Prisoners: Purposeful Activity

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I do not accept that there are unnecessary movements of prisoners between prisons. There are reasons why prisoners have to be moved from one institution to another from time to time. That is dependent on the category of prison and the category of prisoner. From time to time there may be disruption to courses that prisoners are undertaking, but there may equally be an issue about preparing them for release on licence or about trying to ensure that they come into closer contact with their family, for support.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

I return to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. I advise the Minister that this very afternoon my own daughter, as a professional opera singer, is in one of Her Majesty’s prisons in this city working with prisoners who are about to present a production of “Carmen”. Will he acknowledge that these interventions have a significant effect on the confidence and self-esteem of prisoners who are able to participate, but that not enough of them are able to do so? I ask him respectfully to reconsider the answer he gave and perhaps suggest that the Government put a little more effort into this.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Baroness, although I do not seek to reconsider my earlier answer. I acknowledge the importance of the work being done; of course it contributes to self-esteem and to the re-establishment of sensible relationships required of those in our prisons. It is part of an educational process that leads some prisoners to a point where they are able to secure suitable employment when they leave prison.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Thursday 10th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, the long string of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Marks has a very simple purpose: to enable us to debate the proposed tariff and, in particular, two different types of tariff. The first, essentially contained in Amendment 11, is a tariff based on the Judicial College Guidelines. The second is a fixed, specified and structured tariff. This is essentially contained in Amendment 96, where the amounts are place-holders based on the average of awards actually made. Before I discuss either of these variations, I should again mention the Delegated Powers Committee recommendation that,

“it would be an inappropriate delegation of power for damages for whiplash injury to be set in a tariff made by Ministerial regulations rather than on the face of the Bill”,

and that the tariff,

“should be set out on the face of the Bill, albeit amendable by affirmative statutory instrument”.

At Second Reading, the Minister noted this recommendation and responded by saying:

“We consider that being able to regulate the tariff by the affirmative procedure is a more flexible way of being able to respond to changes”.—[Official Report, 24/4/18; col. 1531.]


That is precisely what the DPRRC proposed should happen after first setting out the tariff in the Bill. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will give a fuller answer as to why he believes that the tariff should not be in the Bill but should be fixed by an unamendable statutory instrument.

I turn to the question of the tariff itself. Should damages remain determined by application of the Judicial College Guidelines, or should they be fixed amounts? If fixed amounts, what should those be? These questions go to the heart of the matter. If we stay with the Judicial College Guidelines, the system would be relatively unchanged, although we could reduce awards for injuries of less than three months’ duration if, for example, we thought that that was where fraudulent claims were concentrated. If we move away from the Judicial College Guidelines to the example tariff contained in the impact assessment or to the tariff published yesterday by the Government, there will be very profound changes. The tariff published yesterday is even lower—by about 4.7%—than the example tariff on page 26 of the impact assessment. It would be interesting to know how these tariff levels were arrived at and what objectives were used in deriving them. For example, was there a target reduction in the cost of total damages awarded? If so, on what basis was this target chosen? Can the Minister explain the basis of the construction of the tariff amounts and tell us whether there was indeed a target for overall damage reduction?

Whatever method was used to devise the Government’s proposed tariff levels, in either the example tariff or yesterday’s tariff, both would have a very large effect. These new tariffs would transfer £1 billion away from claimants, via insurers, wholly or partially to motorists in the form of reduced premiums. That is a very large transfer. It is made up of £240 million in claims that would no longer proceed under the new tariff—assumed to be around 133,000—£550 million because of the reduced awards for every successful claimant, and £190 million from insurers no longer picking up legal fees and VAT. On the way, and as a consequence of this transfer, the general taxpayer would be hit for £140 million by reduced revenue from IPT and some loss of revenue to the NHS. If the Government’s tariff levels are applied, there will be, they calculate, a lot fewer claimants and, it is to be hoped, fewer fraudulent claimants, deterred as they might be by the banning of no-med settlements and very low tariff awards. This means that those successful claimants remaining will carry the burden of this transfer. Claimants will be £1 billion worse off; motorists will be £1 billion better off. What is the Government’s justification for such a massive transfer of funds? There are two questions to answer. First, what is the evidence base that justifies any transfer? Secondly, why this amount? Why such a very large reduction in amounts awarded to claimants? Why not a smaller reduction—or, for that matter, a larger one? What is the justification for this level of transfer?

In the impact assessment and in the Minister’s speeches at Second Reading, it was clear that some care had been taken to avoid using fraudulent claims as the main reason for the proposed changes. However, I note that today the Minister seems clear that this is in fact the main driver. As we noted at Second Reading, claims about the incidence of fraud are highly contested. Is there in fact a reasonable and properly evidenced consensus about the extent or cost of fraudulent or exaggerated claims? I worry that there is not.

There are certainly competing claims from all the many vested interests involved, including the insurance industry, but no independent assessment to help us reach an evidenced view. The Government more or less recognised this when they set out in the impact assessment the principal justifications for the proposed changes. They were all economic and based on a need they saw to correct three alleged market failures. The first failure—if you can really call it that—was asymmetric information. Only a victim could really know the extent and duration of the pain and suffering caused by whiplash, and the Government see this as an incentive to fraudulent or exaggerated claims. So it may be, but we do not seem to know how many or to what extent. But punishing all genuine whiplash claimants by hugely reducing their awards is surely not a reasonable remedy. Why punish these people and reward motorists for an unquantifiable, or at least unquantified, number of fraudulent or exaggerated claims?

The second market failure is alleged to be that of perverse incentives. This refers to legal fees. The Government claim that if legal fees were not recoverable or were less recoverable, this would bring down the number of claims. So it might, but would this be reasonable? In any case, this alleged saving is by no means the major element in the transfer of funds away from claimants.

The third alleged market failure is that of insurance companies settling claims without proof of injury. Here, there is obviously a genuine market failure, and I am very glad to see the Bill banning this practice. However, nowhere in the impact assessment’s justifications for action is there any reference to the huge transfer—over £500 million—that is brought about simply by the introduction of much lower awards for all claimants. Again, what is the evidence base for such a reduction?

The Government’s proposed tariff is significantly lower than the current actual awards in every duration band. For injuries lasting up to three months, current awards average £1,800; the Government propose £225. For injuries lasting between three and six months, current awards average £2,250; the Government propose £450. That carries on all the way up the duration scale. This all looks like an arbitrary and huge transfer of money from claimants to motorists via insurance companies. The Government have given no justification for the scale of this transfer and no explanation why claimants should be so punished and motorists so rewarded. I imagine that we will hear such claims as, “It is generally accepted that claim levels are too high”. This is not a sound basis for policy decisions, certainly not involving huge transfers of funding on this scale, which also create very serious anomalies.

As we pointed out at Second Reading, an injury of 24 months’ duration identical in its effects, if suffered at work, would attract up to £6,500. For whiplash, the Government would restrict you to £3,725. If the Government want a fixed tariff, as they clearly do, then they should put this tariff in the Bill, so that we have the opportunity to amend it. As importantly, they must justify this £1 billion transfer from claimants to motorists. They must explain why all claimants for whiplash should suffer and all motorists benefit.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, Amendments 12 to 22 inclusive cannot be called by reason of pre-emption.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, at the risk of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, thinking that I am adding to the soporific legalese, I support what he said. It is not just the noble Lord who is concerned about Clause 17. Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee addressed Clause 17 at paragraph 206 of its report on the Bill:

“We agree that the Government may require a power to make ‘transitional, transitory and saving provisions’. However, we are concerned that the Bill creates a power to make ‘consequential provisions’ which is potentially very broad in scope, has the capacity to go well beyond what are ordinarily understood to be consequential matters and includes a Henry VIII power. If Parliament has approved, subject to detailed and appropriate circumscription, other broad delegated powers for ministers, it would be constitutionally unacceptable to undo these restrictions and protections by conferring a general power on ministers to make ‘consequential provisions’ to alter other enactments. We recommend that the power to make ‘consequential provisions’ in clause 17 is removed”.


The concern is that this Bill will confer enormous powers on Ministers under, for example, Clauses 7 and 9 to make delegated legislation. It is difficult, in the context of such powers, however amended, to see why it is also necessary for Ministers to enjoy this broad power, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, described it, to make consequential provisions. The concern is that the restrictions that Parliament will impose on the other powers that Ministers will enjoy under Clauses 7 and 9 may be evaded by Ministers by the use of this consequential power.

I am particularly concerned about the risk of that, because if your Lordships focus on paragraph 17 of Schedule 7 to the Bill, on page 51, you see a quite extraordinary provision, which states the following:

“The fact that a power to make regulations is conferred by this Act does not affect the extent of any other power to make regulations under this Act”.


Therefore, it seems to me, as a matter of law, that the fact that we spend hours—it seems like days—looking at particular provisions as we seek to restrict the power that Ministers will enjoy under Clause 7 will have no effect, by reason of paragraph 17 of Schedule 7, on the scope of the power that Ministers also enjoy under Clause 17.

I would welcome some reassurance from the Government that they are thinking about the Constitution Committee’s recommendation. I would welcome some explanation of why Ministers need these consequential powers to make delegated legislation and some assurance from the Minister that he is thinking about whether it is also necessary to include paragraph 17 of Schedule 7, or whether the Bill could make it absolutely clear that any power in Clause 17 must be interpreted consistently with the restrictions that will be contained elsewhere in the Bill.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, with apologies to the Committee, I should have made it clear when the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, moved his amendment that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 253 to 256, by reasons of pre-emption.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I support strongly what the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Pannick, said. This is the underlying theme of the Committee stage of this Bill: what we are seeing is a proposed accretion of power to the Executive at the expense of Parliament. We have made this point numerous times over the past several days—it seems like years. It is crucial not only that my noble and learned friend the Minister gives some recognition and assurances today—we can ask for no less—but that the Bill is amended, preferably by government amendment, before Report. I have said this many times, but if taking back control means anything, it means taking back control for Parliament and not for the Executive. The Government have to recognise, in a way that, sadly, my noble friend Lord Callanan, seemed incapable of recognising the other day, that Parliament is supreme and that, in particular, the other place is where the ultimate decision should be made.

I do not want us to be on a collision course with government. I hope that the Government, recognising the fundamental constitutional importance of these issues, will agree to accede to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee and delete this provision in Clause 17. It is incumbent on a Government who are concerned about the supremacy of Parliament to do precisely that and not to leave within the Bill a clause that gives, theoretically, untrammelled powers in many circumstances to Ministers. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to give us some comforting words today but, however comforting the words may be, they will not be enough until this provision is removed from the Bill.

Prisons: Women

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, of the women who were moved from Holloway when it closed, and aside from those who have since been released, how many have remained where they were sent in the first instance? This is relevant in respect, for example, of contact with families. How many, if any, were moved again after that first move?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not in a position to give specific figures in response to the question from the noble Baroness, but I will undertake to write if they are available and I will place a copy of the letter in the Library.

Prisons: Careers Guidance

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, in response to the question from my noble friend, I agree that there have been notable successes in this area, and we should appreciate the work done by some particular employers in this regard. There is one in particular where present indications are that something like 10% of their workforce are former inmates. If we can encourage other employers to take this step forward, we can help to reduce recidivism in the prison population.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the biggest barriers to employment is poor literacy skills? Can he say how many people going into prison are functionally illiterate, and how many fewer are not when they come out?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, it is unfortunate but true that a very large proportion of those going into prison suffer mental health problems or literacy issues. We attempt to address those during their period in prison. Some improvement is achieved; it is not as great, perhaps, as we would hope, but within our prisons there is a difficult cohort as far as education and literacy are concerned.

CPS: Disclosure of Evidence

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister concede that the reason this case has much wider relevance than the particulars of the individual concerned, however dreadful his circumstances may have been, is that it allows credence to be attached to the notion that there are more examples of injustice against people who are accused of rape than against those who have suffered rape? The review really ought to take that into account.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I note what the noble Baroness says on that matter. I reiterate that it is fundamental that justice is fair to both the accuser and the accused.

Prisons: Staff

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, we will hear from the Labour Benches and then the Liberal Democrats.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how long prison officers are trained for and what are the core skills and competences which they are expected to have at the end of that training?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not in a position to give details on the scope of core skills, but I undertake to write to the noble Baroness setting them out. I understand that there is an initial training period of five weeks—but, again, I will seek to secure confirmation of that and, if I have to correct it, I will again write to her on that point. I will add that, once prison officers are trained, there is a process of mentoring once they begin full-time engagement as a prison officer.

Judiciary: Independence

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I see no distinction between my response and that of my right honourable friend.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the whole House would want to echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. However, the issue here is timeliness. The noble and learned Lord has told the House that he believes that the Lord Chancellor’s response was timely. Would he like to reconsider that view?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I see no reason to reconsider that view. It is important to remember that neither the Lord Chancellor nor any other member of the Government is here to police a free press. It is necessary for the Lord Chancellor to have regard to not only what the press have reported but the public reaction to that, and then take a considered position on that matter. I reiterate a point I made earlier: I have met many people who were shocked by some of these headlines; I have met no one who believed them.

Magistrates: Sentencing Powers

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we have a judiciary of the highest calibre. We have a free press, which is not always of the highest calibre. Sensationalist and ill-informed attacks can undermine public confidence in the judiciary, but our public can have every confidence in our judiciary, a confidence which I believe must be shared by the Executive.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister return to the second question asked by his noble friend Lord Faulks, which I believe he did not answer?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I apologise for having overlooked the second part of the question, having been distracted by the first part. I acknowledge that the second part of the question is in point. The question of an automatic right of appeal if sentencing powers are increased clearly has to be an important consideration.