Ex-Offenders: Training and Employment

Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Monday 5th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My noble friend makes a very good point. If we can get prisoners out of prison and into the community to undertake some work experience, that will be hugely beneficial. At the moment, 7,500 prisoners have had at least one release—an increase of 7%—and we are looking at more ways to improve this. We have allowed governors to tailor their ROTL regime by prisoner, and we are developing a new framework for ROTL to ensure that more of the more appropriate prisoners can get out to get the valuable work experience that they need.

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

My Lords, given that the lack of joined-up local partnership was a central criticism made by Dame Glenys Stacey’s annual report on probation for last year, what are the Government doing to build into their new contracts with the community rehabilitation companies firm obligations to work with the voluntary sector and local private businesses to provide training and employment for offenders, both those serving community sentences and offenders on their release from custody?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, the community rehabilitation companies are an important part of our probation service. Noble Lords will know that we are ending the current CRC contracts early; some things have worked well, and some things, frankly, have not. We have sought feedback from a number of proposals to improve the structure and content, and we are talking to third sector organisations. The public consultation ended on 21 September. I also acknowledge the recommendations which were brought forward in the Justice Select Committee’s report. The Government will look at all these items—of course, any contributions from the noble Lord will be very welcome—and we will respond early next year.

Divorce Law

Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Thursday 6th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[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.

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

My Lords, divorce proceedings should involve collaboration to protect the future of the families involved, yet far too many cases, including many that end up undefended, start with a string of allegations, often exaggerated, to demonstrate fault. Given the overwhelming view of the judiciary and other legal professions, and the complete discrediting of the present law by the Supreme Court in the Owens case, can the Government have any reason for not supporting the Divorce (etc.) Law Review Bill of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, with a view to introducing no-fault divorce with a simple scheme of application and confirmation of irretrievable breakdown?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble Lord is quite right: collaboration should be at the heart of all divorcing couples, but, at the moment, three in five divorcing couples use conduct-based allegations, which create a huge amount of conflict. As I said, the Government are looking extremely closely at ways to reduce conflict in divorce, whether that be no fault, financial provisions or enforceable nuptial agreements. I very much hope that noble Lords will see progress in the near future.

Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 10th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I think that the noble Baroness is perhaps not entirely understanding my comments. It is absolutely key that we get the best candidates into the job. The point of this is to make sure that the pool of possible candidates is as broad as possible. No candidate, whether they be from a BAME community, female or disabled, should be left out of the pool—and from that pool it is important that we select those candidates who are the best for that particular job.

I hope that, in the light of my comments, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, when the Minister started her response, I was tempted to accuse her of complacency. However, I now accept, after the length of her speech and what she said subsequently, that that was directed only to the limited ambit of the Bill.

On the subject of men’s caring responsibilities, I think she will find that Hansard will show that I specifically mentioned them—although I may have emphasised women’s. But as a father of seven, it would be wrong for me to omit mention of caring responsibilities myself. I should also perhaps have echoed the parental declaration of interest of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, because one of my children is a solicitor.

I respond to the point that the Minister made about merit regardless of all. The whole point of the tipping amendment that we tabled to the courts Bill was to ensure that, where there were candidates of equal merit, it was permissible to choose a candidate who had a protected characteristic over an equally qualified candidate, in much the same way as happens in organisations across the land. That ought to be important.

Finally, I do not accuse the Minister of complacency. What she said plainly showed that the Government do care. However, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in attacking this Bill for its failure to address the very real problems and make good the promise of modernisation of the courts in a comprehensive fashion. I know that the noble and learned Lord has told us that other legislation will follow on the modernisation of the courts, but there are real issues to address, and judicial diversity is one of them. Saying that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 12th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

I shall speak very briefly to Amendments 35 and 36, both of which concern medical reports. These and also Amendment 39, to which my noble friend Lord Sharkey spoke, are in my name. The purpose of Amendment 35 is simple. While it is very difficult to prove, there is widespread concern that the quality of medical reports and, sadly, sometimes the quality and genuineness of those who provide them, is low.

Of course, it is notoriously difficult for clinicians to give reliable evidence of whiplash injuries, both because the symptoms are self-reported—and reported differently by different patients depending on their robustness—and because patients’ accounts are hard to test objectively. Assessment of the likely duration of whiplash injuries, which becomes increasingly important in view of a cliff edge-type tariff, is also very challenging because the course of recovery is extremely difficult to predict and varies from patient to patient, again often dependent on no more than the robustness of the patient concerned. However, some clinicians develop considerable experience of these injuries, and a sensible system of accreditation, with the assistance of MedCo—which is already involved in assisting with the criteria for qualifications to produce medical reports, and quality assurance—ought to be able to encourage some consistency. That is why we seek the incorporation of a reference to MedCo in the legislation.

Amendment 36 would require the Lord Chancellor,

“by regulations make provision for the cost of obtaining appropriate medical evidence … to be recoverable by a claimant who succeeds … unless the court decides that such recovery would be contrary to the interests of justice”.

This is a topic on which I have sought reassurance from the Minister in previous stages, and I have received some. But the current position is that recoverability is a matter of discretion. With the proposed change in the small claims limit and the proposed new portal, we would like to hear a statement that it is intended that in all cases where a claimant, even one below the small claims limit, succeeds in recovering damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity under the tariff, the cost of obtaining the medical report, which will be compulsory, will go with it, unless doing so,

“would be contrary to the interests of justice”.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, the amendments in this group all relate to either the provision of medical reports in relation to the ban on pre-medical offers for whiplash claims or the cold-calling provisions.

I start by reassuring noble Lords that the cost of medical reports is already recoverable in personal injury claims where the defendant insurer has admitted any part of liability. They will continue to be recoverable following these reforms, including in the small claims track following the proposed increase of the limit to £5,000.

The amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, place the requirement for medical reports to be,

“provided by an accredited medical expert selected via the MedCo Portal”,

or other experts specified by the Lord Chancellor in regulations. Currently, the Civil Procedure Rules require any initial medical report in support of a whiplash claim to be sought through the MedCo IT portal, which, as noble Lords will be aware, was established to improve the independence and quality of medical reporting. The Civil Procedure Rules also require that all MedCo medical reports must be provided by an accredited medical expert.

These provisions were made through the Civil Procedure Rules for a reason. The Civil Procedure Rules are flexible and their use allows for rapid responses to changed circumstances. MedCo is an industry-owned and operated company, and it would be very unusual to enshrine the purposes of such an organisation in the rigid structure of primary legislation. MedCo was formed to take forward government policy in relation to medical reporting. However, circumstances may change, as could MedCo’s role. Alternative accreditation schemes may be added or it may become necessary to appoint another organisation to operate the current process. Were the use of the excellent MedCo process to be put in the Bill, the ability to respond to such changed circumstances would be lost, and genuine claimants could suffer as a result. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, not to press his amendments.

Amendments 32 and 39, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks, seek to add a requirement relating to claims sourced through cold calling to the Government’s prohibition on the making or seeking of settling whiplash claims without medical evidence. While I fully understand the noble Lords’ motivations in tabling these amendments, I believe it would not be appropriate to widen the ban on seeking or offering to settle a whiplash claim without the claimant first seeking medical evidence to also include claims which may have been sourced via a cold call. This could discriminate against genuinely injured claimants.

First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, the principal purpose of the draft order before us is to provide the Senior President of Tribunals, to whom I shall refer as the SPT, with greater flexibility in setting panel composition within the First-tier Tribunal. These changes are being made with the support of the senior judiciary in order to address restrictions in the existing law. The order will also introduce a level of ministerial involvement with panel composition in the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal, bringing their processes in line with other parts of the justice system. The current SPT, Sir Ernest Ryder, has been consulted on the draft provisions and has confirmed his support.

Tribunals were designed to be user-friendly, allowing citizens to seek impartial redress. The tribunal system should be proportionate, accessible and simple to use, though it has become increasingly complex and burdened with bureaucracy. The Government have therefore committed to reforming the tribunals as part of our wider reform of the justice system, delivering a tribunal system that is more efficient and delivers better value for money. This will involve a greater use of technology. New online processes will enable tribunals to be more accessible and easier for users to navigate. As these reforms progress, the use of tribunal panel members should be more tailored and flexible. This will ensure that the tribunal can benefit from panel members’ specialist expertise and knowledge when it adds specific value to the decision-making process.

The terms of the existing composition order specify that in setting panel composition in the First-tier Tribunal, the SPT must have regard to the arrangements that existed before its creation. That requirement means that many tribunal panels are based on historical precedents, dating back over 10 years to 2008 and earlier. In a system that will be reliant on digital processes, the provision of specialist expertise should be looked at afresh to ensure that it remains appropriate. The current legislation restricts the SPT’s ability to do so.

I shall explain further. Tribunal reform will see the introduction of continuous online resolution. Parties will be able to submit a claim and evidence online, and judges will be able to review and request additional information, meaning that where appropriate a decision can be reached without the need for a physical hearing. This will be possible because, unlike the current system where the first interaction between the judge and tribunal user is usually the hearing, there will be an opportunity to offer information and resolve disputes earlier in the process. It will essentially be a triage system, where the most straightforward cases are resolved online and more complex cases continue through to a full hearing.

In this digital context, it would not be reasonable to require the SPT to have regard to panel arrangements that were in place before these alternative means of resolving disputes existed. Rather, the SPT may wish to consider whether specialist expertise could be provided in alternative ways that were more compatible with new online processes. The draft order therefore intends to remove the existing requirement on the SPT to have regard to previous panel arrangements. Instead, it will provide for a requirement to consider the nature of the matter and the means by which it is being decided, as well as the need for members of tribunals to have particular expertise, skills or knowledge.

I turn to ministerial involvement in panel composition. The existing provisions delegate the Lord Chancellor’s responsibility for setting panel composition to the SPT. The current arrangements have been made in practice statements, which do not include any form of ministerial involvement. It is intended to introduce a requirement for the SPT to set panel composition by practice direction. The process for doing this, as set out in legislation, is subject to consultation with the Lord Chancellor. There is nothing unusual about the use of practice directions, and they are used in other parts of the justice system. In the civil courts, decisions on judicial allocation and assignment are similarly matters for the judiciary, and are set by practice direction after consultation with the Lord Chancellor. The existing determinations made by practice statement, however, would continue to apply until such time as they are superseded. Although the SPT will be required to consult the Lord Chancellor, panel composition decisions will remain a judicial matter and the SPT will continue to make the final determination.

As to the number of panel members, two years ago the MoJ consulted on proposals to amend the panel composition provisions. At that time, it was proposed to introduce single-member panels as a default and to provide the SPT with the power to specify where additional members should be used. The intention was to ensure tribunal panel composition was proportionate to the case being determined.

However, we listened to our stakeholders and the Government subsequently announced that they would not proceed in this way. Instead, this statutory instrument provides that the SPT will determine whether a panel should consist of one, two or three members. While this still allows for some cases to be heard by a single-member panel—indeed, many tribunals are already ordinarily heard by a single member—the SPT will have regard to the nature of the matter and the means by which it is to be decided, and the need for particular expertise. We can therefore be confident that single-member panels will be used only in appropriate circumstances. Previous changes to panel composition have not proved to be controversial. In 2014, a former SPT conducted a pilot in the tribunal’s special educational needs and disability jurisdiction, reducing the number of panel members from three to two. This did not affect user experience. Importantly, the tribunal was flexible enough to ensure panel composition could be adapted according to the complexity of the case.

The Government of course recognise the valuable contribution that panel members make to the tribunal system. While there will continue to be a need for specific experts, the greater use of technology and new ways of resolving disputes will be an important new factor to consider. This instrument will not itself change panel composition. It will be for the SPT to review and consider whether new panel arrangements are needed.

There are sufficient safeguards to ensure that users are not adversely affected by any panel changes implemented under this order. The SPT has an existing statutory duty: to have regard to the need for tribunals to be accessible; for proceedings to be fair and handled efficiently; and for members of tribunals to be experts in law or the subject matter applied in cases. Additionally, as I have already stated, the revised order will specify that the SPT must have regard to the nature of the matter to be decided and the means by which it will be decided, as well as the need for members of tribunals to have particular expertise, skills or knowledge. Previously, wherever the SPT has sought to amend panel arrangements, he has done so in collaboration with senior members of the judiciary, who in turn have undertaken consultation appropriate to, and proportionate with, the nature of the proposed changes. The SPT has confirmed that he would remain committed to that practice.

In conclusion, the proposed measures will provide the judiciary with greater flexibility to ensure that tribunal panel composition is proportionate and suitable to the case being heard. I commend the order to the Committee.

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

My Lords, I have two main concerns as to this order. The first is the risk of damage to the quality of tribunal decision-making because of the reduced recourse to specialist expertise. We welcome the fact that in response to the consultation, as the Minister said, the Government have abandoned their proposal for a default position that tribunals should be single member. Nevertheless, we are concerned that tribunals may not benefit from specialist membership when they would otherwise do so.

My noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, who was planning to stay and speak but has had to leave because of the hour, is concerned about the composition of tribunals hearing personal independent payment cases. Her views apply equally, of course, to employment support allowance and disability allowance cases. Presently such appeals are heard by a tribunal judge together with a doctor and a disability specialist. It is important that experts have full membership of the tribunals in important cases because, in my noble friend’s experience, assessors advising tribunals are not always, as she puts it, up to the job. Her views are fully supported by Disability Rights UK, which has done a great deal of work in this area.

Freedom of Speech: Hate Crime

Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I think almost all noble Lords would agree that freedom of speech is a fundamental right. I think the noble and learned Lord was referring there to the offence of stirring up hatred from his time as Attorney-General, and indeed it does need the Attorney-General’s permission to prosecute those offences. In the last year there have just been four such prosecutions, all of which were successful.

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

The Question from the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, makes the distinction between the perception of the victim and the hostile motivation of the accused, which has to be proved in court. I suggest that that is a very arid distinction in the context of decisions to investigate and prosecute. Does the Minister agree that the CPS can realistically base its definition of hate crime only on the perception of victims? Will she reaffirm the emphasis in her earlier Written Answer on the importance of the CPS retaining the confidence of the minority communities that are targeted by hate crime?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I think all noble Lords know the background to where we are today. Twenty years ago this country had a very poor record of dealing with hate crime, and confidence in the criminal justice system among BAME communities was extremely low. We have come a long way. It is important to remember that the definition is used for flagging crimes; when it comes to charging those crimes, they still have to be done within the same legal framework as always.

HMP Long Lartin

Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Thursday 12th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Staffing has been discussed in your Lordships’ House many times recently. We are investing £100 million in new staff. There will be an additional 2,500 prison officers by the end of next year. We have already recruited nearly 900 of those and are on target to fulfil what we promised. We are also making sure that we retain our most experienced staff; it is essential to have that experience on the wings. As for Long Lartin in particular, as she will know, it was and is running a full regime. That means it has sufficient staff to do so and does not have an urgent need for additional staff. However, I assure her that additional staff are being recruited; indeed, five additional prison officers will be there before December.

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

My Lords, from these Benches, we join the Minister in commending the Prison Service and its staff for the effective way in which they dealt with this dangerous incident without injury to staff or prisoners. Nevertheless, the underlying crisis in our prisons remains serious. Long Lartin is a category A prison, where most of the prisoners are serving very long sentences. Notwithstanding the generally favourable report in 2014, in the past month, two prisoners were convicted of murdering a third at Long Lartin. That is the fourth homicide in that prison in four years, and there is a history of serious incidents of violence. When investigating this incident, will the Government ensure that the Prison Service concentrates on the particular problems faced by long-term prisoners arising from overcrowding, low staffing levels, excessive time spent by prisoners in their cells—and the frustration that goes with it—and the lack of opportunity?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

Of course, none of the issues that the noble Lord just raised was a factor in this case, because they did not exist in Long Lartin: there is no overcrowding and the staffing level is sufficient. However, Long Lartin houses our category A prisoners. They are the most challenging prisoners on the estate. Violence is, thankfully, a rare occurrence, but it is the nature of the business of prisons, particularly category A prisons, that they can become very volatile. In a volatile situation, I think noble Lords would agree that we are fortunate to have the specialist trained staff, the Tornado teams, available to come in. In the case of Long Lartin, they put a stop to the incident within an hour. I think that should be commended.