Prison Capacity

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I am well aware of the issues around indeterminate sentences for public protection. I know that matter is of great interest to noble Lords. It would not be appropriate to make changes in relation to IPP prisoners, because they are a different order of public protection risk. I am determined to make more progress on IPP prisoners. As I say, we will build on the work done by the previous Government. We worked constructively with the previous Administration on sensible changes that could be made in the safest possible way for the public. Those changes were on the licence period and the action plan, and we will crack on with that as a new Government. Any changes that we make to the regime for that type of sentence, which has rightly been abolished, must be done while balancing the public protection risk, which we would never take lightly.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his new role. I want to bring up the issue of Dartmoor prison; I live six miles from it and have been very involved with it for over 30 years. The significance is that 175 people will be moved within the next two weeks. Does that mean there will be only 525 male places available in England? How long will it take to reopen Dartmoor, if at all? If it is not to be reopened, what are we to do to ensure that the skills and expertise there are used elsewhere in the prison service? Because of the potential challenges to the local economy, can we seriously consider a new prison somewhere nearby?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, for her question. Interestingly, this week I have heard of Members of Parliament in the other place complaining about people wanting to build a new prison in their area, and then people also complaining that we are closing prisons in their area.

The circumstances at Dartmoor are exceptional and it is a very unfortunate situation that we are in. We spoke to the Prison Officers’ Association, which I met last week to discuss our plans to support the workforce there. It has been a very successful prison, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware; it has been very well run and has had very good outcomes. We need to make sure that we retain the talented staff who are there. I have also spoken to the local MP to assure him that we will inform him of everything we know as soon as it happens, and that we will maintain the prison while it is temporarily closed so it will be ready to be reopened if we can.

Parc Prison

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords—

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

The time for questions has completed.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

There have been no Back-Bench questions.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

I regret that, but unless I am advised otherwise, it was a 10-minute Question and it has been completed.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

With no Back-Benchers.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

The time is complete.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

It is totally unsatisfactory that we are in this position. Normally, the 10 minutes kicks in after the Front-Benchers have spoken and there is an opportunity for Back-Benchers to ask questions. Why is that not the case now?

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

I acknowledge that it appeared to be unsatisfactory. The guidance is absolutely clear that it is 10 minutes, and both Front-Bench spokesmen spent considerable time in asking their questions. There can be no further debate on the matter and we will continue with the other proceedings.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, Amendment 3 acknowledges that the definition of victim in the Bill is quite broad, and that will mean, I hope, that as many victims as possible are supported by the victims’ code and related services. However, I want to probe the Government as to whether they intended the definition of victim to be so broad as to include the close family of a person who died as a direct result of their own criminal conduct; for example, by dangerous driving or possessing and consuming illegal drugs.

Clause 1(2) defines a victim as including

“where the death of a close family member of the person was the direct result of criminal conduct”.

This appears to include where the deceased caused their own death by their own criminal conduct. This broadness is underlined by Clause 1(5), which makes it “immaterial” whether anyone has reported the criminal conduct, or if anyone has been charged with, or convicted of, an offence.

The family of someone who dies as a result of consuming illegal drugs are victims of the Government’s ideological war on drugs. The Government refuse to treat drug use as a health issue and to implement a safe, regulated market of drugs that would take the multi-billion pound drugs trade out of the hands of criminal gangs.

Can the Minister please clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that family members of people who die as a result of their own criminal conduct will be supported by the victims’ code and the associated support services provided to victims?

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my relevant interests as outlined in the register. I support Amendments 8, 12 and 19, which seek to ensure that people who have suffered as a result of a crime committed by a patient with a mental health disorder who is detained in hospital under a restriction order are afforded the same rights under the victims’ code as victims of offenders who are held in the prison estate. This is not the case presently.

The amendments seek to extend the principle that all victims have a right to be heard in the justice process and to include the NHS and His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service in the list of responsible agencies. This would bring mental health tribunal processes in line with the rest of the criminal justice system and remove a long-standing and unfair disparity in treatment for people who have experienced these crimes. The principle that everyone who experiences a crime should have the opportunity to make their voice heard in the criminal justice process is at the heart of why these amendments are necessary. Those who have experienced crimes committed by patients with a diagnosed mental health illness deserve parity of treatment with all other people who have experienced crimes.

Under the victims’ code, people have the right to make a victim personal statement before the Parole Board when the person who has offended is being considered for release. Anyone who is directly affected by violent crime should have the right to be heard, but, as the victims’ code does not extend to mental health tribunals, victims of an offence caused by somebody held under a mental health restriction order cannot make any personal statement in writing, or in person, to the mental health tribunal panel.

The VPS is the single key entitlement which allows people to explain the impact of the crime committed against them, and there is a widespread consensus that the opportunity to submit a VPS is beneficial for all victims. It can offer some catharsis, which is essential in assisting the recovery from the trauma of a crime. In addition to this being beneficial to people who have experienced crime, this process may offer the opportunity for patients with a mental health disorder to gain further understanding of the impact of their actions on other people. This is particularly important when these people return to the community and sometimes feel that it would be better not to take their medication. Understanding the risk of not doing so might be beneficial for the proportion who are able to leave hospital.

The anticipated number of victims wishing to speak directly to the mental health tribunal is likely to be small. I understand that in cases of people wishing to address the Parole Board in person, it is currently fewer than one in 10. The majority are likely to submit a written statement to the panel that explains the impact that the actions of the patient has made on their lives.

The practice of allowing statements to be made to the tribunal is established in other jurisdictions, such as Scotland and Australia. In research undertaken by the Victims’ Commissioner in 2019, a family in Scotland discussed their experience addressing a mental health panel. They attended a separate hearing where the patient was not present but a legal representative attended on their behalf instead. The family did not get the outcome from the hearing they had hoped for but, crucially, they felt acknowledged and a party to the process despite that. They said:

“We … did feel given a voice, and one of the few occasions in the whole process we felt we had a voice and able to articulate our position”.


Clearly, it should be possible to balance the rights of patients.

Of course, as a nurse, I cannot overemphasise the need to maintain the confidentiality of medical records in tribunals. None of this needs to be shared with the victim making the representation and those impacted by crimes, so why is there such a different process in England and Wales, even just north of the border? As victims of crime are not currently able to address mental health panels in writing, by video link or in person, we are left with a two-tier system in which a distinction is made based on whether somebody is detained in a prison or in a mental health hospital. It is those who have suffered from the crime who lose out in terms of being heard.

I have worked closely with the Victims’ Commissioner, who has long called for this change. I hope that the Government will look favourably on these amendments and identify any changes to mental health tribunals that may be necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords very sincerely for their most moving and constructive speeches. I will first respond to the invitation of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to conduct these proceedings in as open and consensual way as possible. In the other place, my right honourable friend Minister Argar did precisely that, and I propose to follow exactly the same approach, and to discuss as widely as we can the various difficult issues that are in front of us. That is an essential function of this Chamber.

To a great extent—I think my noble friend Lady Newlove accepted this, up to a point—we have made very considerable progress in support of victims generally over the last few years. But the problems that remain are, in particular, that victims are still often unaware of their rights, that the required services are not provided, or that the relevant authorities are not accountable. So the questions in front of us are not so much points of principle as questions as to how we change the culture of a system to make sure that victims are properly supported, as they should be.

I suggest, in shorthand, that essentially we should seek four things. First, victims should be aware of their rights and entitlements under the code. Secondly, those services should be accessible. Thirdly, those responsible for providing them should be accountable. Finally, the system should be affordable; speaking on behalf of the Government, I am bound to make that point. Essentially, we have four As: awareness, accessibility, accountability and affordability. It is within that framework that I will respond to the various points that have been made, with great conviction and sincerity, about the definition of “victim” in the current draft of the Bill.

We are dealing with five questions all together. One is about carers and those who suffer vicarious harm, which is raised in Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The second is about people who have been victims of a defendant who has subsequently been made the subject of a hospital order as distinct from another criminal sanction. Thirdly, there is the question of anti-social behaviour. Fourthly, there is the question of homicide abroad. Finally, where the criminal conduct has been caused by another family member, there is the question of whether they are still a victim; that is raised in the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I will take those points, and probably in that order.

As regards Amendment 1, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as I read it, the definition of “victim” is not confined in its present form to victims of serious sexual or violent behaviour; it is very broad, extending to all crimes. It refers first to persons who have been subject to witnessing a crime. The Government’s position is that those who have witnessed a crime are already covered fairly explicitly in the definition in Clause 1.

That takes us on to the difficult question of how far you go on the carers of victims and others who have suffered indirectly rather than directly. On that point, the Government’s present thinking is that we should have a system that serves the direct victims primarily, and that we cannot, at this stage at least, extend the definition of a victim too far. If I may say so, there is force in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: if one makes the concept of a victim too wide, one may well finish up with a system that is not as workable as it otherwise would be. There are all kinds of people who are, in one sense, victims but who are not necessarily the direct victims to whom we must give priority. The job of a Government is to make decisions as to how to prioritise services. We are very pressed on resources on all fronts, so I urge your Lordships to take that point into account and to consider that the definition of victim in Clause 1 is already very wide. I will come to certain points made in that connection in a moment. It would not be the right approach, by statute, to extend that already broad definition any further than it is. Broadly speaking, that is the Government’s position on Amendment 1.

On the point about hospital orders in relation to Amendments 8, 12 and 19, the question is whether the victim is a person who has been subject to criminal conduct. A person may well be the perpetrator of criminal conduct but still finish up being ordered by the court to be detained in a secure hospital, rather than serve a criminal sentence. The Government’s position is that many of the victims whose perpetrator has finished up in front of a mental health tribunal are already victims under the Bill. They are covered so long as the conduct is criminal. Your Lordships may have seen the tragic case in Nottingham this week, where the defendant, who was clearly schizophrenic and should never have been on the streets, was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of dismissed responsibility. It was criminal conduct, so those unfortunate families are victims. The point that is rightly made—

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

If the Minister would not mind giving way, I will clarify—I am sure that this is what he meant—that there are many people who are successfully treated for schizophrenia who live in the community. I think that he is referring to an individual who was very ill and who sought the charge of manslaughter yesterday because of diminished responsibility. I would not want the impression to be given in Hansard that people cannot live their lives—quite challenging lives—with schizophrenia in the community.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I entirely accept that point. I have in my own family direct experience of a similar situation. That particular individual had already committed a number of crimes and there was a warrant out for his arrest. That is a very specific case and that is the context in which I made my comment.

On the assumption that, in many of these cases, we have someone who is already a victim under the meaning in the Bill, the problem rightly identified is that the procedures of the mental health tribunal do not, at the moment, quite correspond to the procedures in the main courts, particularly on the right to give a victim statement. The Government’s position is that that is not a satisfactory state of affairs; they are working with the authorities in the mental health tribunal and others to operationalise how we have the same system for mental health tribunals as for the main courts system. I hope to be able to give your Lordships further information that will enable your Lordships to say that this point—which is rightly being made—is being addressed by the Government. As soon as I am in a position to give further information about that, I will. The point of principle that a number of noble Lords have made is accepted; there is no dispute about that.

We then come to the equally difficult question of anti-social behaviour. Again, the first question is whether the victim has been subject to criminal conduct. Strictly speaking, whether or not the police have taken any action is not decisive of the question of whether the conduct is criminal. It may well have crossed the criminal threshold and, if it has, the victim should be entitled to relevant circumstances.

If the conduct has not crossed the criminal threshold, that is a more difficult situation because the scope of the Bill is victims of criminal conduct, and it is quite difficult for the Government, at least at this stage, to contemplate bringing within the scope of this Bill conduct that is not criminal. But a lot of anti-social behaviour is criminal, so how are we going to tackle this? Again, I am not in a position to give your Lordships as much detail as I would wish, but there will shortly be before your Lordships the Criminal Justice Bill currently making its passage through the other place, which will tackle and address a number of legitimate concerns about anti-social behaviour by enhancing the powers available to the police and other local agencies under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Second reading committee
Tuesday 19th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I appreciate that, and I am not yet at 15 minutes, but there is nothing on the speakers’ list that stipulates a time of 15 minutes.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

If I could clarify, it is normally expected in a Second Reading that 15 to 20 minutes is the maximum. Obviously, sometimes there are exceptions, but particularly as the noble Lord asked at the beginning for any clarification, I thought that would be helpful.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Yes, I am very aware that behind me, and in other parts of this Committee Room, there may well be those who are anxious about getting away for their Christmas. I will therefore be responsive to this interjection and bring the Committee to another very important crisis—one which leads directly to what I have said about the importance of an arbitration Bill. It should not only set the right relationship between arbitration and the courts but be promotional in nature.

The departmental committee was headed up first by Lord Mustill and then by Lord Steyn. They gave up the fight with the parliamentary draftsman who was, dear lady, a very pedantic one. She produced a Bill which was enormously complicated and quite unreadable. It included, most surprisingly—Mr Toby Landau would remember this—the writ of habeas corpus. We had a meeting about it in Queen Mary College, down the Mile End Road, and there was an uproar against it. I remember Jan Paulsson, a leading international arbitrator, making scathing comments. There was a skeleton hang-up and what we should therefore be grateful for, and what I would like to record, is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, and Mr Toby Landau started all over again. That is the product we have now in the 1996 Act.

The important thing about what we are doing now is that this is a wholly readable Bill. It does not have a whole lot of parliamentary junk in it. It takes you all the way through each stage of the arbitration. What we should be doing now is to make quite sure that we follow in that line. I do have comments about the Bill itself, but I will leave those to another time.

Prison Capacity

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am not in a position to draw any comparison with Germany or any other country. However, I am bound to say that we need to learn as much as we can from the experience of other countries, so I take the noble Lord’s point on that. I fully agree that no one should be in prison for a moment longer than they need to be.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, there appears to be a significant disparity between the fines levied on people who broke the Covid regulations, particularly for people under 30. Many of them have yet to complete paying their fine. Can the Minister indicate whether His Majesty’s Government will consider an amnesty for unpaid fines, and possibly a rebate for those over £1,000, in order to ensure that no one is imprisoned for the non-payment of fines, further increasing the population in prison?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, as your Lordships will understand, I cannot comment on particular cases in which fines for Covid infringements have been levied, nor am I in a position to say that the Government are considering any amnesty in relation to any such fines.

Powers of Attorney Bill

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 16th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount and the noble Lord. I rise briefly to voice my support for the Bill and its aims.

Lasting powers of attorney are invaluable tools for people who are likely to lose capacity and the ability to convey their wishes, allowing them to have control over their future lives. We talk about keeping our affairs in order most frequently through the lens of our finances and property; there is much to be done in terms of safeguarding against fraud and financial abuse, and the Bill will do much to address those concerns. However, we do not talk often enough about the equally important—but, I expect, somewhat less well known—option of a lasting power of attorney for health and welfare. Just as you can nominate someone to make decisions about your finance and property if you lose capacity, you can nominate someone to make those same decisions in health and care settings. My sister and I had to do that for our mother, and it was very successful, because she had thought long-term in advance.

The provisions in the Bill that allow for LPAs to be completely digital are important, as they will remove barriers to completing them by streamlining the process. It will reduce the time it takes to complete the process and for the Office of the Public Guardian to complete its necessary checks, which will also give people greater confidence in the process.

While the Bill is necessarily focused on the reform of powers of attorney, I want to highlight a related issue that is also in need of a modest but important digital reform. Living wills, known officially as advance decisions to refuse treatment, allow a person to say now if there are treatments that they do not wish to be given in the future, should they lose the capacity to communicate. Like LPAs, they were formalised by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and, under the law at present, must be signed using a so-called wet signature. This prevents them being fully digital, which in turn makes these important documents very difficult to share across care settings and to be visible when it matters most.

The impact of this is clear. Many people are going to great lengths to consider and record their end-of-life wishes but, very sadly, often they are not known about due to the paper forms being lost or not properly uploaded to a medical record, or due to their local area’s digital record systems not allowing them to be shared. This can be of particular concern when a person’s records might be shared between GPs, hospitals, community care, ambulance services or care homes, for example. In real and simple terms, it means that sometimes people are given treatments that they would not want, all because the system by which records are shared has let them down.

The impact for the individual can be catastrophic and result in a much more complicated bereavement for loved ones. Compassion in Dying, a charity that supports people at the end of life to record, discuss and communicate their wishes, has asked me to raise this point at Second Reading. It too is fully supportive of the moves to reform powers of attorney, but urges us as legislators to consider making similar moves in the near future to ensure that living wills can benefit from the same reforms and so make it easier for our wishes to be respected if we ever lose the ability to make or communicate those wishes for ourselves.

According to the people supported by Compassion in Dying, the very fact that living wills are difficult to share, and the concern that they might not be available to healthcare professionals when they are needed most, is a barrier to even starting the process. Compassion in Dying says:

“We are convinced that enabling digital signatures on Living Wills in a safeguarded way would transform the experiences of thousands of dying people in the UK. Being able to know what matters to each person is a central part of high-quality care: allowing for fully-digital Living Wills would make this so much easier for so many”.


I welcome this Bill and its noble effects, and hope that the separate but equally important issue of living wills can be addressed in the very near future.

National Security Bill

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Lords Chamber

Clauses 78 to 81 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

A decision has been taken through the usual channels to combine the next two groups, commencing with Amendment 105A and including the following list commencing with Amendment 106.

Clause 82: National security proceedings

Amendment 105A

Moved by

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. The Bill before us is designed to allow terminally ill, mentally capable adults the option of accelerating their deaths with medical assistance. I believe that it has sufficient safeguards in place to protect the rights of those who do not want to use this option, while extending autonomy to people who may want to consider shortening their lives in the last few months before their expected death.

I stress that no healthcare practitioner should have to be involved in actively assisting dying. There is a precedent for such an approach in relation to the termination of pregnancy to ensure that the rights, beliefs and cultural wishes of doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals are protected. The Royal College of Nursing states:

“Everyone has the right to be cared for with dignity and respect as they approach the end of their lives.”


The RCN was the first royal college to declare a neutral position on this issue, which seems to reflect public opinion and, perhaps, the fact that nurses spend more time with people who are going through the end of life process than other healthcare professionals. The RCN guidelines on care state:

“Dying adults should have the choice on assisted dying with strict safeguards. A change in the law would better protect patients and healthcare professionals and provide greater control and access to services at the end of life.”


It is vital that people who have symptoms they deem intolerable at the end of their lives should have the autonomy to choose whether they wish to request assistance with dying. Every person finds different aspects of gradual loss of human function distressing, but some more so than others. Many nurses report that some cognitively aware patients find faecal incontinence as mentally anguishing as intractable pain. I have personally witnessed patients who have soiled themselves—despite kind, compassionate care to keep them as clean and odour-free as possible— saying, “How much longer will this go on? I have had enough. I cannot go on like this. Can you stop my suffering soon?”

My noble friend Lady Murphy presented much of the international evidence and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, described the influence of his father’s request on his support for the Bill. Taken together with the contributions of other noble Lords and the many communications that I have received, this has enabled me to confirm my support for the Bill. It intends that assisted dying is to complement palliative care rather than to be a replacement. However, there are known disparities in the access to and availability of palliative care services, which are notably limited for people from lower socioeconomic positions and those of minority ethnicity. I trust that, if this Bill proceeds, it will act as a catalyst to fill the gaps in the access to and availability of palliative care for the entire UK population. Assisted dying should never become the norm, but rather be an adjunct to excellent palliative care.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]]

My Lords, this amendment is understandable but misconceived and I am relieved that it will not be put to a vote. I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Family Committee of the Judicial Studies Board, which was the forerunner of the Judicial College.

I have recently been in touch with the Judicial College to find out what training there is at the moment and what is intended when the Bill becomes law. I hope that the House will bear with me as I bring noble Lords up to date. I propose to say quite a lot, despite noble Lords having heard from the Minister. I do not accept that the current training is not working. The Judicial College trains all judges at every level and all magistrates sitting in the criminal and civil courts. Judges and magistrates are identified as appropriate to sit in particular work such as domestic abuse, and they are ticketed to do so only after they have had sufficient training. They are not allowed to sit until they have had that training. The training involves a three-day induction course in a residential setting, followed by continual professional residential training throughout their time as a magistrate or judge.

The training in domestic abuse includes hearing from victims and victim organisations. A lot of online extra information and advice is also sent to judges and magistrates. However, the Judicial College is only part of the training. The president sets out instructions to judges in practice directions. PD12J, updated in 2017, which I have no doubt will be updated again, sets out how family cases involving domestic abuse should be tried. The Court of Appeal sets out instructions and advice on how to approach and try domestic abuse cases. An important judgment for the Court of Appeal, Re H-N and Others (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings), was given earlier this year. The three members of the court were the President of the Family Division, the chairman of the Judicial College and a member of the criminal sentencing panel, all of whom are involved in the training of family and criminal judges and magistrates. The president himself takes a personal interest in the training of family judges.

The House may be interested to know that in the H-N case, the Court of Appeal invited the various victims’ organisations, such as Women’s Aid, to be represented at the court and to give their views, which were carefully listened to by the court—and that was shown in the judgments. In the H-N case, the president set out some statistics which showed that 1,582 full-time family judges, some part-time family judges and 2,744 family magistrates sat in family cases in England and Wales. The president said that it is thought that domestic abuse allegations are raised in at least 40% of cases in which parents dispute the future of their children. That means that domestic abuse issues are raised in about 22,000 child cases each year. In addition, the courts received last year 29,285 applications for injunction orders seeking protection from domestic abuse.

It is obvious, as we have heard during proceedings on the Bill, that some judges get it wrong. That is obvious from the H-N case, where in four cases things went wrong. It is helpful that the Court of Appeal saw that and put it right. However, from the large number of cases tried by the courts, there are very few appeals to the Court of Appeal and I would suggest, despite what has been said—particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, who said that the training is not working—that only a comparatively small number of people have in fact had bad experiences and that most judges have got it right.

I am told by the Judicial College that the domestic abuse training is being updated in the light of the forthcoming Act and instructions from the most recent Court of Appeal cases such as H-N and several others. The new Act will become an integral part of the family training of judges at every level, and of magistrates. It will form part of the courses taken by the judges and magistrates trying criminal cases as well. It is across the board. The president has also set up a private law working group which includes domestic abuse. There is, therefore, a great deal of information, guidance and instruction to judges and magistrates on how to try domestic abuse cases, which it is their duty to follow, and they are given the training to do so.

It is not in my view that there is a lack of good training; it is that some judges do not seem to have benefited from it. I cannot see how any statutory guidance from the Lord Chancellor will improve how judges deal with such cases. It is a matter of trying to make sure that the limited number of judges who do not do well enough will do better. Much of that comes from appeals to the Court of Appeal, which can put the matter right and give sensible and helpful advice.

I am relieved that this matter will not go to a vote because, although I have not dealt with it, this is also, as the Minister has said, a constitutional issue of judicial independence. I hope that the House will now be satisfied that the Judicial College is doing the best job that it possibly can and will, with the new Act, do somewhat better.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

Does anyone else in the Chamber wish to speak? No? I call the next speaker on the list, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, has said, with the best will in the world, much of the legislation that this House passes will be ineffective if judges do not understand the issues. Sadly, in some cases—albeit a limited number—it is clear that they do not understand the issues surrounding domestic abuse, in particular, coercive control, rape and sexual abuse, despite current training.

To the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I would say that there is a difference between outputs and outcomes. I am not sure whether this is an appropriate analogy, but I know from my own experience of race relations training, for example, that the cultural shift needed is difficult to achieve. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and, at times, the training of the judiciary has failed the test. Despite the Minister’s assertion, I fail to understand how mandating such training without dictating the specific content can be contrary to the principle of judicial independence, as my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames has said.

However, we are grateful for the reassurances that the Government have given as a result of the concerted efforts by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.

Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 16th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow on from other noble Lords and to lend my support to this Private Member’s Bill, so coherently presented to this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding. I also acknowledge her tribute to the late Dame Cheryl Gillan. My brother and sister-in-law, John and Sarah Watkins, have been supportive constituents of hers for many years, and I extend my deepest sympathy to her friends and colleagues and to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, and her partner, Tim Butcher.

The Bill’s aim is to enhance the provision of substantive testing in prisons and similar institutions. We have seen the exemplary speed with which vaccines have been developed globally in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This is medical and scientific innovation at its best, yet, even a decade ago, it would not have been feasible to achieve such outcomes so quickly.

Some of the techniques used in medicine development and the refinement of current drugs are used by criminals, with the sole intent of changing chemical elements while maintaining a drug’s ability to encourage addiction. Under current law, because the psychoactive substances that can be tested for in prisons are listed—and, to add to the list, secondary legislation is required—many substances currently abused by prisoners, which often play a role in illicit prison economies, cannot technically be screened for through anonymised prevalence testing.

This Bill is designed to improve the capability of prison services in England and Wales to test for a wide range of illicit substances, including new psychoactive substances, as they emerge, which has for example been the case with spice. This is a highly addictive substance that, as I have said before in this House, is prevalent in many prisons, causing severe problems for prisoners themselves and putting prison officers in at-risk situations because the drug can trigger erratic and aggressive behaviour in users.

However, I am concerned that the Explanatory Notes for the Bill imply that there is no expectation that costs associated with prevalence testing will increase. However, it seems reasonable to expect that laboratory costs will increase in line the number of substances in samples that are screened for. If the Bill is passed, it is acknowledged that greater investment in mental health services will be necessary to treat problems associated with identified addiction to both illegal and, in some cases, prescribed medicines. Could the Minister explain whether the Government will commission an impact assessment to identify the real needs of successful health intervention in prisons, and especially in youth offender institutions, associated with addiction? Screening may well make prisons safer, but, without readily accessible drug rehabilitation programmes, prisoners are unlikely to benefit significantly from the Bill.

I lend my unreserved support to the Bill, but question the extent to which it will make a real difference to the quality and safety of prisoners’, young offenders’ and prison officers’ lives without greater investment in the Prison Service more widely.