Criminal Justice: Imprisonment for Public Protection
Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government will carefully consider the recommendations in this report. However, it is not the case that those serving an IPP sentence have no life, future or freedom. Many have been released and not been recalled. When it has been necessary on public protection grounds to recall offenders, HM Prison and Probation Service works closely with them so that the Parole Board may direct their re-release as early as it is safe to do so.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB) [V]
My Lords, I confess that I am disappointed in that response. Surely it is obvious that the recall provisions are causing real problems and injustices and need radical change. How many IPP prisoners following release have completed 10 years on licence? Of these, how many have applied for the cancellation of their licence and how many have been successful?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The latest published figures show that the unreleased IPP population now stands at 1,895. It has reduced from 2,223 at the end of September. This is good progress, especially as, at its highest in 2012, it was 6,000. I do not have time to give the other figures, but I will make sure the noble and learned Lord gets them in writing.
Conduct Committee Report
Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
That the Report from the Select Committee Registration of members’ foreign interests (7th Report, HL Paper 182) be agreed to.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we are ready to start if the noble and learned Lord could unmute. I do not think that he can hear.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB) [V]
I have not been linked up. Can anybody hear?
Noble Lords
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB) [V]
My Lords, I should start by explaining that I am moving this Motion as a member of the Conduct Committee on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Mance, because this particular report raises matters in which he personally has interests and has therefore recused himself from deliberations upon it.
This report builds upon an earlier report that the House approved in July about Members’ dealings with foreign Governments. It is, indeed, the latest in a series of changes that we are proposing to the House in order to increase transparency around Members’ overseas interests, reflecting increasing levels of concern about foreign state influence on our politics. Not least, your Lordships will recall, such concerns were raised by the long-awaited ISC report in July. After a good deal of deliberation, the committee is now proposing that Members should be required on an annual basis to disclose their earnings—I quote paragraph 9 of the report —from
“governments of foreign states (including departments and agencies), organisations which may be thought by a reasonable member of the public to be foreign state-owned or controlled, and individuals with official status (whether executive, legislative or judicial) in foreign states when acting in that capacity”.
One of our key challenges was to find such a definition that properly caught all that we wanted and thought we needed to capture.
Although the registrar may be consulted, Members will be responsible for judging whether an organisation or individual in fact meets that definition. In case of doubt, they should err on the side of registration. Members will be able to disclose the exact amount that they have been paid or simply indicate into which of the several bands set out in paragraph 12 of the report their earnings fall.
The committee is aware that in some professions there is a clear duty of confidentiality that would prevent some Members from disclosing all the information required. Obviously, they may include doctors, arbitrators or perhaps other lawyers. Rather than try now to come up with a definitive list of such professions in the code, we propose that Members should apply for an exemption as far as necessary. To do that, they will be asked to consult the registrar, who will provide advice on the basis of detailed guidance, which we, the Conduct Committee, shall give him. The committee is currently drawing up such guidance, with a view to publishing it early next year.
If the House agrees this report, the registrar will email Members to explain these changes, which will then take effect from 1 January 2021. Registerable earnings between then and the end of the financial year, 5 April 2021, would need to be disclosed no later than 31 January 2022. Registerable earnings in the next financial year would then need to be disclosed by 31 January 2023, and so on. All that is set out in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the report.
Finally, we propose also to add to the guide some cautionary wording for Members with regard to their dealings with foreign Governments and entities. Paragraph 17 deals with that. I beg to move.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and the noble Baroness Lady Smith, not least because, if I may say so, they have effectively confirmed that there are real difficulties in reaching the necessary degree of definition in this highly complex area of our code—[Inaudible.]
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lord, I am sorry, but we cannot hear you again. Could you try and press your unmute button? They are working on trying to get the audio back so we can hear you.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB) [V]
I apologise, although I do not believe it to have been my fault. As I was saying, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, have established what we have long felt—that this is an extremely problematic area of our code on which we have deliberated long and hard to try to achieve these definitions.
On the main question raised by both speakers, of course there are difficulties in deciding whether a particular organisation is controlled by the Government. These matters are dealt with in Paragraph 9 of the report. But as the report is at pains to show, there are two guiding principles. The first is that what reasonable members of the public might suppose to be the position here, along the lines of Huawei and so forth. If it may be thought by the public that an organisation is foreign state-owned or state-controlled, there is a clear and categoric obligation to disclose that fact. However, there is always the power of consulting the registrar, so there is help from that quarter. There is also the enduring obligation that in case of doubt, a Member should err on the side of registration.
We have not felt able to be more specific than that. If anyone feels that they have a clear solution to this riddle, we would be delighted to hear it. In the meantime, we feel that this is the best that we can offer.
With regard to corrupt and repressive regimes, your Lordships will see that this was dealt with in an earlier report. Paragraph 1 of the report points that out. We are trying to help further, in paragraph 17. Of course, these are highly difficult concepts, but this is open to Members—and one hopes that they will avail themselves of this—to consult the registrar and, if in doubt, an obvious course would be to effect the registration. As to the date of earnings, we have tried to be helpful and to minimise the administrative burden on Members by taking the same date and concept for declaration of earnings as one uses for one’s tax returns annually, to 31 January—to do one’s earnings in relation to the tax year. That is why the first proposed registration is for 1 January to 5 April 2021.
I hope that deals with most points. Your Lordships will have seen that we continue to consult on this and deliberate in this field. On the question of guidance for the registrar, it is the registrar whose decision ultimately rules on the question of exemptions. Again, it is difficult to see how one could improve on that. To address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I hope this is not an absurd, fanciful and unhelpful suggestion, but if we assume that one of our enormously distinguished doctors in the House, who contributes greatly to the proceedings of the House, has as a patient some foreign head of state, Prime Minister or whatever, and is consulted by him professionally—that must surely be confidential. He cannot possibly say: “I’ve been treating that king for piles” or whatever it is. It would be a gross abuse of professional privilege and confidentiality. That is the sort of situation one could get into. Therefore, if you had this report without the possibility of exemption, you would require somebody such as that doctor to take leave of absence and cease to participate in the House. I am not sure that I can do any better than that. I fear that nothing I can say will entirely satisfy all the questions that such a report inevitably raises.