Sexual Offences Legislation
Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Beecham
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for raising that issue. The Domestic Abuse Bill was published in draft form on 21 January, following a long consultation that received 3,200 responses. Its goal is to deter offenders and protect victims. The noble Baroness is quite right that people whose immigration status is unsure need protection too, and I hope she will put forward the points that she has raised as the draft Bill comes to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
In addition to the need for legislation, there is clearly a need to identify and support vulnerable adults and children before, as well as after, abuse takes place. What action is being taken in this respect by the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Lord raises an important issue. One of the ways in which the law has been progressing over recent years is that many of the more recent changes have focused on early intervention, which is critical, particularly when it comes to communication of a sexual nature with a child. With regard to specific action being taken by the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, I will write to the noble Lord.
Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Commencement No. 18) Order 2018
Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the story of the Government’s policy on electronic tagging over the past seven years has been one of a prolonged disaster. Of course, the Minister is not to blame for that. She has tried to be helpful, although today’s letter—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—warning recipients not to quote the contents of a document she sent us labelled “Embargoed” was, to put it mildly, unfortunate. I remain grateful for her attempt to be helpful, even if the Ministry of Justice appears to be vying with the Home Office in the competition to be seen as the most incompetent government department.
It is seven years since this policy began its gestation and 16 months since the announcement that the oligopolist G4S—an organisation presumed by the Government to be able to conduct all kinds of services across the system of government in this country—had been awarded a £25 million contract, notwithstanding the fact that it was then under investigation for fraud and that a National Audit Office report criticising the prolonged delay in implementing a policy of satellite tracking for offenders was soon to be published. A ban on G4S was imposed in 2013 after allegations of overcharging on contracts for the electrical monitoring of offenders, although the ban was lifted in 2014 on the basis that G4S had paid £109 million and Serco, another familiar scion of private enterprise, paid £70 million.
Labour’s shadow Lord Chancellor, Richard Burgon, has referred to G4S as having billed the Government,
“for tagging thousands of ‘phantom offenders’ – including those who were dead or in jail”,
and to,
“serious delays in informing the authorities that over 100 prisoners had been fitted with faulty electronic tags”.
In addition, Capita and two smaller firms became involved, although one withdrew after six months and another after 16 months, following incremental delays in the programme. Can the Minister explain how these failures in contracting occurred, and what steps have been taken to improve the department’s commissioning practice?
G4S purports to be able to provide public services across a broad range, including health, prisons and probation, but in January the Public Accounts Committee published a damning report, pointing out that a scheme due to be completed in 2013 was running five years late at a cost of £60 million to the taxpayer, with an additional irrecoverable loss of £9 million. What is more, the new tags are apparently expected to be available early next year. Can the Minister update us on progress, including both the starting and the completion dates for this project?
In its damning report in January 2018, the Public Accounts Committee described the programme as having been “fundamentally flawed”, and,
“so far … a catastrophic waste of public money which has failed to deliver the intended benefits”,
adding that the MoJ had,
“wasted a huge amount of time and … money to end up with … the same types of tags and supplier it had when the programme started”.
Significantly, the committee’s critique declares that the Ministry of Justice,
“lacked the capacity and capability to manage the difficulties and delays that it created”.
This appears to be confirmed by the fact that it is seven months since the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked why the draft order had been laid while piloting of the scheme was in progress—the very issue raised in the noble Lord’s Motion.
Just how long is that process of piloting going to take? Who will evaluate the response? What role will Members of both Houses have in considering the response and triggering the implementation of the order? And what plans are there to review the performance of the contractors? Who will conduct such reviews, and what provision will be made to terminate contracts in the event of failure on the part of the contractors, or if it transpires that, in any event, little or no improvement in reoffending by those fitted with tags has resulted?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank both noble Lords for their comments, and I hope to be able to address as many of the points raised as possible. First, clearly I shall have to take on the chin that criticism of what went on previously with this project. I do not have the information about what steps were taken, and why the failures occurred, in front of me, but I will write to the noble Lord and set out properly what happened previously and how we will address these issues in future.
I now turn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. When I opened the debate, I tried to explain that this order provides an extension of provisions that already exist. There are other classes of subjects that can already be location monitored on a stand-alone basis. One of the reasons for not hanging around and waiting until the evidence, as he called it, is published, is that the report is not for stand-alone location monitoring on its own. It covers all sorts of different location monitoring, so it is more of an ongoing step, for all sorts of electronic monitoring, much of which is already covered by legislation.
The noble Lord took us back 12 years, to 2004 to 2006, and to what people said then. During the passage of the Crime and Courts Act, there was a significant debate about the civil liberties elements of the tagging, but technology has moved on significantly since then, and we are dealing with a very different beast from what was then being reported on.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. As I explained in my opening remarks, the technology we are talking about is GPS tracking. Yes, it is used in black boxes. My son has one in his car, so he does not do naughty things on the road—which is superb—and we all have it in our telephones. If the noble Lord is asking whether the technology has been tested, I think we can say that it certainly has. Indeed, it is probably used by most of us on a daily basis as we make our way around in the world using Google Maps. More specifically, the partners in place that will be building up the service providers all have great experience in this area. For example, mapping the data from the tags will be done by Airbus—which I think probably knows a fair amount about where things are, particularly aeroplanes in the sky. Of course we are confident that the technology works, and I believe that the pilot has made us confident that the application of it for this particular group of people is a good thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, commented on the timing of the publication of the report. I am now in two minds about why I shared that anyway. I did it to put noble Lords’ minds at rest, because the responses from the pilot were, as we have heard, fairly positive. I cannot give the noble Lord a date for publication, but it will be very soon. That is how all this has fitted together.
As for the timing of the SI, noble Lords discussed this in the Moses Room many months ago, and one of the reasons for the timing relates to an issue that was raised slightly later, about engaging with stakeholders. How can we ensure that this system is actually used by the people who need to be able to step up and say, “You can have a tag, because we can trust you to go into the community, provided that you do certain things”? We have found that, the more we can engage with the people within the criminal justice system who will make those orders, the more likely they are to use the tag. We wanted to get the timing of the SI right so that we could engage with stakeholders.
The noble Lord also mentioned charging. I think that I too mentioned that in my opening remarks. It takes one hour a day, and—to be a bit brutal—it is slightly better than being in custody to have to sit down somewhere and charge a tag. There is also the portable battery charger; I talked about that too. So I do not believe this is a huge issue. The design, too, is much better. We have all seen that the size of these things has now come right down to an insignificant size that will go under a sock, which is very good.
As for resourcing, the cost of monitoring has been brought down significantly by technology—and on the flip side, there are benefits. The cost of investigations could be lower for the police as they look for people they want to rule in or out of possible criminality.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about G4S. I will write to him and set out what happened with G4S in the past, but I reassure him that we have run a fully compliant, open and competitive bidding process for all service providers. There is no scope to exclude bidders within this system, even if they are subject to an ongoing investigation. I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns. We are obviously keeping things under a careful, watchful eye, but we are pleased with the service providers we have.
Finally, on reporting, there are no specific plans to publish an individual report on the effectiveness of the new service, but the ministry will monitor take-up and effectiveness as part of the benefits realisation and will also report on the service providers’ performance. I am sure the noble Lord will find that very interesting. It will report on their performance against service level agreements and the number of orders being managed as part of wider regular offender management publications. I think noble Lords will see the numbers, there will be commentary about how well the service is working and there will be the results of the longer-term pilot by MOPAC in due course.
Lord Beecham
Before the Minister sits down, will she give an indication of when we will get the reports she has just referred to?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am afraid I cannot. We know that the first tranche of GPS tags will be coming out at the end of 2018. Full rollout is expected by summer 2019. I think that a period will have to elapse from full rollout until we can get some proper numbers, so I think it will be after that, but obviously I cannot set anything in stone.
Ex-Offenders: Training and Employment
Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that local authorities have potentially an important role to play in this matter, and will she undertake to approach the Local Government Association to see whether that can be translated into practice?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I believe that local authorities have an important part to play so, yes, I am happy to do that.
Divorce Law
Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Beecham(6 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The case of Owens v Owens in the Supreme Court this summer is not typical. Only 2% of respondents contest the divorce and only a handful of those do so in a contested court hearing. However, we have noted the judgment and, as importantly, the comments of Lord Justice Munby that change is needed. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor is sympathetic to the argument for reform and appreciates the positive changes being put forward by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in her Private Member’s Bill. We look forward to working with her.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as an unpaid consultant to my former firm of solicitors. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the withdrawal of legal aid in most family law cases on the efficiency of the court system? In 37% of cases neither party is now represented. What steps, if any, are they taking to improve the situation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
As the noble Lord will be aware, the post-implementation review of LASPO is currently under way. It is a chance for the Government to look at the effects of the changes made under the coalition Government and how we can best move forward. It is our view that legal aid continues to be available for the highest-priority cases. We need to make sure that it is targeted to those who need it most. As to those who are unable to have representation and who represent themselves, since 2015 we have invested nearly £6.5 million in a support strategy for unrepresented parties—litigants in person. It provides practical advice and information on routes to free or more affordable legal advice.
Prisoners: Treatment and Conditions
Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Beecham
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, this could be one of the easiest questions I have ever had to answer: I would be very happy to write to the noble Lord. Last week, the Lord Chancellor announced £30 million of immediate additional funding for safety, security and decency across the estate. Included in that is £16 million to improve the fabric of our prisons. There will be packages for remedial work to cells at some of our worst prisons, such as Liverpool, Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, among many worrying concerns raised in the chief inspector’s report is the revelation of a growing increase over the last five years in the proportion of the inspectorate’s recommendations not being achieved, from 35% to close to 50%, with only 38% being fully achieved. What steps are the Government taking, and over what period of time, to address this lamentable situation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, we are already taking steps in this regard, because we are absolutely committed to ensuring that prisons address the issues raised in inspections and that they develop robust action plans to deal with them. The length of time that prisons now take to produce an action plan has been reduced. The Government are now making sure that these action plans are published, so that there is greater accountability. Finally, we have created a specific unit, an assurance unit, that monitors progress against the action plan and holds governors to account for the implementation.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL]
Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord BeechamTuesday 10th July 2018
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 View all Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 108-I Marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 76KB) - (6 Jul 2018)
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I concur with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Marks. I remind the House that I have a parental interest in these matters in that my daughter is a barrister and sits as a part-time district judge. We support the amendment, particularly because of the concern about both gender and ethnic representation in the judicial system, which is currently well below what should be expected.
I have only one reservation about the amendment, which is that it calls for a report to be laid within a year of the Act passing. That does not seem to be a reasonably long enough period in which to judge the extent to which progress is being made. I would have thought that if the Government were disposed to accept the principle here, and I hope they would be, a more realistic period of two to three years would be one in which we would be able to genuinely measure whether there was an impact that all of us around the House would wish to see. Subject to that, we certainly support the principles of the amendment and I hope the Government will look at it sympathetically.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to assess and report on the impact on judicial diversity of the measures before noble Lords today.
The judiciary already has wide powers to deploy judges between jurisdictions in our courts and tribunals. The judicial deployment measures in the Bill are intended to amend existing legislation in specific areas to enhance these powers to ensure that judges continue to be deployed where needed and appropriate. Being able to make the best use of judges’ time and expertise to react to changes in case loads of different jurisdictions has benefits for all court and tribunal users.
The measures are targeted to specified judicial roles and are intended to fill gaps in existing deployment measures. They are therefore limited in scope. As the measures are about how our existing judiciary may be deployed, they do not impact directly on new appointments to the judiciary.
Implementing these measures will largely follow existing processes by which the senior judiciary authorise judges to sit in additional courts or tribunals. In the interests of fairness and transparency, where it is appropriate in accordance with the circumstances of each case, deployment decisions will be taken following an expression of interest exercise across the eligible pool of judges.
Increases in flexible deployment may enable individuals to gain valuable experience in sitting in other jurisdictions. For example, the measure which provides for the 14 senior employment judges also to be judges of the unified tribunals may enable them to demonstrate their competencies across a broader range of case types. This may in future result in more diverse appointments to higher courts and tribunals.
I am sure that all Members of your Lordships’ House would agree with many or most of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I, too, have a long-standing interest in this area. However, I was struck by the assumption he sometimes seems to hold that only women have caring responsibilities. I hope he will agree that men should care, too.
I am happy to place on record this Government’s commitment to working with the judiciary and the Judicial Appointments Commission to increase judicial diversity. We have seen gradual improvements in gender and ethnic diversity since 2014, but we know that there is more to do to improve judicial diversity at all levels. For example, the representation of men and women from BAME communities has increased from 6% to 7% in the courts and from 9% to 10% in tribunals, and the first BAME judge was appointed to the Court of Appeal in 2017. The judiciary publishes annual judicial diversity statistics, and this year’s publication will take place on Thursday.
It is important for the quality, independence and impartiality of our judges that we always appoint the most talented candidates on merit. We know that there are many talented potential candidates from a diverse range of backgrounds and we want to encourage and support even more of them to apply for judicial office. That is why the Ministry of Justice strongly supports the work of the Judicial Diversity Forum and works as part of the forum alongside legal professional bodies, judicial representatives and the Judicial Appointments Commission to co-ordinate action to increase judicial diversity.
In April we announced funding for a pre-application judicial education programme, PAJE, which will provide information and support to those considering a judicial role, and will be targeted in particular at those from underrepresented groups. This is very much a partnership project, and the Ministry of Justice is working closely with the Judicial College, members of the judiciary, the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives to finalise the programme content. We anticipate that the first candidates will be able to participate in PAJE in early 2019.
There are several other initiatives and support schemes for potential candidates from diverse groups that are run by the Judicial Office and the legal professions, and supported by the Judicial Appointments Commission. These include outreach events, judicial-run workshops and mentoring schemes.
The Lord Chancellor is personally committed to working with the Lord Chief Justice and the chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission to consider all practical actions that would impact positively on diversity, assess the impact of our existing activities and measure progress. The Lord Chancellor appears regularly before the Justice Select Committee and the Lords Constitution Committee on matters relating to the judiciary, including diversity. We think that this is the appropriate and proportionate way of advising noble Lords on actions that we are taking to improve judicial diversity.
I hope that what I have said has reassured the noble Lord of our commitment to improving judicial diversity—
Upskirting
Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Beecham
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for his kind words. I think it showed extraordinary leadership by the Prime Minister over the weekend to take this issue by the scruff of the neck and to lead on it.
On Private Members’ Bills procedure in general, that is for the House of Commons to structure and is not really for the Government, but of course we will do what we can, working with the Commons, on improving the procedures.
On the other questions that the noble Lord raised, I completely agree with him that it is absolutely not a joke. Upskirting is and can be a serious sexual offence. For that reason, the Government have taken the Wera Hobhouse Bill and have added to it notification so that, for the most serious sexual offences, offenders will need to go on to the sexual offenders register. It will mirror the existing voyeurism offences.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the Government on their rapid response to the fiasco of last Friday. Is the intention to include in the Bill provision to make it an offence to disseminate pictures of that kind through social and other media? If it is not—it may very well be—perhaps she will undertake to look at that issue.
The Answer refers to activities such as photographs taken in schools. Will the Government look to develop with the Department for Education an approach for ensuring that students at schools are firmly informed that such behaviour is unacceptable but also that those who may be the victims of such activity in schools are given support?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Dissemination of images would fall outside the scope of the Bill, but we are looking into the role of technology in distributing images—upskirting or, indeed, any images. That is a much broader issue that must be considered.
I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that most—probably all—schools teach children about the rights and wrongs of using modern technology and what to do with it. We have to be extraordinarily careful that we do not unnecessarily criminalise children in the Bill, which I hope will be enacted. The police will take a similar approach to cases of sexting, where Outcome 21 is used: the crime is recorded but no action is taken, so that the children are not criminalised but can learn from their poor behaviour.
Prisons: Women with Dependants
Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Beecham
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, women’s centres and women’s services in general play an incredibly important role in supporting female offenders, many of whom have hugely complex needs. Over 50% of female offenders were abused as children and 60% experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. I think noble Lords will all agree that female offenders are on average potentially more complex than male offenders and need a wide variety of well-funded support.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, 17,000 children are affected by their mother going into prison and only 50% of them stay in the home where their mother was. Moreover, one in four women sentenced to imprisonment serves only 30 days. Is it not time that the Government and the judiciary looked at the effectiveness of imprisonment for these women, taking into account the fact that there are only 12 women’s custodial establishments? This puts a further geographical distance between the child and the mother. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will act to rectify these difficulties?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Lord will have seen recently that the Lord Chancellor is focusing on short custodial sentences for both women and men. It is important that we increase the confidence of judges and magistrates in community sentences. We are working hard to improve this. The noble Lord is right to say that there are 12 female prisons across the country. The average distance from home for female prisoners is currently 54 miles—down from 68 miles in 2016. We are making progress and some of those numbers will be boosted by certain offenders needing to be far away from home to access specific services, such as psychological services.
Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Deferred Prosecution Agreements) (Amendment of Specified Offences) Order 2018
Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Beecham
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, this is a perfectly acceptable amendment to the schedule to remove the anomaly that now exists. It is a moment, however, to consider the value and use of deferred prosecution agreements. As the noble Baroness pointed out, only four such agreements have so far been approved by the court, and only three of the judgments in those cases have as yet been published. However, those cases have made it possible to find some clear principles that should be applied. Sir Brian Leveson, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, put it this way: a deferred prosecution agreement,
“is a reward for openness”.
The first essential is co-operation with an investigation. The sooner a company comes in and self-reports, the more it has to be rewarded for. The SFO will look at what work has already been done to investigate, how thoroughly it has been done and how data has been dealt with—in a way that does not tip off potential suspects leading them to delete that data altogether. Secondly, the company must be committed to reform. This may mean removing senior staff responsible for the criminality and instituting changes in procedures. The SFO must be in a position to go before a judge and argue that the default position of a prosecution can be displaced in the specific case and that a deferred prosecution agreement is justified. The judge has to give his approval to this.
In the Rolls-Royce case, which is the largest of the cases so far, the judge commented that his first reaction to what was put before him had been that if the company was not to be prosecuted,
“in the context of such egregious criminality over decades, involving countries around the world, making truly vast corrupt payments and, consequently, even greater profits then it is difficult to see that any company would be prosecuted”.
Rolls-Royce had not self-reported, but it co-operated. It was its co-operation that enabled the SFO to take the matter before the court. What the company did report, when tasked with it, was far more extensive and of a different order to what may have been exposed without the co-operation that it provided. I hope that the committee of this House carrying out post-legislative scrutiny of the Bribery Act, which has just been formed, will give an opportunity to examine DPAs and how they should be used with great care.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, four agreements in between four and five years does not strike me as a particularly impressive figure. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer several questions today, but perhaps she can answer them subsequently by letter. How many cases were considered but not proceeded with? On the four cases to which she referred, what financial penalty was imposed on the relevant companies? In addition to such financial penalties, were proceedings taken against individuals, which is clearly a separate matter? On the companies that were subject to the provisions, what changes may have been made within those companies, assuming things have gone wrong not necessarily with the companies’ full understanding at the time? How many cases have been investigated and not proceeded with, and was such a decision made because there was no case to answer or for other reasons—for example, lack of financial capacity in the company to pay any penalty?
What is the present caseload of the relevant department for these arrangements? Are any cases currently under consideration and, if so, roughly how many? How long will it take for such matters to be resolved? In other words, is there likely to be rather more than an average of one a year in future? If not, are the Government satisfied that the regime is proving effective, and what further steps might be taken to make more use of the provision now that it will be brought up to date?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions today and for broadly welcoming the order. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his insights into the use of DPAs and the Rolls-Royce case, which was indeed rather large. As he pointed out, there is now an ad hoc committee on the Bribery Act. Obviously, it is not for us to consider its terms of reference, but I am sure that it will look into these things. The Government continue to support the use of DPAs when appropriate.
Turning to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, he will be aware that I cannot say anything about the current caseload or casework going through the system at the moment, but I am very happy to write to him, as I would not want to mislead him. I am fairly sure that we can get the answers to a number of questions, and I will copy the answers to all noble Lords, because it would be good for noble Lords to understand how many DPAs have been used.
We should not necessarily assume that there have been too few or too many DPAs. They obviously have to be used only in appropriate cases. We may be able to draw conclusions from the information we get, but the Government continue to support their use. They can be very good for justice, fairness and jobs.
The order addresses a small but important statutory anomaly which is preventing future use of DPAs for this type of corporate offending. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) (Amendment) Order 2018
Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, there is no objection to reviewing the composition or indeed the working of tribunals in a system that covers significant areas of public policy and provision but which also extends to areas of law and practice in which the Government do not have a direct interest. The effect of the order as drafted is to enhance the role of the Senior President of Tribunals, notably in relation to the composition of panels, which hitherto has been the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor.
In many areas the tribunals will be adjudicating on claims and issues between the citizen and the state in relation to a variety of claims, and it may be that in many and even perhaps most of the cases in this category the proposed changes will not be controversial. There are, however, real concerns about the impact of the changes on the employment tribunal system in which the adjudication is between two independent parties, employees and employers, rather than the citizen and the state in one of its many manifestations. This is already an area in which the Government have intervened when they imposed fees for applications to the employment tribunals, an action which was of course struck down by the Supreme Court last year. The number of claims to employment tribunals has since risen by 60% with no perceptible increase in staffing and a consequential growing backlog in cases, to the detriment of both employees and employers. Can the Minister say what measures will be taken, and when, to address this issue?
However, there are issues about the application of the provisions of this order to employment cases. In a previous incarnation I had some professional experience of employment law, in all but one case on the part of employees. Employment law is, as the TUC has pointed out, a complex and specialist field of law. Among other things it is frequently concerned with equalities issues and, at least for the moment, the provisions of European law. There is therefore a very strong case for excluding these tribunals from the general provision in the order removing the requirement for the panels in the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal to have expertise in this area of law. In this I concur with what the noble Lord has said.
The TUC urges that the panels from which employment tribunals are drawn should be composed of people with experience of employment law, although not necessarily lawyers. This has the support of the CBI and other employers’ organisations. A majority of those responding in 2011 to a government consultation on the issue opposed the proposal to limit the role of lay members in unfair dismissal cases. Specifically, the TUC urges that lay members should sit in all employment-related cases, including fast-track cases, unfair dismissal and discrimination cases. It concedes, however, that where a case involves complex legal issues and, importantly, all the issues of fact are uncontested, employment judges should have discretion to sit alone.
The Government are keen, perhaps for understandable reasons, to promote virtual hearings and teleconferencing. Can the Minister say whether this extends to tribunals in general, and employment tribunals in particular? There are concerns about the reliability of these approaches and the stress on those who are unfamiliar with these systems, among whom I would probably have to include myself. There would need to be safeguards where, for example, the parties to an employment case give evidence of that kind rather than in a conventional forum, and there are some doubts about the ability of panel members to assess the credibility of witnesses or parties when such approaches are used. At the very least, will the Government pilot such methods before requiring them to be applied across the piece? Finally on this aspect, do the Government agree that virtual hearings of this kind should have to be agreed by both parties?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that the system does indeed work pretty well. The proposals today are just to make sure that it works slightly better than it currently does by focusing resources in the areas where we need them most.
Perhaps I could tick off an easy win by turning to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. There are no costs relating to the proposals and indeed, there may be some cost savings, but of course the proposals themselves do not assume that. It will be up to the SPT to do the panel composition. However, in certain circumstances, lay members may not be required as a member of the panel, and in that case there will be a saving. One might assume that if there was a 25% reduction, for example, the saving would be somewhere in the region of £3 million. Again, I do not think that we should bank that; we need to be aware that resources need to be used effectively, but that is one possible consequence.
I turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the risk of damage to the quality of decision-making. I would point him to the changes which have already been made to panel composition and various other elements. For example, the Immigration and Asylum Chamber made some changes in June 2014. It decided that there would no longer routinely be a non-legal member on those panels. Over the period it looked at the proportion of cases that went to appeal and found that there was no change. I think that there is evidence that there is no risk of damage to the quality of decision-making. It will always be front of mind for the SPT to make sure that the panels are made up appropriately.
The appropriateness of the panel was raised by a number of noble Lords. It is clear that the SPT must ensure that in making these decisions, he or she has a legal duty to consider the need for tribunals to be accessible, for the proceedings to be fair and to be handled quickly and efficiently, and where needed, for the members of the tribunal to be experts in the subject matter. We do not see that that would need to change under this order. It will be up to the SPTs to decide the panel composition, whether that is for different types or groups or cases or sometimes on a case-by-case basis for very complex cases. I would go back to the original thing about this order which is that it will respond to the sort of triage system that we hope will come into force, whereby some very straightforward cases can be dealt with much more swiftly within the new system, which is good in terms of access to justice for people wishing to make a claim. On the impact of the changes in the panel composition, HM CTS routinely collects data relating to all tribunals, covering success rates, appeal rates and overturn rates of first instance appeals. We will continue to monitor that data as these changes come into effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to employment tribunals. The order does not impact on those at all as it is not related to them, so it is probably not wise for me to go down that particular road today. We may look at similar provisions for employment tribunals in the future, but that would come under a different type of legislation and it is certainly not on the short-term horizon. If there are issues about employment tribunals that the noble Lord mentioned, I will be happy to write, but I am afraid that at the moment it is not wise for us to discuss it.
The provisions we have discussed today are an essential component of the Government’s ambitious plans to modernise Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Legal Services Act 2007 (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) (General Council of the Bar) Order 2018
Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I approach this matter as a mere happily retired solicitor. I defer to the noble Lord’s long experience in these matters. I certainly share some of his misgivings, particularly in relation to the ludicrous amounts of compensation which might be involved. However, I congratulate the Minister on sticking to her brief and delivering it very effectively. I take some comfort—perhaps she will, too—from the absence, apart from the noble Lord who has spoken and the noble Baroness who has just entered the Chamber, of others who practise at the Bar, or who have practised at the Bar, and many Members of your Lordships’ House are in that position. It suggests that perhaps there is no great concern about these arrangements among those who have served at the Bar. That is some comfort.
However, I am not entirely clear about another aspect of the compensation fund. It is not clear whether that relates, as the noble Lord implied, to moneys handled by the members of the Bar or to compensation for negligence claims—which, I fear, solicitors are from time to time involved in and for which, of course, they are insured. The Minister may be able to clarify that.
On the role of the LSB with regard to the Ministry of Justice, the Explanatory Memorandum says that the compensation fund,
“cannot be implemented unless the LSB grants approval”.
Will the Ministry of Justice have any say in that process or will it be left entirely to the LSB to determine?
However, the thrust of the order—subject to some of the questions which have been raised, particularly by the noble Lord—seems to be in the right direction and ought to give confidence to those involved in the legal system. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether the MoJ will in due course seek an update on how matters are progressing in, say, two or three years’ time, to see whether things are working satisfactorily or whether it might wish to suggest to the Bar Council that the situation might be reviewed.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank both noble Lords who contributed to the debate today for their questions. It is helpful to consider the issues that have been raised. Of course I completely understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and his concerns, which I hope to be able to allay this afternoon.
He began by talking about the nature of the delegated powers, so to speak, that will be created in due course under these orders. I suppose that to some extent he is right, but of course these powers will not be unique; in many instances barristers and other similar organisations will just be falling into line with what happens with other legal services organisations. The LSB—this relates to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, as well—is an independent body from the Ministry of Justice. As with these sorts of bodies, the board members and the chair are appointed by the Lord Chancellor in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. These are ministerial appointments and, as noble Lords would expect, these public appointments go through the process that is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
The Legal Standards Board is of course tasked with looking at the rules and regulations of all the organisations in its field of responsibility. In these circumstances, any rules and regulations that are put in place by the Bar Standards Board will have to go to the LSB for approval, which is very important in making sure that the process is robust. The LSB has strict criteria on what the regulations and rules can set out for all its organisations. This is definitely not a rubber-stamping exercise. For example, in 2014 the LSB rejected a request from the Solicitors Regulation Authority to reduce its professional indemnity insurance limit—so there are still more than adequate safeguards to ensure that the rules are proportionate.
On intervention powers, which, again, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised, under Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2002 the BSB already has intervention powers in its role as a licensing authority that licenses alternative business structures. This order simply gives the BSB the same powers in regulating barristers and barrister entities. I am very keen that we understand that this simply also creates a level playing field as the innovative nature of legal services moves on and the number and type of organisations increase.
The BSB would intervene only in very rare circumstances if it were necessary to protect consumer and public interest—for example, if an entity were about to go bankrupt. The powers include seizing papers and closing down an entity. Of course, there is a right for the person affected to appeal to the High Court. We are very clear that the intervention powers will be used as a last resort, and after other sanctions, where there is an urgent need for protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, also asked why the BSB is seeking these powers if it is apparently not going to use them. To a certain extent we have to look at the types of organisation that we have at the moment but we also have to future-proof our regulatory regime against what might happen in the future. The regulated legal services market is evolving very rapidly at the moment and we must be prepared for what may come in the future. For example, where there might currently be no need for compensation arrangements, this may change in the future. The draft order enables the BSB to take a proportionate and, importantly, consistent approach to regulation by being able to decide to whom the obligations should apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised a point about fines. The maximum levels of fines may appear to noble Lords to be very high, as indeed they do to me—I cannot conceive of having that much money—but we must understand that some of the alternative business structures in particular will contain significant amounts of capital and may grow quite large, involving not just legal services but other types of businesses. It is important that we have the right incentives to make sure that people do not contravene the rules. The amounts are absolute maximums and it will be for the BSB to consider and consult on what fining regime and fine levels it should have in the future. As with all proposed rules, the fining regime will need to be approved by the Legal Standards Board. This safeguard keeps coming back: the Legal Standards Board has to approve the issues that we are talking about today.
Prisons: Overcrowding
Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Beecham(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, on securing the debate and on his masterly review of the crisis in our prisons system.
On 23 February, a Home Office press release announced:
“Justice Secretary Elizabeth Truss unveils landmark Prisons and Courts Bill”,
and claimed that the Bill,
“paves the way for the biggest overhaul of prisons in a generation”.
In her Second Reading speech on the Bill—which of course subsequently seems to have disappeared—the then Lord Chancellor proclaimed:
“We have held the prison population stable for the last six years”. —[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/17; col. 657.]
Stability can of course take several forms. Certainly prisoner numbers remained stable, but as today’s debate makes clear, stability cannot be claimed for the rising tide of violence, self-harm and drug abuse which grew exponentially in those six years.
For a quarter of a century, under successive Governments, the number of prisoners grew inexorably, until we now have, as we have heard, the highest incarceration rate in western Europe, higher than some of the less advanced countries in eastern Europe. Also, of course, the number of prison officers has fallen substantially, by more than 25%.
The consequences include the highest number of deaths among prisoners on record in the year to March 2017. The chief inspector’s report states that a third of the 344 deaths were self-inflicted, while serious assaults more than doubled in the last three years, and, tellingly, assaults on staff rose by 88% in the last two years. Force is also used by prison staff, and the report discloses that it was found at a high level in two-thirds of prisons, while it expresses,
“concerns about the quality of documentation used to justify the use of force”.
Further, self-harm figures rose from just under 26,000 in 2014-15 to over 40,000 in 2016, a rate of 471 per 1,000 prisoners. The Howard League recently reported a 75% increase in two years of additional days in prison for breaking prison rules, to a total of 290,000 cases.
Having reduced the number of prison staff by 7,500 and saved £900 million by 2015, the Government are now seeking to recruit 2,500 new officers. However, the number of front-line staff increased by only 75 in the last year after allowing for numbers leaving the service. Can the Minister update the figures for those leaving and those joining the service, and can she tell us the average term of service for those who departed? Does she accept that, so far from prison numbers being held at the present level, let alone reduced, the forecast for 2020 is now for the numbers to grow to 90,000? If so, what are the implications for staffing and new prison places?
The chief inspector’s report of 18 July is a veritable litany of failure across the penal system. He highlights the fact that only 14% of prisoners and 4% of young adults were unlocked for at least 10 hours a day, and was shocked to discover that 30% of the latter spent fewer than two hours a day out of their cells. He was confronted by vermin infestation and insanitary toilets and showers. Too many prisoners suffered from learning disability or mental health problems, and he affirmed that it is the,
“job of the Inspectorate to point out where the imbalance between staff and prisoner numbers adversely affects the treatment of and conditions for prisoners”.
It is fair to point out that the inspector found conditions in women’s prisons to be better, but self-harming and suicide reached the highest level in women’s prisons in 12 years. Similar patterns were-reflected in young offender institutions, where the inspector shockingly concluded that,
“there was not a single establishment that we inspected in England and Wales in which it was safe to hold children and young people”.
It is particularly disturbing to learn that:
“In many cases the response to previous recommendations has been unforgivably poor”,
with,
“42% of recommendations on safety”,
not being achieved.
Worryingly, the report records a decline in the condition of secure training centres, stating:
“We have seen regimes where boys take every meal alone in their cell, where they are locked up for excessive amounts of time, where they do not get enough exercise, education or training, and where there do not appear to be any credible plans to break the cycle of violence”.
It is difficult to imagine a more damaging critique of any public service, let alone one concerning young people. Paradoxically, the report notes that large sums of money have been provided for teachers and classrooms that are being paid for but not used, because institutions cannot get boys to education in time or at all.
We are entitled to ask of the Government what notice, if any, they take of the inspectorate’s reports regarding the funding of the service and the penalties imposed for failure, especially in prisons being run for profit by the likes of G4S and Sodexo. Damningly, in his introduction to the report, Mr Clarke points out that, notwithstanding his statement of the previous year,
“too many of our prisons had become unacceptably violent and dangerous places. The situation has not improved – in fact, it has become worse”.
What are the Government going to do to rectify this dire and shameful situation? The much vaunted Prisons and Courts Bill was launched in February, claiming to be,
“paving the way for the biggest overhaul of prisons in a generation and the delivery of a world-class court system”.
I observe that we already have a world-class system—unfortunately, it is a third-world-class system. We do not know what the Government’s intentions are in respect of legislation. Perhaps the Minister could advise us. What has become of the claim in the Government press release of 23 February that the,
“Historic Prisons and Courts Bill will transform the lives of offenders and put victims at the heart of the justice system, helping to create a safer and better society”,
and that,
“new legislation underpins measures outlined in the ground-breaking Prison Safety and Reform White Paper which will transform how our prisons operate”?
Ever helpful, as is my wont, I suggest that the Government begin again and include in any future Bill on the topic—assuming there is parliamentary time in the face of the tidal wave of Brexit legislation which is about to overwhelm us—some basic proposals designed to reduce the prison population to a more manageable, and therefore more effective, level. First, in addition to the suggestions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, there is a need to deal much more promptly with the scandal of the IPP prisoners, still numbering some 3,000. Secondly, the Government need to reduce significantly the number of prisoners on remand pending trial, a significant proportion of whom will be found not guilty or, if guilty, receive light, often non-custodial sentences. Thirdly, in discussion with the judiciary, they need to review the degree of sentence inflation which has characterised the last couple of decades, which a number of noble Lords have referred to. Fourthly, they need to reconsider their policy of building very large prisons, which in too many cases are very distant from the families and communities to which prisoners will return on their release. Lastly, they need to investigate the disproportionate number of ethnic minority prisoners relative to other offenders committing comparable offences.
We have had a broad and very well informed debate which I hope the Government will take on board. I’m not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, has had to reply to a debate on prisons thus far?
Lord Beecham
I hope her initiation has not proved too painful. I am sure she will address very seriously the issues that noble Lords around the House have raised and will, together with the new Lord Chancellor, make greater progress than seems likely at present. I think the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, in particular, who has, as ever, brought his masterful experience of the system to the fore and made a very strong case for the change that is needed to make it more effective and humane.