. He added,
“we want to reduce the number of complex, expensive and generally unsuccessful legal challenges that currently arise”.—[Official Report, 29/10/13; col. 1486.]
I will make three brief comments.
First, it is perfectly clear that Clause 151 is concerned not merely with the interpretation of Section 133, as he seemed to suggest. It would exclude the type of claim which was recognised and allowed in Adams, and what was said at Second Reading simply does not address that particular step. Secondly, it seemed to be suggested that there was a current state of uncertainty in regard to the law. However, it is important to bear in mind that in Adams the Supreme Court carried out an exhaustive study of the scope of Section 133 and made a fresh analysis. Part of that was to get a final resolution of conflicting statements that had been made by judges in previous years.
Thirdly, Section 133 was intended to give effect to Article 14.6 of the covenant, which has already been referred to and which was ratified by this country in 1976. The wording of Section 133 is virtually identical to Article 14.6; apparently that was done deliberately. The Supreme Court had to consider what meaning should be given to Section 133 in the light of that article. Therefore, is it appropriate for Parliament to be invited to use its legislative supremacy to overrule the decision of the Supreme Court as to the application of such a statutory provision, and in particular to cut down its application, including on the ground of expense?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I express my gratitude to those who have already spoken on this very important topic. To some this may seem like rather arcane law, but it is something very simple and very clear that comes down to fundamental principle. When I spoke at Second Reading, I did so with some force, because the reality of cases reminds you why law matters. When you conduct cases where there has been a miscarriage of justice, you know why it is so important that the law acts fairly to those who have suffered the consequence of miscarriage of justice. I, too, feel shocked that the Government—and it might be supported by others—seek to say that this is about saving taxpayers’ money when the sums of money involved are very small and the number of cases are few, and when we are dealing with such an important issue of principle: that is, that we in this country believe, powerfully and rightly, that a person should be presumed to be innocent unless they have been proved guilty.
When the Court of Appeal receives new evidence—and it is rare—and they decide that that new evidence casts a different light on what went before, we make assumptions that the person is therefore is not guilty. To require, as the amended section would, that a person has to prove their innocence is an affront to fundamental principle. It is shocking that our Supreme Court reached a decision with great care and that we are now seeking to overrule that decision. To most of us, the current position is very clear. The notion that there is uncertainty is, I suggest, a confabulation to justify overturning important principle.
Therefore, I, too, wish to invoke the fact that this is about not just an article of the European court or European convention; it is also an affront to the common law built up over the experience of our nation which says that persons should be deemed to be not guilty unless the state has managed to prove their guilt. I have been involved in cases where it would be very difficult to prove that you were innocent—indeed, the cases which have been mentioned, to which I referred at Second Reading, where mothers were found guilty of causing the death of their babies but thereafter it was felt that medical science was not yet in a place to help to ascertain possible genetic causes of sudden infant death. To ask those women who were released on appeal—having been in prison and having suffered the anguish of being accused of killing their own babies—to prove that they were innocent on the standard we are discussing is, of course, asking the impossible.
The reality is that with some cases, usually those involving the use of DNA, you can show that the miscarriage of justice most certainly involved the wrong person being accused. However, that happens rarely and usually involves calling into question the evidence that went before a jury and raising the spectre that a wrong decision was made. Too often, I am afraid, it also involves the state having behaved badly through its agents. In the cases mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in which I was involved—Irish cases where there were miscarriages of justice—false confessions had been made following the misbehaviour of police officers. Sometimes a question mark is raised over cases because the state has failed to behave appropriately.
We must be clear that, even on the balance of probabilities, it is asking the impossible for someone to show that they are innocent. Great experience gained in the common law has taught us that we do not make innocence a test; we decide as between guilt or non-guilt. On a previous occasion it was a source of shock to me to hear one of our eminent judges speak about a case where it seemed to him that it would be an affront if someone were compensated. Occasionally people are acquitted where they may be guilty but we in our wisdom know that that is a price you sometimes have to pay for having our highly regarded justice system.
I am afraid that this issue is about principle. It is not about arcane law but about the stuff that makes our legal system work and makes it something to be proud of. I sincerely hope that if the Minister does not accept that this issue has to be looked at again, in the fullness of time this House will remedy what the Government seek to do in this clause.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the speeches that have been made this afternoon. Clause 151 should not be included in the Bill unless it is amended in order to restate current law, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, suggested. There are three reasons for that. The first is the reason about which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, spoke; namely, a defendant does not have to prove innocence at trial. It would be contrary to basic principles to require the defendant to prove innocence in order to obtain compensation for a wrongful conviction. Even the Scottish verdict of not proven, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred, does not, as I understand it, require the defendant to prove anything at all.
The second point is the practical one, which is as important as issues of principle in this context. The point was made at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and made this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws. It will often be very difficult indeed for an innocent person to prove their innocence: the evidence may simply be unavailable. It is very unfair that they should be unable to secure compensation for the miscarriage of justice.
The third point is that the approach adopted by Clause 151 breaches the European Convention on Human Rights because it contravenes the presumption of innocence in Article 6.2 of that convention. All 17 judges of the Grand Chamber of the European court stated this on 12 July in the case of Allen v United Kingdom, a case about compensation for miscarriages of justice. It was a unanimous judgment, which found that there was no breach of the presumption of innocence, but an important part of the court’s reasoning, at paragraph 133, was that the courts of the United Kingdom,
“did not require the applicant to satisfy Lord Steyn’s test of demonstrating her innocence”.
That is the test that was stated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, in the case of Mullen in 2005—found in 1 Appeal Cases, page 1—in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, took the view that Section 133 did contain a proof of innocence test. That approach was not adopted by the Supreme Court later, in the Adams case.
Clause 151 now wishes to introduce the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn. It would be a quite remarkable step for Parliament to enact legislation now which contravenes a clear and recent statement in a unanimous judgment by the Grand Chamber of the European court, a step which should be taken only in the most exceptional circumstances, where some fundamental principle of English law is at stake. That is not the case here: we are not dealing with a clause that seeks to maintain some fundamental principle of English law. Indeed, to the extent that fundamental principles are at stake, they are those explained by previous speakers in this debate and which Clause 151 will frustrate and breach.
I will make one other point. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who I am very pleased to see in his place today, said he was concerned about a case in which the conviction was quashed because of an abuse of process by the prosecution. However, my understanding of the Adams judgment in the Supreme Court is that compensation is not, in any event, payable under the current law in such a case. The Supreme Court describes such cases as category 4 cases:
“Where something has gone seriously wrong in the investigation of the offence or the conduct of the trial, resulting in the conviction of someone who should not have been convicted”.
The Supreme Court said very clearly that such cases do not, under current law, confer a right to compensation.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said that Clause 151 is designed to introduce certainty into the law, but Section 133 already has a clear meaning, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, explained. The Government intend to change that meaning; I hope they will withdraw this clause before Report.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I recognise that the great majority of noble Lords who took part in the Second Reading debate on this clause, and the great majority of those who have spoken or propose to speak in this debate, are against Clause 151. However, if I may say so, they are under a considerable misapprehension as to the essential nature of this provision.
The clause has everything to do with statutory compensation but, frankly, little to do with criminal justice. That may sound simplistic but it is true. Convictions may be quashed in a wide variety of circumstances. It may be that fresh evidence comes to light that shows that the accused could not possibly have committed the particular offence. That may be as a result of DNA evidence, or perhaps someone later admitted to the very offence of which he has been convicted. Or it may be that the fresh evidence gives rise to a “lurking doubt”, as it is called, as to whether the defendant really was guilty. Or perhaps the judge can be shown to have unfairly admitted evidence or possibly misdirected the jury so that the conviction can no longer be regarded as safe. In all these cases, the conviction must be quashed and the defendant set free, and the presumption of innocence applies at that point in all those cases. However, it would be a very great mistake to suppose that all those defendants, merely because their convictions have been set aside and they are now presumed to have been innocent, are thereby entitled to the payment of compensation.
On the contrary, under the international convention to which our legislation is giving effect, only a very restricted number of cases are entitled to compensation: only those who by virtue of new facts disclosed on a late appeal can be shown conclusively to have suffered a miscarriage of justice are entitled to compensation. The critical question is: what, for this purpose, is a miscarriage of justice? It is not—I repeat and emphasise, not—the case that any conviction subsequently shown to be unsafe and set aside is a miscarriage of justice.
In the case that we have all been considering, Adams, the Supreme Court divided by 5:4. I should make it plain, as I did at Second Reading, that I was in the minority of four. The appellants and Justice, which intervened in that case, argued for the position that is apparently being taken by those participating in this debate, whereby all those whose convictions are set aside as unsafe should qualify for compensation. That, I understand, is what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, contends. That indeed clearly appears to be the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, at Second Reading. She said:
“If we legislate in the way suggested by the Government, we will create two types of ‘not guilty’ … those who are fortunate enough to be able to present evidence that proves conclusively that they are innocent; they will be entitled to compensation. Others, not so fortunate, will only be able to prove that they should not have been convicted”.—[Official Report, 29/10/13; col. 1515.]
However, even under the amendment, those whose convictions are set aside as unsafe and who may well be, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, truly innocent will still, by common consent, not be able to claim compensation. The international covenant that we have given effect to in our law shows that only a limited category is entitled to compensation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, then the Lord Chief Justice, in the minority of four in Adams, explained that Section 133, which gave effect to our international obligation distinguishes the reversal of a conviction and a miscarriage of justice. These concepts are distinct. In short, for the purposes of Section 133, the reversal of a conviction and the consequent revival of the legal presumption of innocence are not synonymous with a miscarriage of justice.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, in the case of Mullen, concluded that compensation was payable only when,
“the person concerned was clearly innocent”.
That, if I may say, was entirely consistent with the explanatory report that related to an article in the protocol to the European convention, which was enacted in terms virtually identical to those of Article 14.6, which our Section 133 is designed to implement. The explanatory report said:
“The intention is that states would be obliged to compensate persons only in clear cases of miscarriage of justice, in the sense that there would be acknowledgement that the person concerned was clearly innocent”.
In Adams, the majority devised a sort of halfway house, which was later redefined by the Divisional Court in Ali to say that compensation is payable if a new fact shows,
“beyond reasonable doubt, that no reasonable jury (or magistrates) properly directed as to the law, could convict on the evidence now to be considered”.
That, noble Lords will readily see, is essentially the identical language to that which Amendment 15 now proposes to put into Clause 151. That, I respectfully suggest, is the worst of all possible worlds.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I was quite right to wait for others to table the amendment before adding my name, so that they could all go first with the arguments. I tried to canter through them at Second Reading in considerable haste and will try to be quick now. I accept that the new clause is to do with compensation, not the criminal law, otherwise every overturned conviction would lead to a right to compensation and Section 133 makes it clear that that is not the case. However, what has been troubling me is that if you do not have to prove innocence at the original trial and then the matter turns on a new or a newly discovered fact, surely you would not have had to prove that. If the fact had been available at the time of the trial, this would not have changed whether you would have to have proved your innocence, which you did not have to do. I do not see that bringing in a new fact should change that at all. I do not see why that is necessary now.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has said that this is about who should be entitled to compensation. The Government say that it is about clarity. They do not argue in any effective way that the amounts involved are such as to require a change in the law in order to save the taxpayer. The impact assessment on this clause says:
“The intended effect is to lessen the burden on taxpayers and reduce unnecessary and expensive legal challenges to Government decisions to refuse compensation”.
Those are two quite separate points. The lessening of the burden on taxpayers is very small, but legal challenges to government decisions are another matter. That goes to clarity and it seems to me—I am not nearly as well qualified as everyone else who has spoken—that the chain of cases we have has produced the clarity. The impact assessment says that we need the provisions to be unambiguous and decisions on eligibility to be more transparent. I should have thought that the cases have taken us to that point.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I fear that I do not share the view just expressed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee that the law is clear at the moment. The number of decisions, one following another, with disagreements between judges in the same tribunal indicates the difficulty of the question and, I conclude, the lack of clarity in the test that should be applied. One of the reasons for this provision is in order to provide clarity. That, I believe, it does. The second question is whether it is appropriate and whether it offends the presumption of innocence. I am part of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and originally I took the view that it did offend the presumption of innocence. I have changed my mind, having thought about it. Although I was not often able to persuade the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, of anything, he has contributed to persuading me, on the other hand, of the merits of the arguments he advanced, both at Second Reading and today.
I have also had the opportunity of reading the cases of Allen v the United Kingdom and KF v the United Kingdom and I agree with the noble and learned Lord that they do not in any way require the retention of the law in its current state, or that they offend the presumption of innocence—provided, it seems, that some judge, in declining to award compensation, does not make any comment to the effect that there is any doubt about someone’s innocence.
I also respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that the point of these applications for compensation is to hold the state to account. The point of the applications is to obtain compensation, and the difficult question is that of who is entitled to it. It is not an easy question, but in my submission the Government have come to the correct answer. Sadly, a few people who are genuinely innocent will not obtain compensation, which in my view, for the reasons given, is an unsatisfactory element. However, it does not involve people being deprived of their liberty; it is simply a question of compensation.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I would like to make four brief points. The first is whether there should be a test in the statute, taking account of what has been said by the judges so far. The second is a brief word about the standard of proof, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood referred. The third question is the wording of the amendment, and the fourth is the wording of the clause that the Government are proposing.
On the first point, I am very much in sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. Particularly in view of what the Divisional Court said following what the majority said in Adams, there is a bit of confusion as to the way the judges are going. I must say that I would have hoped that Adams had settled the matter, admittedly by a small majority, but then we find the Divisional Court in Ali using a formula which I do not think fits with the majority view in Adams very well, if at all. Given that state of affairs, the Government are probably right to say that the time has come for the matter to be laid down in statute. This has a bearing on a point with which I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord as well. We are dealing here with compensation, not the criminal law as such, and therefore while one has a concern about the presumption of innocence, it is not going to affect the individual’s position as to whether or not he is to be convicted.
I support the Government in principle on those points and, coming to my second point, I also support them on the standard of proof. The wording of Article 14(3) uses the phrase “shows conclusively”, which points the way to the standard of proof that the new clause is adopting. I would be very uneasy about reducing it to a balance of probabilities test in view of the background of the article and the purpose of the provision, which is to provide for compensation in exceptional cases which really do justify that kind of award.
On the third point concerned with the wording of the amendment, I am bound to say that I am troubled by it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will look at it again. What he has done, as I understand it, is adopt the formula that was used in Ali by the Divisional Court. If one looks more closely at the judgments in Adams, it will be found that the majority were not adopting a formula that, as my noble and learned friend Lord Brown rightly pointed out, is used more or less every day in the court of criminal appeal. It was not in the mind of the majority—I have to say that I am speaking as a member of that majority—that any conviction which is shown to be unsafe should justify an award of compensation; not at all. Lord Bingham, who started thinking about this before we came to it in Adams, was talking about some kind of failure in the trial process, something quite fundamental which has gone wrong. The example mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown was the person brought to trial here who should never have been brought to trial here at all. That is quite a strong example. One is looking for something different from and more exceptional than the Ali test indicated. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and his advisers look more closely at what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, said in paragraph 55, supported by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, in paragraph 114, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, in paragraph 217 and myself in paragraph 74, indicating that what was really being looked for was something that is so fundamental that it undermines the evidence so that no conviction could possibly be based on it. The words “so undermined” and “could not possibly” were intended to indicate a much tougher test than the test that rightly is of concern to my noble and learned friend Lord Brown.
Coming to the wording of the Government’s proposal in Clause 151, it may be a practical point, but it is a fundamentally important point. I have here the letter which was written by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, on 7 November. Quite rightly, he is pointing out for everybody’s information that the applicant will not need to prove anything. What he is saying is that the requirement that the clause imposes is something that will be satisfied simply:
“they will not need to provide any information apart from the Court of Appeal judgment quashing their conviction”.
Very well; that is the material to which you look. The individual does not have to prove anything except simply tender the judgment of the Court of Appeal and say to the Minister, “Here it is, see what you can make of it. Does it come up to the required standard?”.
That brings me to one of the cases which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, was looking at. It is the case of Sally Clark, which was one of the most tragic cases, I think, that has ever come to the court’s attention. Noble Lords may remember that she was the lady who had two babies, each of whom died. Initially, it was thought that this was due to cot death. The authorities were not satisfied with that; it looked like too great a coincidence. The matter was referred first to pathologists, who conducted post-mortem examinations of both infants. Then it was referred to Professor Meadow, who looked at the statistics. He came up with a statistic that the situation of two infants dying and their deaths being attributed to cot deaths was really stretching the imagination far too far, because if one has a second death following on the first, the chances are one in 74 million against its being due to natural causes. That startling statistic was the basis of the Crown case before the jury. The jury convicted.
Subsequently, the case first went on appeal and the conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal. It was then referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission back to the Court of Appeal. The significant point is to look at the way in which the Court of Appeal dealt with the argument. The noble and learned Lord and his advisers may care to see the way in which the narrative proceeds in the case of Meadow, which was reported in 2007 Queen’s Bench 462. The relevant facts can be gathered from paragraph 102 in the judgment of Lord Justice Auld and the opening remarks of the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke.
The point is that the basis on which Sally Clark’s conviction was set aside was non-disclosure of relevant material by the biologist who conducted the biopsies, the post-mortem examinations of the infants, particularly one point relating to the second of the two infants to die. It was a non-disclosure point. With great respect to those who are proposing Clause 151, I do not think that it could possibly satisfy the test which Clause 151 sets out. The Court of Appeal did not go ahead to examine the significance of the evidence of Professor Meadow. It did not have to, because it found that non-disclosure was enough for the conviction to be unsafe and that was the standard being applied in that case.
Of course, there was no declaration of innocence; that certainly would not happen in our criminal Appeal Court. It was on the basis that it was unsafe on the ground of a non-disclosure. However, if one had gone on to look at the statistic, which was grossly irresponsible—indeed, Professor Meadow was taken to task by his professional body and found guilty of misconduct; serious misconduct was set aside, but he was found guilty of misconduct—that was evidence that should never have been placed before the jury, because the one point that he failed to disclose was that the statistic did not apply in a situation where two children were related. It was a statistic for when the children were unrelated, which was not the case that was being dealt with at all.
That raises a very real practical issue. The case destroyed that poor lady’s life, as we all know. I am haunted by the picture of her coming out of the court, having been successful in her second appeal. She had totally changed physically from when she went into prison and, as we all know, she later took her own life. If there was a case that called for compensation, surely that was it. I do not know what happened, as the case was decided early in the decade, before Mullen, which was the conviction from, I think, 2000 that was set aside. The question of the Mullen test did not arise and I think it was decided under some ex-gratia system, although I do not know the facts. However, that is not really what should disturb the Minister. The question is whether the test is one that could face up to that kind of case, which everybody would feel should see compensation.
It is a practical problem, and I support the Government a long way in their thinking. For reasons I have attempted to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I am not in favour of his amendment, and would certainly not support it in its present terms, but I do ask the Government to look more carefully at their own version of the clause.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally) (LD)
My Lords, I will correct the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on only one point. I think that at one point he referred to me as noble and learned. Nothing could be further from the truth—I think, in fact, I am the first non-lawyer to rise to his feet in this debate. But we are none the worse for that, because this is about getting it right. I am very pleased that the way in which the debate unfolded showed what a challenge the Government are trying to meet. I have one little chide for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen: he talked about the Government’s “ostensible” reasons, which implies that there are some less worthy reasons behind the legislation. Again, as the debate unfolded, it became clearer that we are trying to deal with some genuine problems. I believe that this debate will stand very good reading. We are all going off on recess and so will have the opportunity to study very carefully some very detailed speeches. The best advice that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, gave was that we should all listen carefully to the arguments. That is certainly what I intend to do.
We are going to some fundamental questions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, questioned whether Parliament has the right to override a carefully calibrated judgment of our Supreme Court. As I say, I am not a lawyer but I am, if I have any other description, a parliamentarian and have always thought that Parliament has that right, however well calibrated the judgment might be. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, was very keen to see it as an affront to that fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence and, indeed, as an affront to our common law. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, warned us that it was a breach of the European convention. Then, almost like the 7th Cavalry, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, came over the hill with what sounded like, even from my layman’s position, a magisterial dissection of the arguments. I hope and advise that all participants in the debate, and wider readers, read what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, had to say. He pointed out clearly that compensation was not available in all circumstances and that only a limited number would qualify. I will not try to repeat his arguments, as I want to study them carefully.
Lord Beecham
The Minister has given an interesting and full reply to what has been a very interesting and compelling debate, demonstrating yet again that consideration of these matters goes further and deeper in your Lordships’ House than it does in another place, where, frankly, this issue was dealt with in fairly peremptory fashion.
I am grateful to all Members of your Lordships’ House, particularly the noble and learned Lords, for their contribution to the debate, and I will certainly be taking my own advice and that of the Minister and reading very carefully and more than once the contributions that have been made in this very difficult area, both philosophically and in terms of jurisprudence.
It is interesting that the Minister rejects the test that is advanced in the amendment as not acceptable and again repeats the mantra that applicants are not required to prove their innocence because, as he implies, the amendment suggests that everybody whose conviction is quashed should be compensated. That is not what the amendment is intended to achieve and not what it says. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, identified one category where purely procedural defects of a significant nature—for example, somebody being wrongly brought over to this country for trial— was sufficient to make a conviction vulnerable to quashing, and indeed it was quashed. That did not give rise to the sort of concerns that the amendment seeks to address.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, happily this is a relatively short matter and appropriately I shall be speaking to it.
The issue here is a change to the way in which shoplifting is to be dealt with. The thrust of the Government’s proposals is to make a summary-only offence of shop theft below £200. That would facilitate matters being disposed of without trial following a written guilty plea, with a fine then usually being imposed on an absent defendant. It might seem somewhat illogical for the Government to preserve the right to elect trial for somebody even on a charge for such a moderate amount, but they are absolutely right to do this.
The problem identified by members of the retail trade and the Magistrates’ Association in particular, and perhaps also by others, is that under the present system an on-the-spot fine can be given for a low-value shop theft if the penalty, which I believe at the moment is £80, is not paid within 21 days. Half of them, incidentally, are not. It then becomes a higher fine of £120 and the court system manages the collection. That is a reasonable way to approach first-time offenders. It should not, however, continue to be available for repeat offences. The penalty notice for disorder—we are into alphabetical descriptions again: the PND—is not an admission of guilt.
The police often caution offenders for shop theft—that does require an admission of guilt. It could be the next stage after a previous PND. A summons to court may follow after two previous incidences of shop theft. If the Government’s measures turn this into a kind of postal process only, there is the danger that repeat offenders will accumulate a succession of fines without really being stopped or deterred at all. The view of the Magistrates’ Association is that a great deal of shop theft goes undetected as it is, and some offenders detected under this process for the third time will have committed nearer to 30 offences. This is obviously not good for the trade. It is also probably not good for the offenders. Many of them have huge problems. They may be afflicted by homelessness and a consequent inability to claim benefits, or they may have problems of addiction to drugs or alcohol. Of course, those aspects will not be picked up on at all under this process. There is therefore a double risk, both to the trader and, indeed, very often to the offenders.
The purpose of the amendment is therefore to narrow the scope within which these new procedures can apply. The figure is one which simply triggers the debate. In the Commons, my honourable friend Mr David Hansen who moved the amendment did so with two figures, £100 and £40. It is irrelevant which figure one looks at, the question is whether the system as proposed will produce more problems rather than fewer for both traders and potentially for offenders, and whether—at the very least—a lower figure might limit that. I hope that the Minister will consider that area. I am not expecting a complete response tonight, but perhaps by the time we come to Report the Government could have had another look at this issue with a view to seeing whether some of these fears which have been expressed by those with an interest in the matter can be properly addressed. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment —I suppose because it comes from my Front Bench. However, I do not like the provision in the Bill at all. Shoplifting has been with us, as it were, for a long time. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is unprecedented for shoplifting to be singled out as a form of theft that should receive special attention. What is the gain to the public of that?
Shoplifting is of course prosecuted under the Theft Act 1968. When I was a young barrister prosecuting young shoplifters up and down Oxford Street, the notion was that very few people did other than plead guilty. They wanted to get it out of the way. They certainly did not want to go for trial and have to wait until a jury trial could be arranged. Therefore, they invariably preferred the summary trial. I would be surprised if that were any different today.
I see little point in this clause if it introduces for the first time special provision relating to one particular kind of theft. Why this kind of theft? Why not theft from one’s employer, or from one’s friends and neighbours? Why shoplifting, in particular? From my experience of years ago, I am afraid that the general public seem to think that shoplifting is not nearly as serious as real theft. It is something that most people engage in when they are young, or otherwise. However, to label this aspect “shoplifting” rather than theft in general, as the Government are doing, is perhaps to lend credence to the notion that shoplifting is not so important at all.
I suggest that the very least which could be done would be to adopt the amendment of my noble friend Lord Beecham. Really, however, the Government ought to withdraw the clause. Is the Bill not big enough, covering enough subjects, as it is, without dragging in something which has no relevance to any other part of the Bill?
Lord McNally
It is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I have always thought of him as a complete Front-Bench loyalist but also acknowledge his considerable experience in this area. By the way, I am only teasing him about being a Front-Bench loyalist.
A long time ago I was director of the British Retail Consortium, and I know that it is one of the most irritating things for shopkeepers, large and small, when shoplifting is seen as some kind of victimless crime or childish prank. I often think, when looking at first-time offenders, that they should be listed as “first-time court offenders”. It is a scourge, and as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, knows as a former champion of the consumer, in the end the consumer pays for the tolerance of shop theft. Therefore this certainly in no way trivialises shop theft. We intend to produce guidelines for the police on these provisions and we are currently working with the police and retail associations to draft guidance on them, which we hope will be available in time for Report. That will primarily cover the circumstances under which it would be appropriate to pursue the Section 12 Magistrates’ Courts Act procedure, which allows defendants to plead guilty by post.
The volume of people who go through the court is certainly a problem. Just over 120,000 people were brought to justice for shop theft in 2012, 40% of whom received out-of-court disposals. However, we do not believe that these changes will result in shop theft being treated less seriously; in the vast majority of cases they will affect neither where the case is tried nor the sentence that is imposed. Ninety-nine per cent of shop theft cases are heard in magistrates’ courts, and of those who are convicted 98% are sentenced there. Only 1,650 shop theft cases were sentenced in the Crown Court last year, and 90% of them resulted in a sentence that the magistrates’ court could have given.
It is true that there are remaining concerns about that in the retail sector. However, we believe that they flow mainly from a misunderstanding about what the provisions seek to achieve. Any incident of theft continues to be a serious matter. However, the changes we are introducing simply enable more efficient processes to be employed to bring such cases to justice quickly. They do not change the fact that 99% of shoplifting cases are already considered in the magistrates’ court and that 90% of cases involve goods worth less than £200.
Amendment 16 would reduce the number of shop theft cases to which Clause 152 applies by reducing from £200 to £100 the monetary threshold that defines these cases. However, I appreciate that that was a figure given to stimulate the debate. The purpose of the clause is to enable cases of low-value shop theft to benefit from more efficient arrangements that are limited to summary-only offences. In particular, it will mean that the procedure that enables defendants to plead guilty by post will be available, and the police will be able to make use in these cases of powers that they already possess, whereby they can prosecute certain offences where they are uncontested. The result will be to speed up the prosecution of these cases and to provide swifter justice for retailers.
Nobody would suggest that the theft of valuable property should be made a summary-only offence. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and the £200 threshold was chosen on the basis of research that was done in 2006 for the Sentencing Advisory Panel. That showed that 90% of all shop theft cases heard in magistrates’ courts involved goods worth £200 or less. Lowering the threshold to £100 would catch rather fewer cases—77% of them, according to that research. I am not sure what would be gained by excluding cases where the item stolen was worth more than £100. Almost certainly it would have no effect at all on where the defendants were tried or on the sentence that could be given. It would simply mean that the more efficient and speedier procedures would not be available in those cases.
I assure noble Lords that we do not expect all cases of low-value shop theft to be dealt with by post and prosecuted by the police in the defendant’s absence. That is not the intention. It may well be appropriate for prolific shoplifters to be charged and bailed to appear in court, to be dealt with in person. That would not only be suitable but necessary in cases where a custodial sentence was in prospect. The new provisions do not prevent this: whether the “guilty by post” procedure is used is discretionary. This is a matter for guidance which we are developing, as I have just said.
Amendment 17 would exclude from the ambit of Clause 152 any case in which the defendant had already received a caution, conditional caution or penalty notice for disorder in respect of shop theft. It is not clear why a case should be excluded from the scope of these provisions simply because the defendant had previously received a caution or other out-of-court disposal. That sort of disposal is not an unusual outcome for a first offence of shop theft.
The Government are aware of concern about people being given a succession of cautions for similar offences and have considered this as part of the simple cautions review, the outcome of which we will announce shortly. The expectation will therefore be that defendants who have already received an out-of-court disposal will be prosecuted. Prosecution for low-value shop theft under the streamlined procedure permitted by the new section seems an obvious and appropriate next step, and it would be perverse to rule that out. A person being prosecuted for the first time for offending at this level is most unlikely to receive custody, and is therefore very suitable to be dealt with under the new procedure.
I am grateful for the contributions made and hope that the amendment prompted the debate for which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, hoped. I also hope that my explanation will provoke him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
I always enjoy being provoked by the Minister. On this occasion I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Touhig
“Protection arrangements for children and dependants
(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 174 (duty to give reasons for, and explain effect of, sentence) there is inserted—
“174A Duty to ask about children etc left behind
(1) Any court passing a custodial sentence on an offender who was on bail when awaiting sentence must ask what the arrangements are for the care of any children of the offender or any vulnerable adult who is dependent on the offender while the offender is in custody.
(2) If the court considers the arrangements are not satisfactory the court must make a referral to the relevant local authority social care team.
(3) Any person or body having statutory responsibilities for children or vulnerable adults must co-operate with the court in securing that arrangements are made for their safety in the circumstances to which subsection (1) refers.”
(3) The Bail Act 1976 is amended as follows.
(4) In section 5 (supplementary provisions about decisions on bail), after subsection (5), there is inserted—
“(5A) Where a court withholds bail in criminal proceedings from a person to whom section 4 of this Act applies, the court must ask what the arrangements are for the care of any children of the defendant or any vulnerable adult who is dependent on the defendant while the defendant is on remand in custody.
(5B) If the court considers the arrangements are not satisfactory the court must make a referral to the relevant local authority social care team.
(5C) Any person having statutory responsibilities for children or vulnerable adults must co-operate with the court in securing that arrangements are made for their safety in the circumstances to which subsection (5A) refers.”
(5) This section shall come into force two months after enactment.”
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who has asked me to apologise for his absence as he is en route to Kenya as we speak.
This probing amendment would introduce a very straightforward duty on courts to inquire whether individuals who are refused bail or sentenced to prison have caring responsibilities for any children or vulnerable adults and, if they do, to make a referral to the appropriate local authority if arrangements are not in place for their immediate safety and well-being.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, if he were here, would have sought to discover more about the Government’s plans to transform the probation service. He would have reminded the House that in pre-Grayling days family details would have been discovered by the probation service, which would have included this information in pre-sentence reports. I know he would have worried that a privatised probation service would not have the time to complete full reports, and I believe that he would have been right to do so.
Our proposed change in the amendment would not have any bearing on decisions about the length of sentence or whether bail is granted, nor would it place any onerous burden on courts to establish care provisions themselves. It is simply about identifying young, old or disabled people who have been left in a precarious situation as a result of their primary carer being imprisoned, so that the appropriate steps may be taken. Regrettably, far too many are let down by the current system.
At Second Reading, I spoke about a seven year-old boy who was neglected and, ultimately, left alone by friends after his mother was sentenced. Then there was the case of the young lady who was unaware of her daughter’s whereabouts and only discovered that she had been hospitalised after a support worker contacted four different councils. Finally, a 19 year-old boy was left caring for five siblings when his mother was denied bail. These give an indication of the kind of cases that organisations supporting this amendment—members of the Families Left Behind campaign—are regularly faced with. Charities such as the Prison Advice and Care Trust, Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and Caritas Social Action Network have all highlighted how vulnerable people are unnecessarily put at risk, sometimes overlooked for hours or even days. In such cases, serious risks often only become apparent when the prisoner talks to a support worker or chaplain about their family.
People facing trial or bail hearings are rightly encouraged to make arrangements for their dependants before entering the courtroom, and many do just that. Where the court is assured that suitable support is in place, this amendment will not necessitate any further action whatever. However, where those arrangements have not been made, perhaps because the defendant was confident of being released or was simply overwhelmed by the judicial process, it offers a vital opportunity for early intervention to prevent people from coming to harm. The importance of avoiding any break in care for children or vulnerable adults is well established. The Government themselves advise that children under 16 should not be left alone overnight; children under 12 should not be left alone for long periods of time; and babies or toddlers should never be left alone at all. The advice continues and warns that parents may be prosecuted if any child is left,
“in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health”.
Yet this is precisely the situation some children face when a parent is remanded in custody or sentenced to prison. The longer it takes for the appropriate authority to intervene, the greater the risk becomes.
Likewise, we are only too aware of the danger posed to older or disabled adults by depriving them of necessary support, even for a short time. We have all been appalled by cases in recent years where just one or two missed homecare visits have led to people being left in darkness, unable to use the toilet or even without vital medication. In more extreme situations, people have experienced serious harm, or even lost their lives, after falling through gaps in the system and finding themselves without support. Many steps are being taken to ensure that such tragedies are never repeated and that homecare schedules are properly adhered to. Yet equally robust provision is lacking in situations where a person’s primary carer is a relative or friend and they have been given a custodial sentence.
It is worth revisiting the number of people at risk of being left in these difficult circumstances. Some 200,000 children in England and Wales experience the imprisonment of a parent every year, more than twice the total number of children in the care system. While statistics for adults who experience the imprisonment of their carer are not centrally collected, this figure is also likely to be significant, given that the prison population currently stands at over 80,000 and approximately one in eight of Britain’s adults is a recognised carer. A simple process whereby courts make relevant inquiries and notifications regarding dependants, at the point when a sentence is passed or bail is refused, will go some considerable way to addressing current shortcomings, without creating significant pressure on either time or resources. The proposal also stands to reduce the need for the more intensive and costly intervention often required further down the line if people are left without support.
I therefore hope that we can take this opportunity to adopt this sensible and constructive measure. It is a small change in procedure but it will make a significant difference for a child who finds that there is no one to collect them from school because their mother has been refused bail, or for the elderly parent who finds that there is no one to help prepare their dinner because their son has been handed a custodial sentence. When anyone is sent to prison, the families and dependants who are left behind will invariably feel the consequences. It is perhaps impossible to completely mitigate the impact of losing a parent or carer in this way but we can and must make improvements to ensure that those innocent people who, through no fault of their own, are placed in positions of extreme vulnerability do not go unnoticed.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who took a great deal of trouble to write on a number of matters that came up at Second Reading but this was one issue that slipped through the net and was not referred to in his letter—just like many of the people who I talked about; they, too, slip through the net. Perhaps the Minister when he replies can give us some hope that our pleas have not fallen on deaf ears. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment. I mentioned at Second Reading that it was through my long association with the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders that I came to be sensitive to the issues behind the amendment. It was NIACRO, I think, that first coined the phrase, “the silent sentence”, which described in those few words the impact on families of the imprisonment of a parent or person caring for children.
It is highly significant that 12 or 13 NGOs or charities have come together to launch a campaign called the Families Left Behind. They point out:
“Children of prisoners are disproportionately represented amongst young offenders, the care population, children in poverty and children with mental health needs. Parental imprisonment is correlated with a range of other family problems including domestic violence and drug and alcohol misuse”.
It is significant that two-thirds of boys whose fathers have been in prison go on to offend. We should note that 66% of women currently in prison have children.
I shall give a little history of what has happened in the past two years. In 2011, Action for Prisoners’ Families together with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service—a significant combined action by a voluntary group and a statutory body—published a range of resources aimed at promoting good practice in relation to children or dependent adults whose primary carers had been sent to prison. These resources included new guidance asking magistrates to check that there are no immediate welfare needs concerning children or dependent adults. However, the sad fact is that many courts have not followed this guidance and therefore seem still to be unaware of the issues concerning the welfare of children and vulnerable dependants when the carer is placed in custody.
The amendment is quite right to place the responsibility clearly on the court making the sentence. This will be, I am sure, a matter to which we shall return on Report. Meanwhile, I look forward to the Government’s response.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I remember, on a visit to Holloway, being tackled very forcefully by a prison officer, who said how outraged she was, fulfilling her duties, sometimes quite late at night, of receiving and processing people who were being taken in to that prison after court proceedings, that only at that stage did the staff discover that there was somebody vulnerable at home. It is outrageous in any decent society that there is any possibility of something like this happening. I think sometimes that we just do not think through the consequences. Apart from the possible inhumane results, not that infrequently a vulnerable person in that situation will have been in the care of a woman or a man—it is not exclusively a matter for women—in a home that has had more of its share of disrupting influences on that child. For the child suddenly to be left in this predicament only compounds the insecurity that that child has faced in life and, indeed, could well accentuate a tendency to anti-social behaviour at a later stage.
If we are trying to reduce crime and encourage the young to forgo the possibility of delinquent behaviour, a demonstrable sense of care by society is very important. From that standpoint, it seems to me that this amendment is crucial. I will be very sad if the Minister feels unable to accept it, because I am quite certain that it must be pursued on Report. For a prison officer, who was deeply concerned, to raise the matter with me brought the point home to me all the more forcefully. It is quite shocking that this sort of situation can occur. The sooner we eliminate that possibility, the better.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I can well understand the problem that individuals facing sentence may be in denial about the consequences. In what I think is a parallel example, working on adoption through the Select Committee earlier this year and talking about placements of children and whether it was right for a child to be placed away from its birth parents, we were told time and again that it was at a very late stage that other members of the birth family would come forward offering to care for the child. I do not want to leap to conclusions on how this proposal might operate, so I ask the noble Lord whether he or those involved with this campaign—I regret that I have not seen the detail—have consulted, first, the courts and, secondly, the Local Government Association about the operation of such a scheme.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I just want to say that we entirely support the amendment moved by my noble friend and hope that the Government will give it serious and prompt consideration. It seems to make an absolutely unanswerable case and one that could lead to the saving of public money, quite apart from any other consideration, avoiding, for example, children having to be taken into care or extra services being required in an emergency, which would save the public purse. That is another reason for supporting the amendment and I hope that the Minister will be able to say something positive about it.
Lord McNally
I am reliably informed that the noble Lord might have to quit, and I fully understand that; I know how reliable east coast trains are.
This issue raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Judd, and by my noble friend Lady Hamwee is serious. I sometimes think that we are too ready to leap on the idea that the cold and uncaring state is not concerned about these matters. Sometimes some of these cases arise because an accused person has not informed anybody of children or dependants at home, and it is difficult in those circumstances to deal with matters. Courts already have a duty to take account of mitigating factors in every case, including the fact that an offender has primary care for children or other dependants. It is important that the presence of dependants is brought to the court’s attention, but the duty proposed in this amendment will not and could not force convicted offenders to tell the court about the existence of dependants.
The case law in this area makes it clear that a judge must perform a balancing act when making a sentence, weighing up the welfare of the child against other factors, such as the length of sentence and the necessary limitation on the offender’s rights by reason of their imprisonment. Where necessary, the court must obtain information on the consequences of the sentences on any children. It is important, therefore, that the existence of dependants is brought to the court’s attention. There will, however, be cases where the seriousness of offending is such that despite the existence of dependants a custodial sentence is necessary. I can also say that the changes in the women’s estate which I recently announced will try to make sure that women who are in prison and with family responsibilities are as close to home as the estate allows.
I appreciate that both noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Touhig, come to this from a deep concern. What they are proposing would place a duty on a criminal court following a decision to sentence an offender to immediate custody or to remand a defendant in custody to ascertain what arrangements had been made for the care of any child or dependant. I completely understand the sentiment behind the amendment. It is right that we should be concerned for the welfare of the children and dependants of those who are about to be deprived of their liberty. I am also aware of the Families Left Behind campaign from the Prison Advice and Care Trust—PACT—which also represents the views of a number of children’s charity and penal reform groups. Indeed, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, referred to this campaign in the Second Reading debate.
I have now seen a very helpful letter from Bronwen Fitzpatrick of PACT that explains in more detail the context of this amendment. Let me say at the outset that I do not disagree with the sentiment behind the amendment. I do, however, have real concern about the details and the practicalities of what is proposed. I will mention these concerns briefly without going into too much technical detail. I should also say that I would be happy to meet Bronwen Fitzpatrick, as she asks in her letter to me. PACT has already met the Children’s Minister, Ed Timpson, but I would be equally happy to see Bronwen Fitzpatrick with the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, if that would help.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I will be brief because I appreciate that other Members want to carry on with other matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a good point about whether the courts or the Local Government Association have been consulted. I am not sure, but it is a valuable question. However, I should point out that in a note to me, which I mentioned in my opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, did say that currently the probation service would provide family details for a pre-sentence report. Perhaps we are part of the way there.
My noble friend Lord Judd referred to the account of a prison officer who pointed out to him the number of people who are left behind when someone with older people or children to care for is sentenced. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made the point that a coalition of charities has come together to help this vulnerable group. However, that coalition has no power to change the law; only we have that power and we should do so. I welcome the remarks made by the Minister and his suggestion of a meeting, but here we have a chance to put in a safety net. I have no crystal ball, but I am as sure as God made little green apples that some way down the line, unless we put in this extra element of support in one way or another, there will be a case where an elderly vulnerable person is left uncared for and dies or a child is left uncared for and dies because of the system. It is not an uncaring system, but it is an oversight that will let people down. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pannick
“Marital coercion
The defence of marital coercion for a wife charged with an offence other than treason or murder is hereby abolished.”
Lord Pannick
My Lords, at the end of March, the Ministry of Justice stated that the Government were considering whether to ask Parliament to abolish the defence of marital coercion. That was after the defence was unsuccessfully relied upon by Vicky Pryce at her trial in March for taking speeding points on behalf of her husband, Mr Chris Huhne. I have tabled this amendment to find out when the Government hope to come to a conclusion on this matter.
Given the time, I shall deal with it briefly. Members of the Committee will know that Section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 contains a special defence for a wife who is charged with any criminal offence other than treason or murder. It is a defence for the wife to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of and under the coercion of her husband. No such defence applies to husbands for offences committed in the presence of wives. The defence cannot be claimed by a live-in partner of either sex, by the partners to a same-sex marriage or a civil partnership, by other family members who may live in the same household, or by employees. The defence does not apply if the husband is 100 metres away when the crime is committed. Neither wives nor any other person need this defence, because of the defence of duress and the ability to mitigate by reference to relevant circumstances. The existence of this special defence has repeatedly and consistently been criticised, including by the 1922 Avory Committee and by the Law Commission in its 1977 report, which concluded that the defence was not “appropriate to modern conditions”.
I hope that by Report the Minister will be able to tell the House that the Government agree that Section 47 is unnecessary, arbitrary and should be repealed. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
My Lords, for the sake of brevity, I hope that on Report I will be able to do just that.
Lord Pannick
I am very much obliged to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, before I move that the House resumes and, thereafter, adjourns, I would like to inform the House that, by agreement with the usual channels today, our business next Monday has changed. It will be the second day in Committee on the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill and it will not be the first day on Report of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.
That change and other agreed changes to our business over the next couple of weeks are reflected in the new edition of Forthcoming Business. I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House, particularly as we are about to go into recess, if I brought forward the publication of Forthcoming Business to today, rather than leaving it until tomorrow, so that the Convenor and the Chief Whips of all groups may send out that information as soon as possible. I am grateful to the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip for his co-operation in this matter.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Chief Whip for the Government for the gracious way in which she has dealt with this issue and record my thanks to her and the Government for responding positively and flexibly to our proposals to reorganise business. I hope that the House is happy with that, it having been somewhat unhappy at an earlier stage. This all helps to ensure that the usual channels work as well as possible for all concerned.