Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 4th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)]

My Lords, I will add just a line or two to all the statements so far. I immensely commend the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for having the guts and fearsomeness of argument, the persistence and, thank goodness, the irritation to keep going and pushing this as far as we reasonably and possibly can—and must.

We will hear, as we have already, essentially Second Reading re-runs, because we are all just fed up and angry. We know, as the Minister knows, that in his file sit rather wishy-washy arguments about public protection which just do not stack up. One of the reasons they do not is that any assessment of those still languishing in prison will show that, of the 1,000 plus on IPP sentences, looking at their original time of sentence, 80% of them were for non-violent offences. In which case, based on accurate judicial knowledge of those individuals, we cannot say that they pose a public risk. Because they have never been let out, we have no evidence to prove that they will behave otherwise. When they did go to courts for sentencing, they were not there for violent actions; in which case, let them out, for goodness’ sake.

Do not continue to use the argument that there is a public protection issue; that is nonsense. It is simply a very nice Civil Service and Secretary of State way to say that we do not want to deal with it, because it keeps the public smiling. Ministers know that what they are really doing is perpetuating a gross, unacceptable injustice and acts of torture that are destroying individuals’ lives and sending them to suicide and desecration, and which are a gross stain on what we call justice or anything to do with it. I beg Ministers to take those pages out, hand them back to civil servants and say, “Meet some real prisoners”.

I continue to receive information—three times in the last month—directly from prisoners who are on IPP sentences who have heard nothing of the provisions of last year’s legislation. This is even though all sorts of messages went out from the Ministry of Justice last year and this year to inform governors that they should make sure prisoners know about the changes in the regulations and legislation, and that reconsideration of their position is possible. They have heard nothing. Why? Some say that frankly, the system does not believe it is going to work. There is also too much bureaucracy in it.

When we look at the range of amendments before us, both the probing ones but also, if necessary, the voting ones, what we are really seeing is all of us finding ways to hedge around this untidy mess. It is an untidy mess because the simplicity of accepting that a wrong has been consistently done means that there is a more straightforward way for a right to be consistently done. Give dignity to the individuals involved, accepting, as in the group meeting the Minister mentioned, that there may well be a few hundred who are simply so mentally distressed that they cannot participate in the process, they have lost hope altogether, they feel there is no point to their reassessment and they almost want to hang back on it all. That is a tragedy; it is a loss of human dignity and a destruction of their souls.

For those few hundred, we need to find a different way to support their mental recovery, as one of the amendments does, but when it comes to the majority, we are begging the Minister not to swallow the argument that this is all about public protection. Those of us who work in prisons week in, week out, know very well that it is not.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I want to contribute to this debate as I did at Second Reading, not that I have the expertise on the justice system that other participants have. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for championing the Bill. I agree, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, just said, that this is an injustice amounting to torture. The ball is being kicked down the road in a completely unacceptable fashion. There is a way out—there are several ways out, actually—and I will come later to the Howard League proposals that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, mentioned.

I principally think that insofar as there is risk, it may be no more than would be taken in the release of prisoners under a normal regime. It has, however, become a great concern of the Government that they could get blamed if people are released from IPP sentences and go on to commit other offences. Blame already attaches when other prisoners are released, but there is a particular fixation on this and I think we have to give the Government the courage, on a cross-party basis, to tackle this.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, talked about the guts of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who, having been the instigator of the original regime, has had the guts to admit that it was the wrong thing to do. We had the report from the Justice Select Committee in the other place, which was cross party. The former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk repeated the conclusion of our late colleague and former Supreme Court justice Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood about the IPP system being a stain on our justice system. In one of her first speeches in the other place last July, during a debate about IPP, the present Lord Chancellor said,

“The situation with IPP prisoners is of great concern … We want to make progress with that cohort of prisoners”.”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/24; col. 180.]


Well, that was already almost a year ago.

Concern has been expressed across the political spectrum; the Government should take that into account and be ready to grasp the nettle. It has taken decades for there to be recognition of injustice in other sectors. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, talked about the Post Office Horizon scandal, and we had the infected blood scandal and several others. In this country, we seem to be very bad at righting wrongs with dispatch.

In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, I would like to give the IPP system a huge whack, because it is a scandal and an outrage. I refer to the report that was published a couple of weeks ago by the Howard League for Penal Reform. The league had an expert committee—very expert, not least because it was chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. In his foreword to the report, he said:

“History shows that governments invariably find it difficult to remedy state wrongs; this is even more so when those subject to the injustice have broken the law. Successive governments have now recognised that the IPP sentence was a mistake. It is long overdue for those whose lives continue to be blighted by this sentence to be released from its clutches”.


There are six recommendations in the report. I hope and believe that the Minister has read it. I am glad to see that he is nodding. On these Benches and others, we place great hopes in the sense and experience of the Minister in this area.

The Bill is about resentencing. The amendments tabled today are modifications to the original proposals, but the Howard League is proposing another way. I do not want to detract from resentencing. We all wanted to see resentencing, but for reasons which passeth all understanding, this Government are apparently no more willing—unless the Minister is going to surprise us out of our skins—to accept resentencing. I hope that he can give us some encouragement that he is willing to look at another scheme, such as that put forward by the Howard League, which is to have what it calls a two-year conditional release. This would modify the current approach of the Parole Board, which requires the board to decide whether it is necessary for the protection of the public for the individual to be detained.

The proposal in the report is that in IPP cases, the Parole Board should be asked to set a date for when the person will be released, within a two-year window, and what is required to achieve that safely. This would give the certainty of a release date, alleviating the significant mental distress of those serving the sentence, increase the likelihood of re-engagement for those who have lost confidence in the system, for reasons we can all understand, and facilitate the safe and speedy release of those who are stuck in prison on IPP sentences. There are other suggestions in the report which I do not wish to take up time talking about, but the main one is a reform to the recall system, the operation of which is very bad.

I do hope that if the Minister cannot help us on resentencing today, he can give us a chink of light to end this scandalous, outrageous injustice and is willing to say that within a short time the Government will seize this issue and give hope to people, their families and friends, and all of us who hate to see this injustice and the hopelessness that goes with it. I am preaching to the converted with these sentiments, I believe: what we need now is a practical scheme to get out of this terrible situation.

Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which I have mentioned, introduced a new power to enable the Secretary of State to release recalled IPP and DPP prisoners using a risk-assessed recall review where safe to do so, without the offender requiring a release decision from the Parole Board. We now consider every recalled IPP and DPP offender for RARR, as it is called. This has already been used to enable swifter release and, in some cases, we have seen recalled IPP prisoners released several months ahead of their parole hearing. The noble Lord will know that not everyone who is recalled to prison is an IPP prisoner, but 30% of IPP recalls are because of a further charge for an alleged offence.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Government decline to do anything radical to end the Orwellian system of IPP sentences because they are concerned about public protection. Obviously, we all are, but there is no absolute guarantee that non-IPP prisoners will never reoffend. Why, then, do the Government pursue this unrealistic goal for IPP prisoners, thereby trapping them in a limbo that is rightly described—not only by my noble friend but across the political spectrum—as a terrible stain on our criminal justice system?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that it is a terrible stain on our justice system. In the job that I am doing, it is my job to make sure that as many IPP-sentenced prisoners engage with the action plan, get released, stay out and not come back. In 2024, the number of IPP unreleased fell by 182, and recalls fell by 83, but noble Lords will, I am sure, be aware that we are dealing with a number of issues in our prisons at the moment to do with a lack of capacity. We are battling to make sure that we get prisoners in the right prison to engage with the action plan, and hopefully they will get out and stay out.

Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, when I ask how many scandals have to be endured by the citizens of this country before a Government finally say, “No, we are not going to repeat the mistakes of the Post Office Horizon scandal or Windrush or infected blood or Hillsborough or Grenfell. We are going to act to right wrongs and address horrendous injustices”.

The very welcome initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, in proposing this Bill deserves nothing less than a fully positive response from the Government. There is no excuse for not giving one. We are told that so far they have copied the previous Government in refusing to countenance the resentencing solution recommended so forcefully by the Justice Committee in the other place in its 2022 report because they are concerned about dangerous prisoners being released. The admirable then chairman of that committee, Tory Sir Bob Neill, has been followed in the chair by Labour’s Andy Slaughter, who also says that addressing the IPP scandal is a priority.

The first reason to effect change is the very simple and straightforward ethical and moral argument of justice. The Government need to find a backbone. Those behind bars include James Lawrence, who has served almost 18 years after being originally sentenced to just eight months—25 times over his original tariff. Ninety IPP prisoners have committed suicide, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, mentioned. One man set himself alight and another went on hunger strike for 61 days in protest at his plight, which has rightly been called Kafkaesque. Labour’s Bambos Charalambous told the other place in a debate he initiated two weeks ago of

“the heightened risk of self-harm and suicide that IPP prisoners face as a result of their hopelessness and their perpetual state of anxiety at the prospect of additional years in prison”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/24; col. 223WH.]

It is no wonder that the UN special rapporteur on torture has called IPP sentences psychological torture.

What are this Government going to do? Are they going to keep these nearly 3,000 imprisoned people locked up arbitrarily and indefinitely, just like in Guantanamo? That is not hyperbole. Are these prisoners going to become any less dangerous or challenging by getting more and more embittered, angry, hopeless and mentally ill as a result of their outrageous continued confinement? That is surely justification enough to end this scandal but, if it is needed, a second reason is practicality in the light of the prison overcrowding crisis. Of course, the Probation Service needs to be better resourced and other support needs to be put in place in proper release plans to prevent former prisoners experiencing poverty, homelessness, joblessness and other factors that make reoffending more likely, as brought out in the exchange on this topic in Oral Questions yesterday when the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, was deputising for the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, in his ministerial role.

The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, rightly talked about risk management and support, and of course that has to be in place, but it comes back to the indefensible inhumanity of keeping these people in prison. I applaud the criminal justice campaigners and the families who have lobbied and battled on this issue. Clara White, sister of Thomas White, whose mental health has, unsurprisingly, deteriorated in prison, where he has languished for 12 years for stealing a mobile phone, has said that it will take a

“stronger fight than ever before”

to finally put an end to this cruel programme. I am up for this fight because I am outraged that not only did the previous Government refuse to act but so far this Government have too. I hope to hear a change of heart.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble lord, Lord Woodley, of Wallasey, for securing this Second Reading of his Bill. The aims behind it are undoubtedly admirable, and I respect the way in which he and colleagues have put their case today, demonstrating the depth of their knowledge and their willingness to continue engaging constructively with the Government. In particular, I mention my noble friend Lord Blunkett, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I value your Lordships’ continuing engagement on this matter, building on the IPP reforms legislated for in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which this Government are implementing in full, and which has already reduced the numbers of people serving IPP sentences in the community by two-thirds.

I would not want to repeat what has already been said in the debate today, but I will set out the Government’s broad approach to IPP sentences and our position on the Bill. I say at the outset that I recognise the challenges faced by IPP offenders who remain in the system. As CEO of the Timpson Group, I met and employed 30 people who were serving IPP sentences. These are human beings we are talking about, and I am sure that noble Lords find it as difficult as I do to hear the details of individual cases when I visit prisons and sit in cells with IPP prisoners.

The Government are clear that it was absolutely right to abolish the IPP sentence, and I am determined to do all we can to support the remaining IPP offenders, especially the 2,694 still in prison, to finish their sentences. We are also clear that the first priority and responsibility of any Government is to protect the public. That was the thinking behind the measures that we took to alleviate pressure in our prisons and prevent the total breakdown of law and order in our country. We must never lose sight of that need to keep the public safe. Every offender still serving an IPP sentence in prison remains on our watch-list, and we have a duty of care to them.

While we must ensure that prisoners are treated fairly and given every opportunity to make progress towards their release, public protection must always be at the forefront of any action we take on this issue. That is what the public, and in particular the victims of IPP offenders, want, need and expect. It is right that IPP offenders are risk assessed and released only when it is determined that they can be safely managed in the community. It is also right that those determinations are made by the Parole Board. If resentencing were to take place, in line with what is proposed in this Bill, the Parole Board would no longer play that critical role—and in fact, its previous work in each case would be disregarded entirely.

Legislating to give every IPP prisoner a definite release date and post-release licence, or legislating to provide for resentencing by a court, would result in them being released automatically. This would be the case even where the Parole Board had previously determined, in many cases repeatedly, that they continue to be too dangerous to be released, as they have failed to meet the statutory release test. Either legislative approach would put the public at an unacceptable risk of harm, which the Government are not prepared to countenance, whether for any or all IPP prisoners through any partial resentencing. As I set out when I repeated the Statement the Lord Chancellor made in the other place on 22 October, IPP sentences are not included as part of the wider recent independent sentencing review, as the review is looking at sentences which remain on the statute book.

I realise that this is a disappointment to noble Lords in favour of the Bill. However, I assure colleagues that we remain committed to making serious and meaningful progress, at pace, for those serving IPP sentences. To do so, we must focus on reducing their risk: this is the best way to move them closer to obtaining a release direction from the Parole Board. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Wolfson and Lord Moylan, will be pleased to know that the first IPP annual report, which was delayed because of the general election, will be published today. It covers HMPPS’s activity on IPP sentences during the reporting period to March this year and contains a refreshed IPP action plan which emphasises the delivery of front-line services to help offenders reduce their risk.

As a starting point, offenders must have accurate, up-to-date and effective sentence plans which enable them to access support to make progress towards their rehabilitation. They also need to be in the right prisons—ones which can offer the services specified in their sentence plans. As things stand, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton made clear, around 30% of IPP offenders are not in appropriate settings. I am clear that this is not good enough and I am determined to address it as a matter of urgency, working with HMPPS to make sure that people are transferred to the right prisons wherever that is necessary for them to make progress. It can and it will improve.

We must also ensure that HMPPS knows where each IPP prisoner is on their journey through their sentence. Every prison region now has detailed information on its IPP cohort through a dedicated IPP data dashboard. We can use this information to create new tailored plans to ensure that they are in the best prison to access the interventions and services they need to aid their rehabilitation. For the first time, every IPP prisoner is being given an internal progress rating, reviewed every six months to monitor progression. This traffic light system will allow us to identify those never released and not engaged in a sentence plan, ensuring that we can direct resources to those who need it most. Each prisoner will also be regularly assessed by a range of experts through dedicated IPP progression panels to ensure that they have a clear path to release.

These are vital changes, which will ensure that people on the IPP sentence have the right sentence plans, understand what is required of them and face fewer barriers to making progress towards a safe release. In addition, I am pleased to confirm that the Chief Medical Officer has agreed to include consideration of the IPP sentence in his independent review of offender health. This will help us to better understand the specific health challenges faced by those serving the sentence and to work with the Department for Health and Social Care to improve the support available to them.

I also reassure colleagues that this Government are committed to increasing accountability. The Lord Chancellor will lay the first statutory IPP annual report, under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, before Parliament next summer, to set out the work HMPPS has been doing to support those serving IPP sentences throughout the current reporting period. The report will highlight where sufficient progress is not being made and enable us to take action where necessary. We will continue to review the IPP action plan to ensure that it is delivering results and adapts to any opportunities to do more. This will include supporting those who have never been released and those who have been recalled to custody, both of which my noble friend Lord Woodley and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, highlighted.

Recall remains an important tool for keeping the public safe and there is no evidence to suggest that IPP offenders have been recalled unnecessarily. Indeed, contrary to the concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation’s thematic review of IPP recalls concluded last year that decisions to recall IPP offenders have been proportionate and necessary to protect the public, albeit that in some cases it was acknowledged that better support could be provided when individuals are on licence outside prison, prior to recall being instigated.

Though improvements to our approach in prisons are clearly necessary, I am grateful to colleagues across HMPPS for everything they are doing to support IPP offenders. With continued support, all IPP prisoners for whom it is safe and appropriate can and will be released.

The idea of an expert resentencing panel was specifically mentioned by my noble friends Lord Blunkett, Lord Woodley and Lady Blower, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Burt of Solihull. As I have said, the Government are determined to support those serving the IPP sentence to make progress towards safe releases, but I do not think it is fair or appropriate to raise false hope by setting up an expert panel on resentencing.

I recognise the proposal of my noble friend Lord Woodley, for a partial resentencing exercise. As your Lordships will appreciate, there would need to be a strong legal justification for treating one cohort of offenders differently from another serving the same sentence. Partial resentencing of a specific cohort would not address the Government’s public protection concerns and the vital role of the Parole Board.

My noble friend suggested resentencing those who have been released and who are now serving their sentence on licence in the community. These offenders now have a clear and potentially shorter pathway to the end of their sentence by virtue of the Victims and Prisoners Act. These reforms provide for a much greater chance of earlier licence termination, either at the end of the reduced qualifying period or after the two-year automatic period, while also enabling them to access the support to successfully reintegrate into society. There is also no requirement for them to prove again, once in the community, that they are still safe to be released. At the end of the qualifying period, the Parole Board will simply consider whether the licence should be terminated; otherwise, it will terminate automatically, so long as the person is not recalled in the following two years.

My noble friends Lord Woodley and Lord Blunkett also questioned why the Government will not establish an expert advisory committee to advise on the operation of a resentencing exercise. This is not a new issue and your Lordships have debated it many times, including during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act in the last Parliament. Despite the expertise across this House and elsewhere, nobody has been able to identify a way of resentencing those serving the IPP sentence in a way that would not involve releasing offenders who the independent Parole Board has determined pose too great a risk to the public. Again, the Government would not want to give false hope to those serving the sentence. I think that establishing an expert advisory panel would run that risk.

My noble friend Lord Blunkett spoke about legal challenges to the IPP sentence and the possibility of setting up a panel to expedite IPP cases through the Parole Board. There have been multiple applications to the Court of Appeal since the introduction of the IPP sentence, both successful and unsuccessful. Recently appealed cases have not set a new precedent and were for specific legal reasons. Individual cases do not warrant a full review of all IPP sentenced individuals for the purposes of speeding up the parole process or supporting the Court of Appeal and, crucially, this would not have an impact on the Parole Board’s assessment of the release test.

Reviewing IPP cases for consideration at the Court of Appeal would be a large undertaking, which would encroach on the independence of the judiciary and effectively replicate the role the court already provides. The Parole Board reviews IPP cases at least every two years and, in many cases, more regularly. The assessment as to whether the statutory release test is met is required at each review and a prior sift would be ineffective as, legally, every case must be reviewed by the Parole Board.

The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, raised the challenges around recall and asked about the differences between recalls and reoffending levels of those serving the IPP sentence and those on other sentences. Regrettably, we know that this cohort of offenders does reoffend and are recalled when their risk cannot be safely managed in the community. The threshold for the recall of IPP offenders is significantly higher than for determinate sentence offenders, requiring there to be a link to the behaviour surrounding the index offence before a recall can be issued. I will, however, write to him soon with available figures.

Mental health and preventing harm or suicide were mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Moylan, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. It is a tragedy when someone takes their own life and our thoughts go out to their loved ones. It is crucial that we provide the right interventions at the right time to prevent people harming themselves, and we are working closely with healthcare partners to that end.

Those who have a severe mental health need and require detention under the Mental Health Act are referred and assessed to determine whether transfer to hospital is needed. The Mental Health Bill, introduced on 6 November, includes vital reforms to support people with severe mental illness in the criminal justice system. It aims to speed up access to specialist in-patient care, ensuring that offenders, including IPP prisoners, and defendants with severe mental health needs can access appropriate and timely support in the most appropriate way.

The UN special rapporteur’s call for IPP sentences to be reviewed was talked about by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Blower. I met Dr Edwards a fortnight ago and set out, as I have today, the work we are doing through the IPP action plan to boost support and make progress for IPP offenders.

In closing, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for continuing to shine a light on the situation faced by IPP offenders. I share his concerns and his compassion. I was very pleased to meet him and several colleagues last week to discuss this important issue and I hope noble Lords will take up my offer to meet regularly to continue those discussions. It is very important to me to continue to engage with all stakeholders and to understand their concerns and perspectives on the IPP sentence. That is why I will be attending the next HMPPS IPP external stakeholder challenge group meeting in December, where I look forward to meeting more of the campaign groups and independent bodies which have a strong interest in improving outcomes for those serving the IPP sentence.

While the Government cannot support the Bill today, we agree that everything must be done to support those serving IPP sentences. I am working with HMPPS and the Parole Board to continue making progress, but I realise there is much more to do. Any action we take on this issue must and will be taken swiftly, while upholding our first duty of protecting the public. I thank the noble Lord for raising this important matter.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

A lot of what the Minister has said was reasonable and progress, but I did not get a sense that he is responding to what some of us called this Kafkaesque situation. He said that it is not safe or appropriate to release some people. Does he accept that he is not really conveying that he grasps that these people are victims of the state? The cruel injustice and psychological torture they have suffered are partially the fault of the state. If this is not to be added to the list of other scandals, something must be done which may be outwith the scale of other criminal justice challenges. I did not really get a sense that he sees it in that dimension.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for raising that point. I believe in the IPP action plan. I spent a lot of time reviewing it with colleagues and I want to engage with it for all those 2,964 people serving IPP sentences so that they are in the right prison and get the right support. My priority is to support HMPPS colleagues carrying out the action plan, because that is the best route to get these people out of prison.

Community Sentences (Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Friday 26th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, both the prisons crisis and, more happily, the very wide welcome that has been given to our new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, in the media and during the debates on Wednesday, provide a perfect backdrop for this debate on the report from our Justice and Home Affairs Committee, then chaired by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. The Minister’s background as a former chair of the Prison Reform Trust and in his family business, which practices what he preaches, gives a great deal of heart to those hoping for deep reform of the criminal justice system.

The Lord Chancellor, in her recent announcement on prison capacity, said:

“Longer term, we will also look at driving down reoffending, because the entrenched cycle of reoffending creates more victims and more crime, and it has big impacts on our ability to have the capacity that we need in our prison estate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/24; col. 180.]


She made no mention of how to reduce the use of prison, such as community sentences, but my right honourable colleague Alistair Carmichael did, saying:

“The answer surely has to be more than just building more prison capacity. The problem is not that our prison estate is too small; it is that we send too many people to prison, and that the time they spend there does nothing to tackle the problems of drug and alcohol dependency, poor literacy and numeracy skills, and poor mental health, which led to their incarceration. Can we hope to hear in the very near future the Government’s comprehensive plan to tackle the issue of the time that people spend in prison?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/24; col. 180.]


So it was heartening to hear the Minister in an interview with Channel 4 refer to the Dutch experience, saying:

“They have shut half their prisons. Not because people are less naughty in Holland. It is because they have got a different way of sentencing, which is community sentencing, so people can stay at home, keep their jobs, keep their homes, keep reading their kids bedtime stories and it means they are far less likely to commit crime again”.


That completely gels with the report, which emphasises that too many low-level and non-violent offences are dealt with through short sentences, but that these can be counterproductive and more likely to compound the issues that lead to crime in the first place. If someone needs support to move away from non-violent crime, they will have better access to the services that can help them if they are being supervised in the community.

The report’s very first sentences are:

“Crime can be reduced through rigorous sentences served in the community. With the right investment, intensive community sentences can succeed where short prison sentences fail”.


“Rigorous” and “intensive” are key adjectives. The report points out that community sentences are

“demanding on the offender and help them stop committing crime, thereby protecting the public. Breach mechanisms mean that offenders are being held to account”.

It also points out that community orders can save the public purse money, not only through reducing the use of expensive custody—since even the most intensive types of community orders cost less than prison—but through a reduction in reoffending.

But courts are not utilising community sentences as widely as they might. Over 151,000 community sentences were issued in 2012, but the number steadily declined over the following decade to just 69,000 in 2022—a reduction of over half. So the committee understandably reports that there is untapped potential for keeping offenders out of prison and supporting them to avoid reoffending, but the scope for effective results needs to be better understood.

One barrier to overcome is the all-too-widespread perception, reinforced and hyped by much of the media, that community sentences are a cop-out for offenders. The Justice Committee in the other place, under the excellent chairmanship of Sir Bob Neill, said in its report on public opinion and understanding of sentencing:

“Low levels of understanding of sentencing have an effect on the quality of public debate on sentencing, which in turn can have an influence on sentencing policy … There needs to be a step-change in the Ministry of Justice, the Attorney General’s Office and the Sentencing Council’s efforts on public legal education”.


Is there more that the Minister believes can be done in this regard? Will the Government be robust when predictable quarters of the press accuse them of being “soft on crime” and point out that in fact changing behaviour is jolly hard work?

Another barrier to greater use of community sentences is the sorry state of the Probation Service a decade after Chris Grayling launched his ideological and disastrous “transforming rehabilitation” so-called reforms, which actually involved fragmentation and part-privatisation. The role of the Probation Service is key, as the report highlights. Lack of sentencer confidence in probation’s ability to effectively deliver community sentencing must have been shaped in part by the chaos and constant policy churn in the Probation Service, which has suffered a disastrous impact on its staff retention.

The Lord Chancellor made a welcome commitment to recruit 1,000 more trainee probation officers by March 2025 but, as she has acknowledged, this is not new investment but a “redeployment of resources”. This is not particularly encouraging. The committee stresses the need for manageable case loads, as probation officers are often managing more than 70 cases. As my noble friend pointed out, the Chief Inspector of Probation in England and Wales, Martin Jones, was reported on Monday as saying that the current model for the Probation Service was not sustainable; unfortunately, one of his suggestions was to reduce the demand on probation officers to monitor people released from prison. Will the Minister respond to those concerns about the non-sustainability of the Probation Service?

Some commentators believe that the issue goes beyond money and that the Probation Service needs a strategic focus, with national leadership and accountability coupled with localised service delivery. There are suggestions around for reorganisation. The committee’s report suggests:

“When services are provided locally, various agencies can cooperate effectively. The co-location and co-commissioning of services are the gold standard”.


Do the Government have any thoughts on the Howard League’s suggestion—I am pleased that its president, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, will speak in the gap—of delivering probation work through local community justice partnerships, each with a board including representatives from the police, local authorities, local voluntary groups and members of the community, sentencers, health boards and regional prison management?

The committee’s report stresses that pre-sentence reports produced by the probation service are an essential part of the sentencing process. However, the probation service has been under great stress and has not always been able to produce these reports. Do the Government have any new thinking on how to encourage the greater production and scope of pre-sentence reports?

As others have said, our committee’s report points out that:

“The need for mental health, and alcohol and drug treatment far exceeds the current rate of imposition of Community Sentence Treatment Requirements, which itself exceeds the availability of treatment”.


How will the Government ensure better provision of treatment facilities?

The report wants incentives to be created to encourage low-level, repeat offenders to engage with rehabilitation, and says that

“The approach which underpins Ireland’s ‘integrated’ Community Service Order is a helpful model”.


Do the Government see scope in looking to what Ireland is doing?

The report comments favourably on the effectiveness of “wraparound rehabilitative support” offered to female offenders and some young people, wanting it to be a model for probation services generally. Do the Government agree with those suggestions? Does the Minister have any thoughts on how to avoid the cliff edge at 18, which the report stresses?

Finally, the committee’s report stresses the importance of the availability of housing, saying:

“Being homeless makes it difficult”—


if not impossible—

“to comply with the requirements of a community order”.

I am glad that the new Government are giving long-overdue prominence to the supply of housing, but is the connection to offending being given specific attention?

We clearly have great hopes of the new Government bringing a new approach to criminal justice. We wait with eagerness to hear the detail of the Government’s commitment.

European Court of Human Rights: Rule 39

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I agree in principle with the comments made by my noble friend.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Government play fast and loose with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. This has not inhibited them in invoking Article 8 of the ECHR—the right to private and family life—in their application for judicial review against the Covid inquiry. Article 8, as well as judicial review, has been demonised by successive Tory Governments—I seem to recall something about a cat, from Theresa May when she was Home Secretary. Will the Government make it a hat-trick of hypocrisy by seeking interim measures under Rule 39 from the Strasbourg court if they do not get satisfaction domestically over that Covid inquiry JR?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

With respect to the noble Baroness, that question does not arise. The Government have no intention of going to Strasbourg on that issue. Article 8 is a very important part of the convention, which is also part of domestic law through the Human Rights Act. The subject of today’s question is the Rule 39 power, which is quite a difficult question.

National Security Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Lords Chamber

Debate on whether Clause 87 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I will speak to the question of whether Clause 87 should stand part of the Bill, which is in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I will also speak to the question of whether Clause 88 should stand part.

Many aspects of this Bill are problematic. This Committee on Monday debated one of the biggest aspects—the proposed foreign influence registration scheme—and has just been debating another on damages. I apologise for my unavoidable absence, which meant that I did not speak to the amendment in my name, but it was very adequately covered by my noble friend Lord Marks and subsumed in a very interesting global debate. I venture to suggest that no aspect of this Bill is so lacking in validity or is so stupidly—if I may say so and that word is not unparliamentary—counter- productive as the proposal to deny for 30 years civil legal aid to anyone convicted of a terrorist offence.

The first problem is that in their ECHR memorandum to the Bill, the Government claim that Article 7 of the ECHR, which bans retrospective penalties, is not breached because this is an administrative measure only. However, their argument involves an acknowledgement that the aim of this denial of civil legal aid is symbolic. They say:

“the aim of the measure is symbolic, in that the purpose of the restriction is to reflect the significance of the bonds with the State and society that are broken by the commission of terrorist offences.”

Should we be making law on such a basis? How can it be legal to make law which is to achieve a symbolic purpose? Surely a clash with the ECHR would beckon. Perhaps that is one that this current Government, unfortunately, might welcome.

The second problem is the rule of law challenge regarding access to justice. The report of the Joint Committee on Human rights cites the evidence from the Law Society:

“It is fundamental to the rule of law that our justice system rests on the clear principle that every judgment relies on the merits of the case brought before the court. We should not automatically be excluding people from legal advice and support because of unrelated convictions. To do so will diminish access to justice in our country and could affect the objectivity of our legal system.”


I suggest that that is a very important point. It is not as if the cohort to be affected is simply those convicted of serious terrorist offences, because it is defined broadly, catching some more minor and historic offending—indeed, some which might not be considered terrorist activity at all. It could include the offence of failing to disclose a suspicion that another person is fundraising or money laundering for terrorist purposes. As it covers any conviction, it could also affect individuals given less severe sentences, such as a referral order. It could also bar from accessing civil legal aid individuals convicted of an offence which has since been abolished. The Law Society highlighted to the JCHR that it could affect

“a person fleeing from domestic abuse who is prevented from accessing an injunction against their abuser, and protection for their human rights, because of a twenty-year old conviction for a terrorist offence.”

The ramifications are very wide. The former Attorney-General Sir Jeremy Wright said during the Second Reading debate in the other place:

“I do not think we have ever before contemplated determining someone’s eligibility for civil legal aid based on previous criminal behaviour.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/22; col. 603.]

That was a previous Attorney-General. This sets out a serious question about the basis for these proposed provisions denying civil legal aid.

The third point is about the practical implications. These were raised by the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC. He said:

“Even symbolic restrictions may have practical consequences. No released terrorist offender is going to reoffend merely because their access to civil legal aid is restricted. But legal advice and assistance is relevant to securing help on housing, debt and mental health. A homeless terrorist offender, or one whose mental health needs are unaddressed, will present a higher risk to the public. There is a risk of unintended consequences.”


Do we want to seek to reintegrate people who have committed offences in the past? If we do, denying civil legal aid perhaps 20 or 30 years later for something like housing or debt problems does not seem the right way of going about it. As Jonathan Hall said, it is highly counterproductive. He said:

“A terrorist offender who goes back into society and lives quietly presents a rosier prospect than one who needs perpetual monitoring.”


Those are the practical consequences. This may be some great symbolic declaration, and I am afraid we are a bit too familiar with that sort of symbolism from this Government. In practice, it is counterproductive.

My fourth and last point is that it is counterproductive as it will create more bureaucracy. This was also highlighted by the Law Society. It is going to create large volumes of bureaucracy for the Legal Aid Agency. As far as I know, the Legal Aid Agency is under the remit of the Ministry of Justice. There are certainly other Ministry of Justice agencies affected too. I think before recess we discussed the probate service. I unfortunately have had experience of that myself in the last few years when I was bereaved. There are other agencies under the Ministry of Justice which are seriously struggling to deliver a decent service to the public. Is it a good idea in those circumstances to create more bureaucracy for another agency in the justice family?

It creates more bureaucracy because the Legal Aid Agency will have to confirm whether every applicant for civil legal aid has a previous conviction for terrorism and do lots of digging to find out information about this person. As the JCHR says,

“This may significantly increase the cost to the public purse, while it is unclear how this measure would contribute to public security and safety … Clauses 62-63 do contemplate a lesser form of legal aid, Exceptional Case Funding”,


but this is, in the view of the Law Society

“a very bureaucratic process”

which

“puts in place a significant obstacle to access to justice given the extra work and uncertainty”.

It is not much of a safeguard or a backstop.

All in all, I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that, on four grounds, the denial of civil legal aid to people because they have been convicted of a terrorist offence—I am not saying that they are good people—is against the rule of law principles and has practical consequences which are counterproductive, bureaucratic, costly, and so on. We are driven to the conclusion that their whole purpose, as with so much of what the Government seem to be doing these days, is to send some kind of symbolic message, but it does not withstand examination as having any merit at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I shall certainly reflect on the practical side. This would be a decision for the director of casework at the Legal Aid Agency. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, rightly raised the question of the practical “bureaucracy” associated with the proposal, and we are working with the Legal Aid Agency to see how it can be most conveniently implemented, with minimum disruption.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, because I know that noble Lords are waiting for the Statement. I thank the Minister for his reply. His first point was that the Government wanted to address the unique situation where, they contend, the people envisaged —those who have committed terrorist offences—have threatened to undermine our democracy. Other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and who I very much thank, including the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Anderson, talked about other extremely serious offences such as murder, rape and, I think, manslaughter. Why just terrorism? Personally, I think that the offence of rape undermines the principle of our modern society, which should exist, about equality between men and women, the dignity of women and our rejection of abuse of women. Apart from very serious terrorist offences, I might judge a rapist on a more serious basis than someone who gets a fine for graffiti, for example, presumably in support of some proscribed organisation. Therefore, I do not think that the argument is very sound, if I may say so.

Probate: Waiting Times

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I invite the noble Lord to write to me or the relevant Minister in the other place with that particular problem so that we can address the issue. That is not the sort of thing that we wish to see happening. We will of course consider all available opportunities to improve the service offer.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, is important and I identify with her views and those of my noble friend Lord Marks. The emotional time of bereavement is made worse by a host of bureaucracy, much of it duplicative and unnecessary, and sheer inefficiency. In the spring of 2020, the probate service lost my late husband’s will, which had been deposited with it for safekeeping, and for three weeks I did not know whether it would reappear. I found the probate service Dickensian. It does not seem to have got much better. Will the Minister and his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, which has many agencies that, frankly, underperform, make this a priority?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I very much apologise to the noble Baroness for that incident. I hope that I have made it clear that this is a priority. We have to sort this out.

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, following the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, I remind the House courteously that several things need to happen over the next few days, one of which is the preparation for the events leading up to the funeral and another is the necessity for noble Lords to take their oaths. With that courtesy that I know the House would like to see, I remind noble Lords to consider the length of time that they might speak in order to let everybody come in today.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I hope that I will not make the Chief Whip cross. I want to share four reflections on Her late Majesty.

First, what a trouper—I hope that is not too irreverent a description of Her late Majesty’s work ethic. The column by journalist Janice Turner in today’s Times on the almost coincident death of the Queen and her own mother highlights the fortitude and stoicism as well as frugality and recycling reflex of that generation. I strongly recognise that in my own late mother, who died in 2015. The fact is that the Queen’s enduring values and habits are now coming back into fashion.

Secondly, what a sport. We had long known, of course, about how the young Princess Elizabeth joined the VE night crowds on the streets of London. Perhaps it is only in recent years, though, that we have appreciated how this evidenced a high-spirited sense of fun. On the unforgettable sketch of the James Bond Olympic parachute—before she turned around, I said to my late husband, “It can’t possibly be her, can it?” It was. This year, the Paddington Bear marmalade sandwich sketch has given us all great memories at which to grin through our tears. It shows that duty and a sense of humour are not mutually exclusive.

My third reflection is that you did not need to be a royalist to mourn the Queen. I have to admit that I hesitated 25 years ago when I was introduced in this House over whether to affirm or to swear allegiance. I chose the latter, out of respect for her and for tradition, but I did have to think about it. So, while I expected to feel sad and grateful for her service when she died, I was caught totally unawares by my own spontaneous tears. I think they were a reaction to the loss of stability and continuity that she represented as well as sheer appreciation of her as a person.

I never had the privilege of meeting Her Majesty, but my rather republican-leaning late husband met her at least twice in his capacity as a council leader—as well as now Queen Consort Camilla, in the course of charitable work. Whenever I suggested that I might try for tickets for a Buckingham Palace garden party he was rather cool but, when he got the chance to go, to represent the health trust he then chaired, I was dispatched immediately to buy a hat. Such was the personal power of Her Majesty.

My last point is to note the astonishing wave of international and European support and appreciation, not just from Presidents and Prime Ministers but from a football stadium in Italy and a town band in Nice. She was, as others have said, a great diplomat. Noting, of course, what a great friend she was to France and her excellent French, President Macron said:

“To you, she was your Queen. To us, she was The Queen.”

[Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Queen. I ask myself why I was so moved and so saddened when I heard the news on Thursday; there are two things that stand out for me. One is that, ever since I was a small boy in south Wales in the dark 1940s, the Royal Family has been for me a beacon of probity, leadership and something very magical; that has been through my life. President Obama once said he felt that he was a screen on which the American people projected their deep-felt longings. That is certainly true of the Queen and explains a lot of the emotion we all have.

Secondly, as head of the Civil Service, I was privileged to meet the Queen on a number of occasions. I will not say I knew her, but I have talked to her. I developed huge respect as she carried an enormous load; the new King will carry it. For me, it is about the constitution. The monarch is still, in our strange way of doing things, the source of all power. He or she dissolves and summons Parliament, approves legislation, appoints Prime Ministers and Ministers, heads the Armed Forces, the courts service and the prisons and, of course, is head of the Civil Service, both diplomatic and civil. As a civil servant, I served her for 36 years. My duty was to Ministers, but my service was to the monarch.

I think anecdotes are the best way of passing on this kind of memory. I have a few, but I will cut them short. One is that, soon after I became Cabinet Secretary, I was invited to stay at Windsor Castle and, after dinner, Her Majesty took me to the library and showed me the then Prime Minister Disraeli’s handwritten letters to Queen Victoria, recounting to her exactly what had happened in Cabinet and how he felt about it. She wanted to make the point to me that she still got—in those days, before it was all digitised—number one copy of the Cabinet minutes. She wanted to make the point that the purpose of Cabinet minutes was primarily to convey to the monarch what the Cabinet was up to, since the Prime Minister was probably too busy to write. I certainly did not promise that Mr Blair would do so.

My second anecdote is a small thing—my impression of her was about dogs and horses. On one occasion, I was sat next to her at a lunch. At some point during the meal, a footman opened a door and a tidal wave of corgis came in and settled around my feet while she fed them. I said that they were beautiful dogs; they were beautifully tended. She said, “I had to have one of them put down yesterday.” I said, “I am so sorry: that must have been very sad.” She said, “Well, he was a lovely dog, but he was getting aggressive. In fact, he bit me.”

Then she pulled back the chair and I found myself admiring the royal leg, but she had a horrible wound on it. I said, “Oh dear. I hope you have been to a doctor.” For a moment, I saw the real grief that she felt over the dog. Then she pulled herself together and said, “Of course I have been. Now, have you ever had a dog?” And we got into a different conversation; but I saw for a moment that this is what had been in her mind when she was feeding the dogs and as they moved by.

On another occasion, I had tea with her—I will not explain why—at Ascot. I was sitting on her left and the three other people at the table were all racehorse owners. I can tell you only that the conversation was hugely technical and she was absolutely up with the others, putting them on the spot and cross-examining them about their horses. My goodness me, she knew her stuff.

Beyond these trivial things, she was such a tower of strength. She led in a way that made it look effortless but, my goodness, we were lucky; we have all remarked on that. We should express deep gratitude that we had her for 70 years of peace and prosperity and wish the new King well; he is well up to the job and has himself the seeds of greatness. We should echo what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, quoted: she was Elizabeth the Great. God save the Queen, and God save the King.

European Convention on Human Rights

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I have had no conversations with the Attorney-General, and what the Attorney-General says or may have said in her capacity as a leadership contender is neither here nor there—as an unsuccessful leadership contender, I hasten to add. We need to get this straight. Unless we can define the boundaries of the debate we are about to have, we will be in a very unsatisfactory place. We are talking about the mechanisms of the convention—we are not talking about whether we should be in the convention or not. I remind the House that the UK has the best record of all member states within the convention; we are a party to, I think, seven United Nations conventions on human rights; we are very active in the Council of Europe in a number of respects; we fully support the ICC in its reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine; and there is no question of this fine tradition being mitigated, let alone abandoned.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

The Minister is quite right that we need to be clear but unfortunately, only two of the five remaining candidates for the Tory leadership have been clear that they would not leave the convention. Liz Truss, who is still in the Government, has said that she would be prepared to leave the ECHR. Rishi Sunak and Kemi Badenoch have failed to clarify their positions. Can the Minister be confident about the position of the Government from September, when he even has present Cabinet Ministers who do not agree with him?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Government have set out their position in the manifesto upon which they were elected. There is no change to that manifesto.

Human Rights Act 1998

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for this important debate. I am delighted to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in his place after the jollifications of last night when he so generously invited us all to his party. He has obviously got great stamina.

I am most grateful to the organisations that have sent us material: the British Institute of Human Rights, Amnesty, Liberty and one new to me which has the apt acronym of POhWER—People of Hertfordshire Want Equal Rights, equal rights being very much the theme of this debate.

The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act have enabled many ordinary people in this country to secure their rights in many sectors and aspects of their daily lives. This is a very different narrative to that pushed by some politicians and commentators, mainly but not all on the right of politics, who have spent years criticising and misrepresenting the convention, the Strasbourg court—which gets confused with the EU court, deliberately or negligently—and the Human Rights Act, which incorporated the convention into UK law.

These human rights instruments have been demonised as benefiting only criminals, illegal immigrants and the generally undeserving. That accounts for the distasteful provisions in the Bill of Rights whereby human rights have to be earned and are contingent on conduct, undermining the principle that rights are universal and attached to a person by virtue of their humanity.

This debate is a welcome chance to redress the score and acknowledge the myriad ways in which human rights provisions protect all of us. Over the past two decades the HRA has given individuals a mechanism to enforce their rights in practice, challenge unlawful policies, be treated with dignity by public authorities and to secure justice for their loved ones. It has ushered in—not least through the positive obligations provision that the Bill of Rights will undermine—a culture of respecting human rights in hospitals, schools, care homes, local government, housing providers and the criminal justice system, helping to ensure that people who may be vulnerable are given the support they need to flourish and thrive.

Most recently, the Government whinged mightily about the interim measures—a sort of injunction—from the European Court of Human Rights to put a hold on Rwanda deportation flights until the UK courts substantively determine their legality. Similar interim measures have also been served on Russia—which is still subject to the jurisdiction of the court for another couple of months, even though it has been expelled from the Council of Europe—to stop the executions of the two British prisoners of war it is holding.

In fact, the Human Rights Act has provided justice and accountability for soldiers and their families in several ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, mentioned the case of Corporal Anne-Marie Ellement. I would also mention the families of the 37 military personnel who died in Snatch Land Rovers, dubbed “mobile coffins’” as they were so unsuited to and unsafe for this role, in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. The families used the HRA to challenge the Government and in 2013, the Supreme Court ruling that soldiers do not lose their rights when fighting overseas prompted an apology from the Ministry of Defence and a commitment to no longer use them.

In its inquiry on protecting human rights in care settings, on which the Joint Committee on Human Rights is about to report, our committee heard examples of people being cared for turning to the ECHR to seek respect for their needs through Article 2, on the right to life; Article 3, on protecting against torture and inhumane or degrading treatment; and Article 5, on the right to liberty and security. As I do not have time to discuss it further, I invite all noble Lords to read the report, which is about to be published.

An example not from the JCHR but from the British Institute of Human Rights is that of Kirsten, a mother who used the HRA to challenge inhuman and degrading treatment of her autistic son, who was held as a teenager in mental health hospitals under the Mental Health Act. He was subjected to mechanical restraint such as metal handcuffs, leg belts, being transported in a cage and long periods in a seclusion cell. As Kirsten said:

“My child was not a criminal, he was in distress, frightened and alone.”


She used the Human Rights Act to get meaningful change to her son’s care and treatment.

I have time only to mention that, in the criminal justice system, it was the Human Rights Act that enabled the victims of serial “black cab rapist” John Worboys to hold the police to account for their failures to investigate him. There are many other examples.

This rapid canter has, I hope, helped to demonstrate the relevance of human rights law to all the ordinary people of this country. I regret that the Government have refused to allow pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill of Rights Bill, so that Parliament could expose its myriad flaws. Indeed—this is now public because the JCHR has published its letter—the Lord Chancellor has cancelled his agreed 20 July appearance before the Joint Committee on Human Rights to answer questions on the Bill. I hope we will at least get another date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for the patience and courtesy with which he is responding to this debate, but I am concerned about one very important element. The Minister said that the Government’s position is that we stay in the ECHR and that we are committed to it; that is the Government’s position, which cannot be overturned by a leadership candidate. But what if that candidate happens to be the current Attorney-General of England and Wales and legal adviser to Parliament and the Cabinet? That is not any old candidate, is it? Ms Braverman surely speaks for the Government, as their Attorney-General. In due course, would the Minister address my question about all these recent powers in the police Act, Nationality and Borders Act and so on, which were justified to us from that Dispatch Box by Ministers who said, “Don’t worry: there is the Human Rights Act as the safeguard, and these powers will have to be exercised in a manner compatible with that”.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

In further testing the patience of the Minister, and no doubt the House, does he really think that the constant repetition over decades of certain politicians and sections of the press that it was only undesirable people who were getting the benefit of human rights law—criminals and whoever—has had no effect whatever? That and the lack of civic education in schools about the benefits of the Human Rights Act has helped us arrive at this situation. Perhaps there is only a slight silver lining to the pandemic, which otherwise, obviously, has been horrible: that while not being able to visit their relatives in care homes, some people might have realised or had perhaps a glimmer of understanding of the relevance of human rights to protect family life, the right to life and all those other issues.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

To take the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, about the Attorney-General first, we seem have a somewhat unusual constitutional position here. It appears that the convention that all government Ministers speak collectively on behalf of the Government is de facto in suspense when there is a leadership contest going on. I am not really able to comment any further, except to say that it is a very curious position that has arisen. If I may, I will leave that point there.

On the general question of where all this disquiet comes from, I would say that this issue is not new. In 2008, Jack Straw, the very Home Secretary who introduced the Act, commented that it did not seem to have a very good balance between rights and responsibilities. There is no greater doughty fighter for liberty in this House than the late Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who favoured a domestic Bill of Rights. A number of retired judges—Lord Sumption, to mention only one—have expressed concerns. The Brighton declaration, which was effectively brought about by the United Kingdom under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and assisted by my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to whom I also pay tribute, was intended to address this question of exactly how the margin of appreciation and doctrine of subsidiarity worked. It has now taken 10 years for even that modest step to finally come into force. So it is not accurate to say that there have not been rumblings in the background about this Act. The Government’s purpose is to try to put the existing Act on to a better footing.

On the important points that have been made in relation to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, it is perfectly accepted that the relevant consents of the devolved Administrations should be sought. We are particularly concerned about the position in Northern Ireland and to make sure that, so far as possible, all those concerns can be satisfied. I am embarking on discussions with the various devolved Administrations in that regard. They do not agree with the Government at the moment; we shall see how we get on, but that is the position and we are well aware of that problem. The convention rights remain embedded in all the devolution enactments. It is certainly the Government’s position that what is being put forward is compatible with the Good Friday agreement and that the suggestions in this Bill of Rights do not in any way put the United Kingdom in any breach of its international obligations.

To sum up, once the tumult and the shouting die down, the fact is that the UK remains in the convention. We are taking action to restore or enhance public confidence in the existing framework, to strengthen free speech and associated rights, and to have an open debate about the balance between elected power on the one hand and judicial power on the other. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, referred to Pip in Great Expectations. I am sure that Nicholas Nickleby, David Copperfield and Oliver Twist would have greatly welcomed a Human Rights Act had it existed at that stage of the 19th century. I commend to the House the Government’s expectation that this Bill will produce a better balanced and enhanced respect for human rights than is currently the case.