Selective Licensing of Houses (Additional Conditions) (England) Order 2015
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, while welcoming, in particular, the conditions set out in the draft order as being helpful to facilitate the successful operation of licensing schemes, I respectfully adopt the—critique is perhaps too strong a word—observations of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lord McKenzie in relation to the matters to which they spoke.
I have had some experience of the selective licensing regime, as I campaigned strongly for one to be created in the ward that I represent. It has been pretty successful. When I tried to persuade the local authority to extend the scheme for another, discrete, part of the ward, at that time—I am going back four or five years—it was not feasible because the Government were concerned about the size. A size factor was required, although that is probably no longer the case.
I fear that the drafting of this order contains potential problems and I should like to address my remarks to those matters. For example, paragraph 3 requires that,
“the area contains a high proportion of properties in the private rented sector”.
What on earth does that mean? Have the Government produced any guidelines or guidance, preferably in conjunction with the Local Government Association—I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of that organisation—about the proportions they are talking about?
One or two issues of that kind are contained in paragraph 4. For example, it refers to where,
“the local housing authority considers it would be appropriate for a significant number of the properties”.
What is a significant number? The local authorities could be in danger of challenge here unless there are, again, clear guidelines.
There is also the question of the character of, rather than the number of, properties. There could be a number of three or four-storey houses in an area alongside a number of semi-detached houses or whatever, and the number of properties might not tell the whole story of the number of people involved in the appropriate lettings. I am concerned about that aspect.
Paragraph 5 states:
“The second set of conditions are … that the area has recently experienced or is experiencing an influx of migration into it”.
I have two questions about that: what is meant by “recently” and what is meant by “migration”? Migration could take a number of forms. In common parlance it is people from overseas but in an area, to take an extreme example, an influx of people from Sunderland to Newcastle might be regarded as a somewhat questionable process of migration. I do not say that I share that view but there is a question about what is meant by migration in that context.
In paragraphs 6 and 7 there are references to “a high level”. In paragraph 6 the area must be,
“suffering from a high level of deprivation”,
and in paragraph 7(a),
“from high levels of crime”.
These are potentially justiciable issues and seem very vague. It would be helpful if the department—again, in conjunction with the LGA and possibly other consultees—were to consider guidelines in that respect.
There is a reference in paragraph 7(b) to criminal activity having an impact on other households and businesses in “the area”. Does that mean in the area of the licensing scheme or in the wider area? What happens in an area adjoining where there is a licensing scheme could well depend upon or be caused by the conditions in the licensing scheme area, although the impact might be outside. Would that be taken into account? It is not clear.
Finally, there is a significant issue which certainly affects Newcastle and many other places, and that is student accommodation. Large areas of my city and, I suspect, many others are now given over to student accommodation. That is often quite problematic. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is very problematic in some areas. I am not sure whether, as an issue, that is implicitly incorporated within these conditions or whether it becomes a discrete factor in itself. My preference would be for the latter, but is the Minister able to say whether, to adopt the present order’s words, a high proportion of student residences in an area would be a factor that could justify a licensing scheme? If not, I encourage the Minister to take a look at that issue because it impinges quite significantly on what had hitherto been ordinary residential areas. I am talking not about purpose-built student accommodation but about the conversion of existing family accommodation into student accommodation. Sometimes they are HMOs and can be controlled in that sense, but very often they are not. It seems to be an increasing problem that is likely to increase further. If at all possible, it should be brought within the framework of the scheme.
Having said that, in general, I welcome the proposals. They should assist, but some of the issues that I and others have raised need to be addressed if we are going to make the best use of the possibility of deploying the scheme in the way that the Government wish.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. They all speak from great experience of local government and I appreciate their constructive suggestions and questions. I shall seek to answer all of them, or at least most of them, as I work through my response.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, talked of the 20% reference point for the Secretary of State. I assure him that it is the Government’s view that this strikes a fair balance between ensuring that schemes are focused on areas where there is a problem and, as I said in my opening remarks, which he acknowledged, do not unfairly impact on good landlords and their tenants. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who raised a similar point about whether this is centralising the proposition if approval is required, that all applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a local authority produces evidence in support of its proposition, we would expect that application to be approved.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, said that only in exceptional circumstances could licensing be used in more than 20% of properties. As I have already said, it will be considered on a case-by-case basis. There may be cases where licensing of more than 20% of the borough would be considered appropriate. Such applications would be submitted to the Secretary of State. There is sometimes a sense that just because it is submitted to the Secretary of State the answer will be no but it would be looked at on a case-by-case basis on the evidence submitted.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, was concerned that landlords may be inclined to pass on costs to tenants. In areas of high demand, it is highly likely that rents will go up. We feel that, given the scarcity of accommodation, tenants will have no choice but to accept higher charges. There is a concern we are looking to address.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said there was concern about introducing licensing on a whim. As noble Lords are aware, councils must consult tenants, residents and landlords over a 10-week period before introducing any such licensing.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I think it is as it says on the tin: can the scheme be practically applied? Each case that is presented will be among the evidence base supplied. My immediate response is: ultimately, is the scheme practical; can it work, in essence? I hope that with that response, the noble Lord and other noble Lords are assured, with the commitment that I give again that the 18-month review will attempt to address some of the concerns that have been raised. I have just received a note which states that the enforceable and practical element will also cover whether, for example, fees will cover the cost of any scheme.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this is my last question of the noble Lord today—and probably the last thing that I will say for the duration of this Parliament, as he will be relieved to hear. I return to my question about student accommodation and whether the Government will take a particular look at that as an issue in the context of the whole area of selective licensing.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord makes a valid point. In his question he also talked about crime, deprivation and migration. Areas with high numbers of students alone would not be covered; it would involve taking those other elements into account as well. However, I will reflect on his comments to see whether I can add anything more specific. I will hold him to the statement that this is the last question that he will raise not only today but in this Parliament.
Legislative Reform (Community Governance Reviews) Order 2014
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank noble Lords for their general support. I suppose that I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham: “You want more?”. I hope that we can provide some more evidence on this, but I am genuinely grateful for the support because I think that we are all aligned to the principle of making things easier for our communities, and the order reflects that. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the 7.5% threshold. We originally proposed 5% but, based on feedback that some felt that was too low, we amended the proposal to 7.5%, so that reflected the consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, also asked about the number of neighbourhood forums. Forums have been set up across the country. There are many in London, including one in Lewisham, I believe. They are found across all our major cities, including Liverpool, Birmingham and Bristol. The noble Lord also asked about the 12 months. We believe that the introduction of the 12-month timeline will result in a more effective decision-making process and will give people certainty about the length of time that the review will take. DCLG’s informal consultations and the 2013 formal consultation have shown that local campaigners feel that they face unnecessary burdens as a result of the bureaucracy in the current process. I am sure that all of us who have served in local government can recount many occasions when that issue has been raised by residents.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the new council in Queen’s Park. The new Queen’s Park council has already delivered several community events, although these are very early days. It is important that it will reflect the views of local residents who, we feel, are better placed to take decisions and represent their area’s interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked about turnout, which is a very valid question to raise. As with all elections, turnout varies, but where the community understands that it has a stake, it is comparable to other tiers of local government. As a general point, I agree with the noble Lord. Having served in local government, I have always been concerned about the low turnout that we see on issues and in areas which impact communities more directly. It is incumbent on all of us from across the political spectrum to do more. I am sure that we all recall that the Scottish referendum showed that where the right message is put across and people’s interest is engaged, they turn out to vote in large numbers.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, also talked about the evidence base. At the moment, governance reviews can take up to 18 months. We believe that, based on that experience, the process will significantly reduce the time to give greater certainty to local projects. Part of the evidence base was the frustration that residents feel. We believe that shortening the period and reviewing the percentage will allow for quick and more efficient decisions based on local needs.
With those responses, I commend the order.
Lord Beecham
I was really looking for evidence of the failure of the present system to get the relevant numbers, not so much about the timescale, which I concede to be a problem, and it should be improved. Is there an estimate of the number of cases where people have come forward but have simply failed to get the level of support currently required, which is now to be changed? Where is the evidence that that will make a difference?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I said earlier, if we are talking about lowering the threshold, that was reflected in the consultation where 5% was proposed. The consultation showed that reducing the threshold from 10% to 7.5% constituted a fairer reflection of what the respondents felt would be the appropriate trigger. However, we feel that lowering the threshold somewhat will allow residents to move forward more quickly.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I say to the noble Lord that all things in life are reviewed in the light of experience.
Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Powers of Entry: Safeguards) (England) Order 2015
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I just want to say that obviously we have great respect for the noble Lord. I think that all Members here have served on local authorities in the past. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord True, leads a council; my noble friend Lord Beecham has led a council; and I was deputy leader of a council many years ago and went back on to Lewisham council last year. Of course, I hope that we get back in May and that the position will be reversed. However, whatever happens, I have great respect for the noble Lord.
Lord Beecham
I hasten to add my agreement to that. However, with respect, the noble Lord has not answered a couple of the questions that I put to him. What will be the cost of the use of the valuation service and who will bear that cost? Will it be the local authority or the householder, or, to put it another way, the occupier of the property? In that event, would the cost apply only if he objected and the objection was overruled?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Just so that I am clear, this is if a request is made to enter a property and the request is refused. I am just clarifying the nature of the noble Lord’s question.
Lord Beecham
An application has to be made to the First-tier Tribunal and there must be a cost for the application to that tribunal. Who bears the cost of the tribunal hearing?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I think that I have already alluded to the administrative costs, which I said the DCLG would pay. The House will have an opportunity to see the full details of how the First-tier Tribunal will operate when the MoJ tribunal regulations are brought forward. They will include full, detailed costs.
Local Authorities (Prohibition of Charging Residents to Deposit Household Waste) Order 2015
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly endorse my noble friend’s critique of this—what I can only describe as—peculiar order. I spent some time on Friday with children in a primary school in my ward who were engaged on a litter-pick on the adjoining council estate. That was quite interesting, and quite a worthwhile project from the point of view of encouraging children to take an interest in their environment and, we hope, for their parents to avoid depositing the litter there in the first place. It was also striking that, at the same time, the council in Newcastle—I declare my interest as a member of the local authority—which is meant to charge for the collection of bulky refuse from properties, had arranged a day on which it would pick up items from that estate without such a charge. I saw a full lorry-load being carted away, and more to come besides. So there is clearly an issue around these matters. However, for the Government to assume the power to dictate to local authorities on an issue like this, given the amounts of money involved, seems ludicrous.
There are some questions that I would like to raise. In the first place, what is meant by a “resident” for the purpose of the order? Would that include not merely householders or individuals but also, for example, businesses or organisations, to which my noble friend has referred? How is the council supposed to validate the provenance of those coming to take advantage of this free disposal? They might not even, for example, be a resident of the immediate local authority. Would a resident of Kent be empowered to cross the border into Hampshire and deposit something there, or does it have to be a resident of the individual local authority and, if so, as I say, would that be confined to individuals or could they be corporate?
The second question is: where does this process stop? As I have indicated, my local authority charges, I think, £15 for taking away bulky refuse. That is not a vast figure, perhaps, to most of us, but it is quite a burden on a family household on a very low income. I am in fact going to look into the efficacy of the charge, because there is certainly a good deal of refuse being disposed of otherwise than by paying for it to be taken away. Is the next step for the Government to say that there should not be a charge for bulky refuse collection? In principle, if they are going to take this sort of measure, there would appear to be no logical reason why they should not do that.
Then, of course, there are other enormous contrasts. Now, every resident in many areas will pay effectively 20% council tax because of the way that the Government have changed the council tax support system. People who have been paying nothing now have to pay—or are supposed to pay; certainly not all of them are paying—council tax at that level. Although they can deposit their refuse for nothing, assuming they can get it to the disposal area, they are required to make a significant contribution to their council tax, whereas previously they were exempt from so doing. Is this not a complete inconsistency in the Government’s approach? It is lamentable that the Government—particularly the Secretary of State, who proclaims his belief in localism—should descend to the detailed management of services such as this.
The noble Lord is, of course, not to blame for the Secretary of State’s curious ventures into these areas, and I am not expecting the noble Lord to give too full a defence of what has happened. I am sure that, privately, he would share my view—although I am not for a moment expecting him to confirm it—that this is a ludicrous contrast to all the protestations about localism and democracy which we constantly hear and to which we will return in respect of some other orders this afternoon. They are what I trust will be a final flourish on the Secretary of State’s part. Hopefully he, if not the whole of the rest of the Government, will move on to pastures new in a few weeks’ time. Then we might restore some sense in what local democracy is actually supposed to be about—that is, local decision-making, responsible to the local electorate and not to Whitehall.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Beecham, for their contributions. Various questions have been raised, which I will seek to answer in turn.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked how many local authorities had introduced, or planned to introduce, these charges. He is right to mention Somerset Waste Partnership. This team, as noble Lords may know, manages waste and recycling services for Mendip, Sedgemoor, South Somerset and West Somerset District Councils, Taunton Deane Borough Council and Somerset County Council, which has a £2 entry charge at two of its sites, at least. Norfolk County Council has plans to introduce such a £2 charge at nine of its 20 household waste recycling centres from April 2016. Dorset Waste Partnership—which manages the waste and recycling services for all of Dorset’s district councils and Dorset County Council—is currently consulting on introducing such charging for entry to one or more of its household waste recycling centres. As to whether the Government’s response was excessive, given that there is just one such charge currently and others are planned, three counties are involved, and I have listed some of the areas covered by those counties. That means that a sizeable number of council tax-paying residents will be affected. It is our view that other county councils will consult on introducing charges in due course. Hampshire County Council is clearly of the view that the opportunity to charge remains in place.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It will be only the one which is currently in place, which is Somerset. Grandfathering, as I remember from my life in financial services, was often applicable only to those in situ, much to the annoyance of those who had to sit exams. That is a well founded principle.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about local authorities being able to charge for non-household waste or to charge users who are not residents within the local authority area where the site is located. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked, in his own charming way, what is a resident. I am sure that he knows the answer already. As he knows from his own experience, a resident of a local authority is one who lives within the council’s boundary in which the centre is sited. I can give him a practical example of how this was measured from my time in a local authority. After much hard campaigning in my ward I had managed to open a recycling centre, but this was quickly closed by the then Labour council when the authority changed hands. People from my borough tried to go into neighbouring Wandsworth sites but they had to show a local council tax bill at the entrance before gaining entry. Of course, as a Merton resident, I was unable to avail myself of the excellent facilities in the Conservative council next door. However, on a more general point, there are means available to local authorities to ensure that only residents use the sites and not non-residents.
The noble Lord also asked about business waste. The Government recognise that many local authorities charge household waste recycling centres for the deposit of non-household waste, such as car tyres, and/or for users who are not resident in the local area.
Lord Beecham
Perhaps I may go back to the point the noble Lord made about residents. To take the example I gave, if a good citizen of Kent crossed the border into Hampshire, or a good citizen or otherwise of Merton went to Wandsworth, would it be in order for the receiving centre to make a charge to that person?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That would be for the local authority. If it is not charging its own residents, that applies through this order. However, if someone who is not a resident of that locality and within the remit of that council, it is up to the local authority whether it exercises a charge. This is akin to business charges. Different local authorities have different ways of charging business users.
I was delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, took part in community clear-up day. He referred to my right honourable friend Eric Pickles and his initiatives. I am sure Mr Pickles will be delighted to know that the noble Lord took part in the community clear-up day in his area. Of course, last Saturday, 21 March, was the first time we have had a national clear-up day. I was delighted that schoolchildren, residents, community groups and charity groups up and down the country played their part in ensuring that we had a good national clear-up day.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also asked whether charging could lead to the closure of costly household waste recycling sites. We take the view that it should not. The Government have asked respondents to the consultation paper about how household waste recycling centres at risk of closure can stay open without local authorities resorting to charging their residents. There are other ways to consider rather than charging local residents and we do not agree that the scenario of charge or close is inevitable. It is for individual authorities to determine the necessary blend of other measures to make centres at risk of closure more cost effective.
There are two reports from the sector. Local Partnerships’ report on Yorkshire and Humber Local authorities in 2015 demonstrated savings of up to £300,000 per authority through, for example, more effective charging for commercial waste, which I have already mentioned, and a sensible and flexible opening hours regime.
A 2015 report by the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management highlights many opportunities for further savings to be made; for example, centres diverting reusable and repairable materials from landfill. As I said, the consultation asked for alternatives to charges for centres at risk of closure.
Ebbsfleet
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, my noble friend has raised a series of questions related to infrastructure and funding. With the leave of the House, I will answer one or two to allow for more questions, and will then write to him with specific details, which I will of course share with noble Lords.
The mainstay of my noble friend’s questions was about the £200 million and the further money required. This is not a cap for the UDC to work out what is needed and to make the case to the Government if more money is required. As I have said, the first task for the UDC is to draw up a business plan with details on how to spend the first £100 million—not on homes, as he asked specifically, but on infrastructure. That could include—to answer some of his questions—schools and community facilities. We very much want the UDC to be in the position of telling us how it can move this forward.
The important element is that this is not about giving the UDC specific targets or parameters in which to work. Once the UDC is created and appointed with local expertise, including representation from local authorities on its board, it is then up to the UDC to identify the priorities for the area, to ensure that whatever garden city develops reflects local needs, as I said in my response to an earlier question from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. As to the other specific questions that my noble friend asked, I will write to him.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I join my noble friend in welcoming the Statement. I will ask a few very short questions and will be perfectly content with the Minister replying to most or, if necessary, all of them in writing.
First, what proportion of the affordable housing might be expected to be for rent, and will that include social housing? Secondly, to what extent will environmental concerns about housing design—particularly around energy efficiency—be incorporated into the scheme? Thirdly, will there be provision for extra care housing for the elderly? Since there will probably be 40,000 people or more we are going to see a town here, so it might be sensible to have extra care housing as part of the development. Fourthly, what steps will the Government encourage the UDC to take to ensure that there are employment opportunities—including training—for local people from the Kent area and the district councils there?
At what point, if any, will the local community—once it is becoming more of a town—be involved with the UDC? Will there be opportunity for local residents to become members of the UDC board once they become established there? Finally, what is the position regarding the provision of health facilities? Presumably NHS England will be involved in that, although normally of course the CCG will be commissioning hospital services. At what point will NHS England and the UDC be looking at the provision of appropriate health services?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord rightly asks a series of quite specific questions. If I may, I will take up his offer and come back to him in writing on some of them. He raised—for example—the issue of affordable housing and clean energy and there is a target of 30% in the local plans, covering all forms of tenure. It is for the UDC to look at issues such as clean energy, and the board will be recruited on the basis of a wide variety of skills including expertise in this area. He asked specific questions about the elements of affordable housing. As I said earlier, this will reflect the priorities of the local authorities which will be represented on the UDC board. Specific questions on care homes, again, are very valid concerns to raise. On the specifics of affordable housing, I will write to him, because it is important we cover these issues in the detail he asked for.
Council Tax: Low-income Taxpayers
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on low-income taxpayers of the changes to the Council Tax Support Scheme and reduction in funding for the Council Tax Reduction Scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, these are local schemes and it is for local authorities to ensure that the effect on specific groups of council tax payers is both proportionate and fair. We made a £100 million transition grant available in 2013-14 to help councils to develop well designed schemes and maintain incentives to work.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, in Newcastle alone, as a result of government cuts to council tax support, 18,000 working-age households, 4,500 of which are in work, have lost out, while 11,000 that were previously exempt have to pay 20% of the council tax and 7,000 that were formerly partially exempt now have to pay 20%. Arrears stand at £2.8 million. How do the Government justify this imposition on some of the most hard-pressed families and individuals in the country?
Local Government Finance Settlement
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in acknowledging the excellent contributions and two maiden speeches. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Pinnock on her maiden speech and reassure her somewhat. Her sense of getting lost in the House is something that perhaps those who have been here slightly longer and much longer still experience. That is not an individual experience. From her maiden speech, we have seen that she is going to be an incredible asset, to the party, to the Government and, indeed, to your Lordships’ House.
I turn to the excellent and reflective speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. Everyone has laid claim to the diocese of Southwark. I suppose that, being Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, I can also lay claim to being part of the diocese of Southwark. I look forward to working with the right reverend Prelate as another representative voice of the town of Wimbledon. I welcome his contribution today. We look forward to the contributions of both noble Lords in future debates.
It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I was listening very attentively to all the contributions and I want to single out the description that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, gave. She said that she described her relationship with him, when she was Local Government Minister, as one of deep respect, at times friendship as well—I would add to that—and she did not always agree with the noble Lord. I think that sums up my relationship with the noble Lord as well, although I was a bit concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said that he would pose a challenge. He then talked about the 47 years of experience of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in public life. I must admit I have not been around for 47 years, so I thought he was going to pose the challenge that I would have to account for every year. I am sure that when he writes his autobiography we will all reflect on those worthwhile years. In thanking him, he will not be surprised to hear that I cannot agree with most of what he said about the challenges of the settlement.
The Government have inherited the largest deficit in post-war history. Thanks to the actions that we have taken as part of our long term economic plan, the deficit is falling, the economy is growing and employment is at a record high. The Government are putting our public finances back on track. Of course, we could not have done this alone, and I fully acknowledge the incredible effort and significant contribution that local government, like every part of the public sector, has made. Councils all over England have responded strongly to the challenge of delivering public services in this new context. I thank my noble friends Lord True and Lady Eaton for their words of support and for highlighting some of the challenges that remain.
Of course, there is much still to do. English local government accounts for about a quarter of all public expenditure, more than £114 billion this year. So the Government still need to take difficult decisions on local government funding to ensure that the public finances are on a sustainable path. Local councils will continue to play their part in this.
Much has been made of the delivery of a fair settlement. The noble Lords, Lord McKenzie, Lord Liddle and Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, all mentioned it. We announced the provisional local government finance settlement on 18 December, as many noble Lords acknowledged. With this settlement, we have kept the overall reduction in local authorities’ spending power to 1.8%, one of the lowest levels of reduction under this Government. If we include the funds that the Government have provided to support local transformation, the overall reduction is even lower, at 1.6%.
I acknowledge that councils are facing the highest demand for services. They continue to receive substantially more funding and we are continuing to ensure that no council will face a loss of more than 6.4% in their spending power in 2015-16, which is the lowest level in this Parliament. The noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong and Lady Farrington, talked of relative needs. These were reflected in the funding baselines at the outset of the new system of business rates retention in 2013-14.
Growth is also a key part of this Government’s agenda. Throughout this Parliament, we have deliberately shifted the emphasis from keeping authorities dependent on grant to providing councils with the tools they need to grow and shape their local economies.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the LGA and the NAO figures. The NAO estimates a 37% reduction in spending power, but the Government’s spending power figures are transparent and allow others to calculate their own figures. The NAO does not include the better care fund or public health, which are two important policy initiatives worth more than £6 billion. Various figures for settlements and spending power were cited—we could have this debate all evening and further into the night. There is no doubt that some authorities have had reductions, but, when we look, for example, at the new homes bonus, we see that Leeds has seen an increase of £1.92 million, Salford £27.94 million, Warrington £22.67 million, Ryedale £40.59 million, East Riding of Yorkshire £5.02 million and Kirklees £3.86 million. Those are positive figures.
We have also given councils a real stake in stimulating local growth. Authorities up and down the country are benefiting from the greater powers and incentives that we have provided to invest in growth. These include Newcastle. I am delighted that the noble Lord’s council has also benefited and has frozen its council tax for the past four years in response to the challenge laid down by the Government. The noble Lord shakes his head. Is it not true?
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Baroness asks a pertinent question. Representations are always made in any part of government, but the Government are, as I hope I have indicated, taking these steps forward in line with the concerns that exist and based on the evidence that I have presented to the Committee today.
Lord Beecham
With respect to the Minister, he may not be able to answer the question that my noble friend has asked without advice from the Box or elsewhere; but he has not even purported to answer the question. The question is a legitimate one. Perhaps he would undertake to reply to my noble friend and let her and the Committee know whether those who are likely to benefit from these contracts lobbied for this provision to be mandatory.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Of course I will take advice on this, but as I have said already—and the noble Lord knows this as well as I do—representations are made in any form of government. I will of course endeavour to write to the noble Baroness. I will share with the Committee the details of that letter and place a copy in the Library.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, Amendment 11 seeks to impose a requirement on providers of outsourced electronic monitoring services to make information available in the same manner as if they were subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It does this by introducing a requirement as to the contents of the code of practice that the Secretary of State will issue under new Section 62B of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, to be introduced through Clause 6 of the Bill. The amendment would require private providers not currently subject to the Freedom of Information Act to make information available both in response to FoI requests and proactively through publication schemes.
I assure the Committee that the Government recognise that there are concerns about the position of private providers of public services under the Freedom of Information Act. As noble Lords may know, the issue of outsourced public services was considered in some detail during post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act, carried out by the Justice Select Committee in 2012. The committee recommended the use of contractual provisions, rather than the formal extension of the Freedom of Information Act, to ensure that transparency and accountability are maintained. In particular, the committee said that it believed,
“that contracts provide a more practical basis for applying … outsourced services than partial designation of commercial companies under section 5 of the Act”.
The committee also felt that,
“the use of contractual terms to protect the right to access information is currently working relatively well”.
The Government accepted the committee’s recommendation and later this year will issue a revised code of practice under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act to promote transparency about outsourced public services in response to FoI requests. The new code will promote and encourage the use and enforcement of contractual obligations to ensure that contractors provide information held on behalf of public authorities. It will also encourage contractors voluntarily to provide additional information beyond that held on behalf of the contracting public authority where, for example, doing so would help the contracting public authority to provide a more meaningful response to requests.
The Government and the Information Commissioner, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will monitor the effectiveness of the new code. If it does not prove successful, the Government have said they will look at going further, including potentially extending FoI formally to contractors—again, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. We believe that our approach represents an appropriate balance between transparency and minimising burdens on business. As a result of these steps, I would argue that the measures proposed through these amendments are unnecessary. Based on the explanation and assurance I have given, I hope the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I will not press the amendment at this stage, but it is not clear to me why there should be two separate systems, one for private contractors and one for public agencies. The opportunity to raise an FoI request is open to anybody and should apply equally to the two different types of provider.
The Minister and his ministerial colleague in the House of Commons referred to the production of a code of practice. Once again, we are being asked to legislate in a vacuum because we have not seen the code of practice. Nor is it clear whether that code of practice will be subject to parliamentary approval. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether that would be the case.
However, even if it were subject to parliamentary approval, I still do not see the logic in having two separate systems for the provision of like services, depending on which provider is carrying them out. Surely that will not assist members of the public. It must be difficult for them, as it is for me, to comprehend why there should be two parallel systems when they are looking not so much at the provider as at the nature of the service and any potential problems that might arise.
If the noble Lord cannot deal with that today, perhaps he will consider writing to me—again, sending that reply to the Library—otherwise, this is a matter to which we may well have to return on Report. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Clause 10 creates a new offence of remaining unlawfully at large after recall. When he replies, will the Minister indicate the likely incidence of this offence or at least the basis on which the Government have seen fit to create an offence? How many offenders have broken their conditions and have remained unlawfully at large? That would be a material consideration.
The amendment does not necessarily challenge the creation of the offence, but it seeks to incorporate within the definition of the offence in Clause 10(1) and thereby insert into the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 a factor which would render a person guilty of an offence if he, while unlawfully at large fails, deliberately and without reasonable excuse, to take all necessary steps to return to prison as soon as possible. The point of the amendment is to address the significant number of offenders, to whom I have already referred in another context, who have mental health or learning disabilities which may well impair their capacity to understand and comply with requirements in relation to recall.
It is important to bear in mind the significant numbers that I have already mentioned. I shall give a little more detail of the percentages involved: 20% to 30% of offenders have learning disabilities or disabilities that interfere with their ability to cope with the criminal justice system; 23% of young offenders have learning difficulties—that is to say, IQs of below 70—and a further 36% have borderline learning difficulties. That is a clear majority of young offenders. More than half of prison staff believe that prisoners with learning disabilities or difficulties are more likely to be victimised or bullied than other prisoners. They are also more likely to have broken a prison rule by several times the number of other prisoners. This is a group of damaged people, largely as a result of learning disabilities.
We know in any event that a very high proportion of prisoners suffer from one or more learning disabilities. Some 70% of adults suffer from one or more of such disabilities, while 80% of young offenders suffer from them. With that will often go problems in communication and comprehension skills, and perhaps even memory problems. Given that, we are dealing with a group of people of whom at least quite a significant proportion will struggle anyway out in the community, whether they are on licence or have ultimately served their sentence. To create a criminal offence that does not take into account those limitations is, in my submission, to veer towards injustice. What is needed is for those factors to be taken into account before bringing these people within the ambit of an offence. This amendment seeks to do that because deliberation assumes the capacity to take a decision which most noble Lords and perhaps most of the population would be able to take without the encumbrance of conditions which might limit that capacity.
The thrust of the amendment is to provide a safeguard. I hope that the Minister will look at it sympathetically. His colleague in another place, Jeremy Wright, seemed to think that the word “deliberately” did not add anything to the question of a “reasonable excuse”, but I suggest that potentially it does. It strengthens the position of those who would find it difficult to cope with the requirements, but it would not exclude those who are capable of deciding on what is required of them and who then make a deliberate decision not to comply. I hope that, either today or by the time we reach the Report stage, the Minister will be able to indicate the number of people who are remaining at large unlawfully at any one time. That would be useful background information to inform the debate at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I understand totally the sentiment behind the amendment, but the offence is about making sure that, in the most serious cases where offenders have been recalled from licence and have run off to avoid serving their sentence, the courts have the necessary powers to deal with them. I assure the Committee that this is not about locking up as many people as possible or indeed prosecuting them unnecessarily. The offence will not apply to the vast majority of recalled offenders, who are returned to custody within a few days, some of whom are unaware that their licence has been revoked until they are arrested. I understand the aim of making sure that the new offence does not penalise offenders who may remain unlawfully at large through no fault of their own. Clause 10 is carefully framed so that an offender who is recalled to prison will be guilty of committing the offence only if they have been notified of the recall, either orally or in writing, or they can be treated as having been notified of the recall in light of repeated failures to keep in touch with probation as required. If they fail without reasonable excuse to take all necessary steps, they can be returned to custody.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has rightly raised the issue of safeguards. Not all licence breaches lead to recall and there are a number of stages that must be passed before the offence will bite. These provide important safeguards which ensure that the vulnerable offenders whom he mentioned quite specifically are not set up to fail. He will know, as will most noble Lords, that in all circumstances the probation officer and the National Offender Management Service must consider whether the offender’s licence should be revoked and, if so, whether they should refer the offender to the Secretary of State to make the final decision. That judgment is and will rightly remain a matter for the discretion of the professionals who know the offender and the particular circumstances.
The noble Lord also asked how many offenders are currently unlawfully at large. The provision is about those who remain unlawfully at large following a recall to custody from licence. Information on licence recalls and returns to custody is published quarterly and the most recent publication was on 24 April this year. The total number of offenders recalled to prison for the period 1984 to December 2013 who had not been apprehended by 31 March 2014 was 1,050, which represents around 0.6% of the offenders who were recalled during that period. I hope that this information is helpful and I would reiterate that I understand the intent behind the amendment. I hope that the safeguards which the Government have sought to put in place in framing this clause reassure the noble Lord and I trust that he will be minded to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and I note the very small percentage of those who fail to respond. Of course, the noble Lord is not in a position to say who among them would fall into the category I have described, and it may be that that is a matter which is worth looking into. However, I presume that it would be for the Parole Board or some other body. In the circumstances, and certainly at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Housing: Leasehold Valuation Tribunal System
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend comes to this issue with great experience and has been a long-standing campaigner in this regard. She raises the issue of administration charges on leases. Some leases contain covenants for the recovery of legal costs, which is a slightly different issue from the recovery of costs as service charges. I understand there have been calls for the Government to consider the feasibility of creating a provision to prevent the recovery of administration charges, similar to the protection over service charges already provided under Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. We understand the concern that this topic provokes but, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, we need to look at this very carefully and consult quite widely before deciding on any action that can be taken in this regard.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I have some interest in a leasehold flat. The former cap of £500 on costs has been removed, as the Minister has said, and the Church Commissioners, of all people, recently persuaded the court that a default judgment over service charges allowed them to forfeit a lease. Furthermore, in another case, a landlord recovered from two pensioners £40,000—not £500—as an administrative charge in a dispute over service charges. Is it not time that the Government acted to replace leaseholds for residential properties with commonhold?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the Government have already taken forward the issue of legal costs in relation to service charges. I have already alluded to the Section 20C order, as provided for in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which allows a leaseholder to seek for those service charges—if the landlord is claiming that—to be voided. He also raised the point about the £500 fee. Normally in tribunal cases, we have found that parties pay their own costs, and it is rare for costs to be awarded in the property chamber itself. Only where the tribunal considers that a party has behaved unreasonably could it make a costs order against them.
Legal Aid
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
I am most obliged to the noble Lord.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that VAT and expenses, to which reference has been made, actually account for 40% of the fees that are currently being quoted? What is his response to those members of the judiciary who are concerned about future recruitment of judges to deal with criminal cases in the likely event of a decline in the quantity and quality of the criminal Bar?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I believe that I have already answered the noble Lord’s question. The Government recognise that there are costs that are taken across, which is why we quote fee income. As for recruitment into the profession, and as I said, we believe that after these efficiencies are made, the criminal Bar and indeed the legal profession as a whole will continue to be an attractive proposition. We will continue to work with the profession to ensure that the standards and quality of legal representation in our country remain among the best in the world.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It was always my great desire to be the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. My ultimate aspiration has today been achieved twice over.
These amendments are designed to improve the use of DNA and fingerprints in criminal investigations. I shall begin with Amendment 56YD, which allows the retaking of DNA and fingerprints if an investigation is restarted. At present, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows DNA sampling and fingerprinting of an arrested or charged person only once in an investigation. If the police or the Crown Prosecution Service decide not to proceed against an accused person, that person’s DNA and fingerprints must be deleted, unless they have previously been convicted, or charged with a qualifying offence. If the investigation is later restarted, there is no power to retake the DNA and fingerprints. The CPS has now introduced a new procedure, the victims’ right to review, under which a decision not to proceed may be reviewed and the case restarted. If DNA and fingerprints have already been taken and destroyed, there is currently no power to take them again if the case is restarted. Amendment 56YD provides for such a power.
Amendment 56YE ensures that the retention of a person’s DNA is determined by considering their entire criminal history. If a conviction in that history would allow retention, it is important that a DNA profile can be retained, regardless of whether the arrest in connection with which the profile was obtained was itself followed by a conviction. This is important because, normally, when a person has had a DNA sample taken on a first arrest, DNA is not taken on any later arrests, because that would incur unnecessary costs to obtain the same profile. However, without this amendment, there is a danger that the DNA from the first arrest would be deleted from the database if there was no causal link between the taking of DNA on a first arrest and a conviction obtained following a later arrest. Amendment 56YE makes the position clear, thereby ensuring that a DNA profile can be retained indefinitely whenever someone has a previous conviction or caution for a recordable offence, irrespective of the fact that they were not proceeded against for the offence in respect of which the DNA sample was taken.
Finally, Amendment 97 to Schedule 9 to the Bill is consequential on amendment 56YD and amends Schedule 2A to PACE, which allows the police to require people to attend at a police station for the purposes of having their fingerprints or DNA taken. It duly applies the existing time limits for imposing such a requirement to the new provisions that I have described. Under existing legislation, if a person is arrested or charged then released without having had their DNA or fingerprints taken, the police may take them later, but only within the following six months. The amendments to Schedule 9 apply this principle to the scenario involving retaking, putting a time limit of six months from the restarting of the investigation on the power to retake DNA or fingerprints. These amendments are sensible measures to improve the use of DNA and fingerprints which I commend to the Committee.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I note the Minister’s recidivist tendencies in terms of his aspirations to be the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and congratulate him on his judgment in that respect.
This is a classic case of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure, because the problems that these amendments seek to address were highlighted by the Opposition when the Government originally legislated. We pointed out that the Government should have taken the greatest possible steps they could in acknowledging the legal requirements set down under European court judgments to maintain the retention of DNA so that it could be used to define and catch criminals who had committed crimes or could potentially commit further crimes. This was argued during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act, and the argument was not accepted at the time by the Government. Now, not untypically in an era of rapid U-turns, they have made a U-turn, although it has taken some time. It is clearly right that the Government should act in this way. It is notable that on this occasion they are not following the practice of the Conservative Party in making sure that their records are consigned to history rather than being kept available. That is welcome, although perhaps we may see a U-turn in that respect as well.
So far as this legislation is concerned, there is still an issue around the retention of information. The Minister referred to the fact that samples would have to be taken within six months. I do not understand the rationale for that. DNA samples can be taken and kept for long after the event. I recently read an interesting history book called The Isles in which DNA samples were taken from a cave in Cheddar Gorge from remains going back some thousands of years. Yet with those DNA samples they managed to trace somebody living in the 21st century in that area. These things can last. Crime is not just a short-term matter—I understand that an estimated 20,000 to 23,000 people could have committed crimes within a span of six years—so I do not understand the rationale for the six-month period. While we welcome the progress made so far, perhaps we could have an explanation of why six months is being insisted on rather than a longer period. My honourable friends in another place were suggesting that a period of six years would be appropriate. After all, we are talking here about potentially serious crimes; we would not be bothering with DNA samples if we were not. There is no rationale, in my judgment, for the period the Government have selected.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his broad support and support in principle for what we are seeking to do here. I also listen with great care whenever he talks about history and literature. Today he combined both. I am forever learning from the noble Lord.
On the specific question of why six months, it is our view that there must be a limit otherwise people who have been arrested and then had proceedings against them dropped for lack of evidence would never actually know whether they were free of the risk of having their DNA and fingerprints taken. Six months has been regarded as the reasonable limit in legislation passed by this Government as well as the previous one. The noble Lord mentioned the Protection of Freedoms Act, namely that the DNA of a person who has not committed any offence should not be retained indefinitely. He used that as a premise for saying perhaps that the Government are U-turning. This is not a U-turn. I always regard these things as progression and I think we have moved in the right way and I am glad that the noble Lord respects that.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the Government are often accused of not listening. I listened with great interest to the previous debate, initiated by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, and as I went over to the Box I noticed a piece of litter on the floor. I acted promptly and handed it to the doorkeeper—so there is some hope of instant action on the part of the Government.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for tabling her amendment with the proposed new clause and raising an important point. I agree with her that, where businesses act in a way that is likely to cause harm to others, they should be held to account. However, the Government feel that a corporate ASBO is unnecessary. We believe that we have drafted the new powers in such a way as to be flexible enough to deal with this eventuality.
For example, the new community protection notice, which we will discuss when we come to Part 4, can be issued against a corporate body. If that corporate body is persistently acting in an unreasonable manner and having a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, it can be held to account through the new notice. While the community protection notice replaces litter and graffiti notices, it can be used for much more, including noise and other behaviours. What is more, breach is a criminal offence and, on conviction, a business could be fined up to £20,000. It is a power which provides real teeth.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
Will the Minister indicate whether unincorporated bodies will be caught by the provision, or would that require additional legislation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I believe that the clause as drafted could apply to an individual or an organisation. When we discuss that wording, it will be clarified. This applies to an individual or an organisation—which incorporates the issue raised by the noble Lord. In addition, where the use of business premises has resulted, or is likely to result, in nuisance to members of the public or disorder nearby, the new closure powers that we are introducing, to which the noble Baroness referred, will be able to close a premises immediately. The police and/or local authorities can act quickly where a business acts anti-socially. Again, breach is a criminal offence with the potential for a significant fine.
It is also worth saying that sometimes it may be a particular individual who is the root cause of the anti-social behaviour—for instance, the business owner or a store manager—and not the business as a whole. In those circumstances, the police, council or others listed in Clause 4 could apply to the court for an injunction against the individual on the test of nuisance or annoyance. Hopefully that would deal with the issue and, while breach in this case may not be a criminal offence, it could still result in a large fine or even a custodial sentence.
In putting forward this amendment, the noble Baroness said that it was a probing amendment to seek clarification. I hope that on the basis of the example I have given, by drawing the attention of noble Lords to the fact that we will be discussing this issue under Part 4 and with my explanation, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I have every respect for my noble friend and appreciate the genuineness of his concerns, but I am not persuaded—and neither is the Opposition—that it is appropriate to change the age at which people can be married from the current age of 16, with the condition, to which my noble friend has already referred, of parental consent. We have to recognise that 16 year-olds and above are increasingly sexually active. They can serve in the Armed Forces. Many people, including me, feel that they should have the vote at 16; indeed, they will do so in the Scottish referendum next year.
I accept the legitimacy of the concerns cited by my noble friend. However, the number who might be involved in marriage from 16 to 18 is not clear—or, at least, the evidence is not before us—let alone the number who are adversely affected in the way that my noble friend described. It is a large step to alter, on the basis of what we have heard, what has been the law for some considerable time. This is quite different from matters such as female genital mutilation and the forced marriage issues which we have discussed fully today. The Opposition will not, therefore, support this amendment if it is brought forward again on Report.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Tonge and for explaining that the rationale for it is, in effect, to raise the age of marriage to 18 years. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his comments. This is one of those occasions when the two Front Benches are at one which people sometimes smile about.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I shall merely rise to reply, not rise to the challenge.
As noble Lords know, in England and Wales it is possible to marry from the age of 16, with parental consent, and from 18 without consent. The consequence of Amendment 8 would therefore be to make it impossible for a 16 or 17-year old to marry. While I understand my noble friend’s concerns, I do not believe this amendment is necessary because the law already provides adequate safeguards for children entering into marriages.
In England and Wales the provisions for the age at which a child can marry are contained in the Marriage Act 1949 and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Section 2 of the Marriage Act 1949 and Section 11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 provide that any marriage, whether civil or religious, conducted in England and Wales, where either party is under the age of 16, would not be a valid marriage. If a marriage is solemnized and either or both of the parties is under the age of 16 that marriage will be void. For a child aged 16 or 17 to marry, the law requires the consent of the child’s parents or guardians, unless the child is a widow or a widower. These provisions recognise that, while children of this age may have the maturity to enter into marriages, it is still necessary to ensure that they are afforded some level of protection in doing so.
The Government believe that the current provisions provide appropriate safeguards for children entering into marriages. We therefore do not consider it necessary to amend the age at which people can enter into a marriage. The noble Lord has referred to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child but the convention does not address the issue of marriage. Accordingly the law relating to marriage, including the age at which a person can consent to marriage and can marry, is a matter for determination by the national law of those states, including the United Kingdom, that are a party to the convention.
My noble friend Lady Tonge is also understandably concerned, as we all are, about forced marriages. While I share her desire to do more to stamp out this abuse, the amendments as tabled are not the best way of doing this. We have just debated provisions to strengthen the law in respect of forced marriage, thereby making it a criminal offence to breach a forced marriage protection order and making it an offence to seek to force someone to marry. This is combined with a significant nationwide engagement programme and the work done by the Government’s Forced Marriage Unit to give direct support to victims and potential victims.
Amendment 12 to Clause 109 seeks to make identical provision in the case of Scotland. Marriage law is a devolved issue and Scotland has its own marriage laws. I therefore cannot comment on behalf of the Scottish Government. The noble Lord will be aware of the convention that the United Kingdom Parliament does not legislate on devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
I take on board the noble Lord’s point about further discussions between stages of the Bill. I am always open to discussions on all these matters. As I said earlier, this is an important matter and this is about getting it right. If the noble Lord or my noble friend wishes to meet me I shall be delighted to do so. Based on that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Probation Service
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have halted the triennial review of probation trusts in the face of a House of Lords amendment to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill which would require the approval of both Houses to any changes to the probation service, and which the House of Commons has yet to consider.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the triennial review of probation trusts has been formally closed, because as part of the development of the Transforming Rehabilitation strategy, the Ministry of Justice conducted a detailed options assessment of how we could organise the public sector probation service in the most efficient manner to discharge its new responsibilities as detailed in the strategy. This is in line with the requirement of the triennial review to look at the function and form of a non-departmental public body and to consider the best delivery model.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, yesterday’s Written Ministerial Statement, expressing the Government’s determination to press on with the abolition of probation trusts and make other changes to the probation service, is another example of the Government pre-empting the parliamentary process, recently criticised by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. Does this not constitute contempt for the expressed opinion of this House and raise the question of why we are here at all?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I cannot agree with the noble Lord. Your Lordships’ House has discussed a particular Bill, and as he has pointed out, amendments have been made. There will be further parliamentary debate on these issues as the Bill moves through the Commons after the Recess. At the current time, in line with current powers as set out in the Offender Management Act 2007, any ultimate dissolution of probation trusts will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the government amendments in this group make a number of minor technical changes to the Bill. In essence, they ensure that terminology is consistent within the Bill and with other legislation.
Amendments 7 and 8 relate to the new “drug appointment requirement”. The amendments replace, in two places in Schedule 1, the word “condition” with “requirement”, which is the term used with other requirements of the new supervision period and is consistent with the title of the requirement.
Amendment 10 relates to the provisions dealing with supervision default orders: that is, when an offender has failed to comply with a condition of their supervision. The amendment simply clarifies that copies of the supervision default order must be sent to the supervisor who is responsible for supervising the offender during the supervision period.
Amendments 11 to 14 relate to Clause 5 and the arrangements that exist where an offender is subject to consecutive sentences. The amendments replace the term “offender” with the more usual construction “P”. This is consistent with the terminology used in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which Clause 5 amends.
Finally, Amendment 20 relates to Schedule 6, which deals with offenders sentenced by service courts. The amendment clarifies the position in that it ensures that the definition of “the appropriate court”, which relates only to civilian courts, does not apply to overseas community orders under the Armed Forces Act 2006. As I said, these are small clarifications and technical amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, there comes a temptation to move that any of these riveting amendments be piloted. I am happy to concur with the Minister’s proposal.
Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for that clarification. His reasoning may not have been clear when he notified his intention to oppose the Question that the clause stand part, but it was in his explanation. It may be helpful to reiterate what Clause 14 intends to do. Currently an accredited programme can take place only in premises that have been approved by a probation trust or other provider of probation services. There is therefore a slightly redundant step built into the process for delivering accredited programmes, whereby trusts currently have to set up premises for programmes and then approve those premises themselves before courts can require offenders to attend. Clause 14 removes this requirement. Although probation providers will still want to satisfy themselves that a programme’s premises are suitable for those attending, as a result of the amendment there will no longer be a formal requirement in law for them to ratify or sign that off internally before courts can require offenders to attend.
Parliament has already approved a change in the law that means that the responsible officer, who is the person responsible for delivering the requirement, now chooses the accredited programme that the offender must follow. This was previously in the gift of the court. This change was made by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and commenced in December last year. As a consequence, the court no longer specifies where the offender must go to participate in the programme but simply imposes a programme requirement and sets the number of days on which the offender must take part.
The detail of the requirement is now in the hands of the provider, who is best placed to know which programme is the most likely to promote rehabilitation. This also means that where it emerges that a different programme would work better—for example, the offender starts on a cognitive programme but it becomes clear that a domestic violence programme would be better—the responsible officer can switch the programme without taking the order back to court. The amendment in Clause 14 merely furthers the principle of operational discretion for providers by removing the largely redundant requirement for formal approval of a place as suitable for offenders subject to a programme requirement.
In closing, I reassure noble Lords that the Government see a continued place for accredited programmes under our new framework for delivering services for offenders. Accredited programmes are evidence-based and developed from the academic literature on what works. Where interventions have a substantial degree of evidence for their effectiveness, it is important that we build on that success. Those advising the courts through pre-sentence reports will continue to be able to recommend a programme requirement where a particular intervention is available locally, and where probation professionals believe that it is the right way of dealing with the causes of an individual’s offending. Based on that clarification, I urge that Clause 14 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Beecham
I am very grateful to the Minister for his clarification. It occurs to me to ask whether it would be envisaged that a provider of services in respect of the premises to which the noble referred could require, for example, repair work to be carried out for the benefit of the provider. That potentially would create a conflict of interest. I do not ask for an off-the-cuff response, but I would be grateful if the Minister would look at it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for tabling this amendment. I listened carefully to the very poignant story that he told of Mr A’s experiences and how we can build upon that. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who is extremely well placed and well qualified to speak with authority on this subject, with his background in the Armed Forces, as a former Chief Inspector of Prisons and as president of the Veterans in Prison Association.
As my noble friend Lord McNally said at Second Reading, we share the concerns that have been expressed by all noble Lords in this debate and by the House as a whole—indeed, by Parliament as a whole—that ex-service personnel are ending up in the criminal justice system and, even worse, at times ending up in prison.
However, we should not make our genuine concern, which we have heard today, about our ex-service personnel appear unduly alarmist about service in our Armed Forces. To keep this in perspective, there is some evidence that points to the fact that having served in the Armed Forces is a preventative factor in offending—that is, those who serve in the Armed Forces are less likely to offend than the general population. However, many of those ex-service personnel who offend—I fully acknowledge this, and I am sure that this sentiment resonates with everyone in your Lordships’ House—have served their country, and we owe it to them to ensure that we are doing all that we can to support them.
I do not want to go into the specific wording of the amendment because I acknowledge, and I am sure that this was the intention of both noble Lords, that it was designed to highlight this issue so that we could discuss it further. The amendment raises some fundamental and important questions about the different approaches that could be taken. For example, should we be looking at a body designed to divert ex-service personnel before they get to the criminal courts? Should we be considering whether there is a case for ensuring that courts have greater knowledge and awareness in dealing with this group of offenders? Or should we be considering an oversight role, looking at the most effective ways to rehabilitate ex-service personnel? These are questions that we will look at in conjunction with the judiciary, my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and other government departments.
This is not to suggest that there is nothing going on in regard to veterans. It is true that some ex-service personnel will struggle to adjust to civilian life, but the Armed Forces do much more than other employers in retraining and reskilling staff who are leaving their employ. We are doing more to identify the particular needs of those offenders who end up in prison, including issues arising from their previous service. All prisons should now have a “veteran in custody support officer” to help with and co-ordinate the assessment and support of ex-service personnel offenders.
I should like to take a moment here, and I am sure that noble Lords across the Chamber will want to join me, to praise the excellent work that many voluntary sector organisations do both in prisons and in the community with offenders, notably the Royal British Legion and SSAFA, the Soldiers’, Sailors’ and Airmen’s Families Association.
Important work is therefore going on, and we will be looking at how that may be best developed. I should say that, as part of our plans to improve the rehabilitation of offenders, we will expect providers of probation services to provide flexible and tailored services to offenders, including addressing the particular needs of ex-service personnel. During meetings that we have had around the Bill with the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State and indeed with all Peers, I know that this issue was raised by other Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, raised specific examples of what he had seen in Scotland. We have seen examples of this through the PbR pilots. For example, as part of the pilot at HMP Doncaster, ex-service personnel are being matched up with mentors who themselves are from service backgrounds to support their rehabilitation on release from custody.
I cannot say that we will bring back amendments in this Bill to create a new veterans’ court, and in fact legislation for a pilot may not be required. However, to pick up the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, I fully acknowledge that we need to give this issue particular thought and much more careful consideration, and the department is already looking at it. I invite all noble Lords across the Chamber to work with us in this respect; I would welcome the opportunity. That will enhance and develop our discussions further, and I think that we will benefit a great deal from the expertise in your Lordships’ House.
While we will continue to ensure good practice is continued and developed among providers, we will also consider what further options may be required for the longer term. I noted in particular the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, when he talked about the establishment of such a court and what surrounds that court—the need for support that goes much wider. It is important that the Government, and indeed the House in its contributions in looking at this matter, take a very holistic approach.
With those reassurances of our continued and passionate shared commitment, as expressed around the House today, to develop support for ex-service personnel, I hope that the noble Lords are able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I express a sense of slight disappointment with the Minister’s reply. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I rather expected the Government to say that they would at least go forward with a pilot, whether or not legislation was required for that. I would have hoped that they would acknowledge that there would be space in the Bill to allow for the establishment of these courts if legislation were required for that, although maybe it is not—it will be interesting to find out on Report if it would require legislation to establish this system—and for the Government to allow for such an eventuality after a pilot. If the Government are not prepared to give an assurance that a pilot will be mounted, it will be necessary to bring this amendment or something like it back before the House and, perhaps, to test its opinion. Sympathy is welcome but, as we have heard already this afternoon, sometimes it only goes so far.
Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
This is a fairly simple amendment. It requires the Government to seek approval for changes to the list of class B drugs for the purposes of the Bill as set out under the heading,
“Drugs and offenders released during custodial sentence”.
If it is thought sufficiently significant for class B drugs to be involved and for the list to be changed, then, following the effective precedent of the Bill in dealing with drugs issues, it seems to me that the Government should proceed by way of an order to be debated here. It is presumably not likely to be a frequent occurrence but one would hope that some element of parliamentary oversight would be involved. It may be that the Government intend that anyway but it is not clear from the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the position. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for summarising his thinking behind this amendment. Clause 10 amends Section 64 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, which allows for the Secretary of State to impose a drug testing requirement on offenders aged 18 or over released from prison on licence. The Bill deals with efforts to improve the rehabilitation of offenders and to cut reoffending. Many noble Lords will agree that tackling offending behaviour will often mean tackling an offender’s problem with drugs. Drug use is common among offenders serving custodial sentences. One study reported 64% of people surveyed as having used class A drugs and 74% as having used class B or class C drugs.
Research has also shown that drug use among prisoners is strongly associated with reconviction on release, with the rate of reconviction more than doubling for prisoners who reported using drugs in the four weeks before custody, compared with prisoners who had never used drugs. And it is not just class A drugs that are associated with higher reconviction rates. Offenders who use class B or class C drugs in the four weeks before imprisonment had a reconviction rate of 48%, compared to 30% for those who had never used drugs. What drives this association will vary from offender to offender. For some offenders who are dependent on, say, cannabis or amphetamines, their crime may be linked to the need to fund their drug habit. For others, a propensity to misuse such drugs may expose them to other offenders, risky environments or situations that encourage further reoffending. That can make the process of rehabilitation that much harder. If a connection, direct or indirect, with class B drugs, such as cannabis or amphetamines, is a factor in a significant number of offenders ending up in custody or reoffending, we should do what we can to support offenders to break that connection. Testing for class B drugs is designed to complement those activities.
Turning to the substance of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, Section 70 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 currently provides a power for the Secretary of State to specify via statutory instrument the class A drugs for which an offender released on licence can be tested. This power is subject to the negative resolution procedure. In extending this order-making power to cover class B drugs, we have proposed to keep the negative resolution procedure. It is important that if changes need to be made to the list—for example, if drugs are reclassified or renamed or new drugs appear—that can be done quickly. When initially specifying what class B drugs are within scope, we will, of course, want to look in detail at the evidence for their usage by offenders, their links to reoffending and the availability of testing equipment. I should also point out to noble Lords that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise any issues with this extended power remaining subject to the negative resolution procedure. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am satisfied with it as it clarifies the situation. I rather thought that that would be the case, and I am grateful for his confirmation that that is correct. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am glad the Minister is prepared to do that. The letter says that the vast majority of prisoners transferred to NOMS North East Region are from adjacent areas. An adjacent area could be the north-west of England. I know that there are significant numbers of prisoners from the north-west of England in prisons in Northumberland. The north-west region runs from Cumbria to Cheshire. To say that is an adjacent region does not take us very far, especially as I suspect most of the offenders will come perhaps from the Merseyside and Manchester conurbations. That would be a reasonable inference. This is a significant number of people to be resettled somewhere nearer home and that is just from one region. How much have the Government thought through the implications of dealing with this? Have the Government given consideration not only to the numbers but the length of time during which the resettlement will take place? I raise this point because it has been raised by organisations concerned with women prisoners especially. Has it been looked at from their perspective?
Incidentally, the letter says, in a point which rather echoes the point about women prisoners and which may account for the figures for young offenders, that there are fewer establishments holding young offenders and they are on average likely to be further from their home area. How realistic is this resettlement process likely to be? It looks to me as though the north-east region is accommodating considerably more than its “fair share” of prisoners. It would be interesting to know how many north-east prisoners are housed elsewhere but I suspect that we have a surplus of accommodation in the north-east and that is not going to assist in the resettlement process. How developed are the Government’s plans? The amendment therefore seeks details and for a scheme to be set out in regulations and laid before both Houses for debate. That would be ideal but at any rate some oversight of the detail and the implications of this scheme are needed, which as I say is welcome in principle but it is difficult to see quite how it is going to work. It may be that the Government are going to take some time over this and that may be necessary, but any indications at this stage would be gratefully received. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for tabling his amendment and for then detailing specific issues in relation to women, young adults and a region with which he is far more familiar than is any other noble Lord currently in the Chamber. Nevertheless, he raises some important issues specifically about women prisoners. Indeed, we heard earlier during the debate about the importance of this issue.
From a general perspective, the main purpose behind this proposal is to co-ordinate better the delivery of rehabilitation through an offender’s time both in prison and then in the community. Most offenders will spend the final part of their sentence in one of their home area’s designated resettlement prisons, which may involve prisoner movement, but it is also unlikely to result in any significant increase to the number of transfers carried out.
On the issue of women prisoners and young adult offenders, it is very important that we make the best use of the existing provision for women offenders in the prison estate, both taking account of its size and the geographical spread. We will be consulting with both providers and stakeholders to design the most suitable resettlement arrangements for women offenders, ensuring that, wherever possible, women offenders are held as close to home as possible and with strong links with providers of rehabilitative services. In an earlier debate this evening, we discussed the importance that the Government lay on family issues, particularly in relation to women offenders.
Young adults have some of the highest reoffending rates, and it is crucial that these reforms are delivered to this group of offenders. Again, we are planning to consult providers to ensure that they design the most suitable model for young adult offenders, taking account of existing provision in the prison estate for this group.
The amendment itself would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to set up a system for sending prisoners to resettlement prisons prior to their release by requiring this to be done in regulations. Such a restriction would be unprecedented intervention by Parliament in the operational management of prisons. The role is conferred by the Prison Act 1952 on the Secretary of State, although, in practice, the Prison Service is run by the National Offender Management Service, as noble Lords are aware. The power is a broad one for a very good reason: NOMS needs operational flexibility to respond swiftly to fluctuations in prison numbers and to move prisoners around the prison estate for a number of reasons, including access to appropriate interventions as a result of security information or, indeed, for the prisoner’s own protection. Policies for the allocation of prisoners are set out in the Prison Service instructions, which are published; accordingly, such policies are both accessible and transparent. I therefore hope, with the explanation I have given, that the noble Lord will find it appropriate to withdraw his amendment and agree that operational arrangements are matters more appropriately left to the Secretary of State.
Lord Beecham
I am not sure that I would leave very much to the present Secretary of State, but that is by the way. The question is surely that this is a welcome, novel scheme which ought to be at least discussed. I cannot see why there should be any inhibition on the part of the Government to laying out their proposals for discussion. It may be that seeking to deal with the matter by regulation may be regarded as a step too far but, at the very least, it should be subject to some parliamentary debate. There are people in your Lordships’ House who can contribute to that kind of debate very effectively, I should have thought. I do not necessarily include myself in that group, but there are people like the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Bradley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, with a record of involvement. These are the very people who should be contributing to a solution to a problem which the Government rightly identify and want to do something about; there is no difference between us on that. Why be so defensive about it? Why not be open about it, have the discussion and let us try to improve the situation with the contribution that Members, particularly of this House, are in a position to afford?
I do not see why the Government should stonewall on this issue. However, it is two minutes to 10 pm. The Chief Whip is with us; I tremble before her, as ever, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to reach for my copy of Roget’s Thesaurus but simply confine myself to commending my noble friend Lord Bradley on the amendment and to paying tribute to his long record of very effective concern for this issue. His point about the desirability of having some knowledge of the proposed guidance on good behaviour is a matter on which the Minister should reflect. I hope, even if a final version is not available, that at least an outline of what is intended by that definition can be provided before Report. I hope that he will accept the amendment, which seems to make a great deal of sense.
I have just one further observation. It seems important that the communication and explanation recommended in the amendment should be given at the prison gate, as it were, before the prisoner leaves, not at some point afterwards. That would obviously make sense and I hope that the Minister will take that on board as well as the question of defining what would have been meant by “good behaviour” for the purposes of communication with a group who may struggle with that concept without adequate explanation being proffered.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, as always, I have listened with great interest. I am for ever learning when I hear such wisdom from across the House, although, when listening to the debate on rehabilitation and good behaviour, I was reminded of my childhood. I perhaps disagree with one noble and learned Lord who suggested that we are all innocent. We were all guilty in front of mother, and “rehabilitation” was not a word that she used when putting us right.
Nevertheless, I join the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in commending and acknowledging the terrific work of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, in this area. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for raising this issue, and acknowledge the incredible work of the work of the Prison Reform Trust. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said that perhaps his worth in the Prison Reform Trust was not quite recognised because he was merely the chairman. However, his worth is well recognised in your Lordships’ House, as it is in this debate.
All noble Lords who contributed referred to the importance of communication. I firmly believe that that is important in ensuring that the people we are seeking to assist understand what is being resolved for them in their lives and what is ultimately the goal—that they become productive citizens for the benefit of them, their families and society as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, asked whether I would acknowledge the importance of the requirements of those who have learning difficulties or problems in understanding. I do so from the outset—absolutely.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the amendment relates to new Schedule 19A, which deals with supervision default orders and incorporates new provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The amendment addresses the issue of the unpaid work requirement embodied in new sub-paragraph (2)(a).
It is a straightforward amendment that might not be necessary. To be frank, I do not know the Government’s current thinking or, for that matter, the present state of the law. However, if unpaid work is to be required it should not be to the profit of a private sector organisation that is in the business of, perfectly legitimately, generating profits. If unpaid work is to be done, it should be for a public body or a social purpose. Obviously it is important that people have the opportunity to develop skills. It is also good that the discipline of work should apply. That is very much part of the rehabilitation process, which is not always easy to achieve. Unpaid work might be very helpful in that respect. However, I repeat that it would be wrong if that work were to the financial advantage of a profit-making organisation. One could well envisage placements with voluntary organisations, local authorities or whatever, which would be perfectly reasonable and satisfactory.
I hope the Minister can assure us about that. Otherwise, we might have to return to this issue on Report because it is an important point. We hear too much of what can only be described as bogus apprenticeships, shelf-stacking and the rest of it under the Work Programme. One does not want to see that kind of work, particularly if it is unpaid, being imported into this agenda. It is desirable that the range of activities that might be encompassed within such a programme benefits the offender and perhaps society. It would be wrong if financial benefit was thereby given to a private business. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and I can from the outset assure him, as is clear in all these matters, that the objective is not for any operator to make profit from such work. My understanding of the purpose of the amendment is that it would prevent any offender who is carrying out unpaid work as a sanction for breach of a supervision requirement from doing that unpaid work for any private sector organisation. I would make a number of points in response to the noble Lord.
First, as noble Lords will know, we intend to open up the delivery of unpaid work, along with other services for offenders in the community, to a wide variety of organisations. This will include the private sector. However, the model for private sector organisations’ delivery of unpaid work would, I should make absolutely clear, not involve the offender working directly for them. The private provider would be responsible for organising the community work and supervising the offender’s progress. Unpaid work is intended to be of benefit to local communities. The private provider would make arrangements with a local authority, community group or charity for the actual work to be carried out. The private provider may also subcontract another organisation to deliver the unpaid work. This may be particularly important for women offenders or offenders with particular needs, such as learning disability. In these cases a smaller organisation within the community with the relevant expertise is much better placed to arrange the unpaid work.
However, the amendment might prevent private providers even from making arrangements with other bodies to deliver unpaid work. Consider the case of a private provider with responsibility for supervising offenders carrying out unpaid work and that wants to make arrangements for placements with a local charity or community group. The amendment could prevent the private provider from doing so, although I am sure that this was not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in tabling the amendment.
Unpaid work can fulfil a number of purposes. As part of a community order or suspended sentence it provides a credible punishment, but it can also help offenders to learn new skills or disciplines of work. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised this important issue. Too often offenders are looked at in a particular way, but some lack the basic ability to turn up at a given time to serve a particular number of hours. We need to help develop these basic skills and mindsets.
Unpaid work is also reparative, allowing offenders to pay back the harm done by their crimes to the wider community. This is equally true of unpaid work carried out under supervision default orders. It is a sanction for the breach, but this is not to say that it cannot also support the offender’s rehabilitation, or allow them to put something back into the community they have harmed.
My point here is that unpaid work needs to be meaningful, whether it is carried out as part of a community order or as a sanction for the breach of supervision requirements. Even if it is imposed as a sanction for a breach, the work needs to be of sufficient quality. This remains true whether the provider is a private sector organisation, a charity or the public sector. For this reason I do not believe this amendment’s singling out of private sector organisations to be the right approach. The key issue is ensuring that whoever delivers unpaid work does so to the appropriate standard. We will ensure that our new arrangements deliver this. For these reasons I hope the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I cannot say that I am terribly happy with the noble Lord’s response. It seems to me that there is almost a moral issue here about what is in effect the exploitation of unpaid labour. There is already some concern about the degree to which this now forms part of the process of imprisonment. Bringing in unpaid work has a potential impact on competitor organisations that do not have the advantage of cheap labour, or as in this case unpaid labour. If private sector employers are to be engaged in the process of assisting rehabilitation by providing work—and there is no reason why they should not be—it is incumbent on them to pay for that labour. There is no reason why they should not pay at least the minimum wage. It seems wrong that they should benefit from this process.
I regret the Minister’s response. I invite him to think again about this, as it is not satisfactory. Otherwise we might have to return to it on Report, because it strikes me as a wholly inappropriate response. There are many opportunities outside unpaid work in the private sector that would encourage the rehabilitation that we all want to see. The Government should rethink their position on this issue.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, perhaps I may clarify this. The noble Lord’s point about paying someone who is caught up in one of these arrangements or rehabilitation schemes is a slightly separate one. I emphasise that the amendment as tabled would prevent the private sector from providing any kind of service as part of the rehabilitation process. I have made the point, which I wish to underline, that the private sector organisation is there not to make any profit. As I have said, the person actually performing this particular arrangement within the community would be doing so as part of their rehabilitation. The issue about whether that person should be paid or unpaid is a slightly separate matter.
As the noble Lord has said, we will come back to this. For the benefit of the Committee I would like to clarify that many offenders are currently subject to unpaid work. Currently, around 60,000 offenders have successfully completed community payback sentences, for example. That is 7 million hours of work on projects that directly benefit local communities. To be clear, the intention is that any unpaid work is of benefit to the community and to the individual as part of their rehabilitation process. The underlying objective is not for any provider, whether private or otherwise, to make a profit from that arrangement.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s most recent remarks, although the points that he made did not really come across when he previously addressed the matter. There is perhaps not the great difference between us that I had perceived. However, it would be better, if the noble Lord agrees, to go back and look at how the Bill might be worded to deal with this situation, which I now apprehend does not really divide us.
I am well aware of community payback schemes, and I see them in my own ward. They are very valuable and seem to me to be the right approach, although not necessarily in exactly the same form. I sense that really we agree about the notion of people carrying out work for a profit-making organisation on a profit-making project, in which case perhaps the noble Lord would look again at the amendment and see whether we can come up with something on which we can agree. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Judicial Review
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank my noble friend for raising this concern, but I believe that the risk is somewhat limited. I am sure that many members of the judiciary both in here and those practising outside will agree that the test of “totally without merit” is something that is well understood by the profession and is, indeed, applied by judges. This reform applies only to the weakest cases, and as I said in a previous response, if there is still an issue, the right to apply to the Court of Appeal remains for the individual.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the observation of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, that there is no principle more basic to our system of law than the maintenance of the rule of law itself and the constitutional protection afforded by judicial review? When will the Government publish their response to the consultation on their proposals, and can the Minister indicate whether the view of consultees that has emerged from the consultation on the question of shortening the time limits for procurement and planning cases has been noted?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, I agree totally with the noble Lord. The point of judicial review is to hold the Executive and public bodies to account, and that is a principle to which the Government are utterly committed. I have referred already to the issue of time extension. If an extension of time is required, the judge can grant it. It is important to highlight three key points around these changes. The reduction in time limits on planning and procurement, the introduction of fees and the dismissal of decisions that are totally without merit were all referred to the judiciary and, indeed, carried their support. Matters were raised in the consultation which the judiciary felt were not right to take forward; the Government have listened and are not doing so.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I will confine myself to two topics. Taken in reverse order of importance, the first is what has become known in common parlance as “bash the burglar” legislation. The Minister emphasised the need for bringing this measure into force as quickly as possible. Given the paucity of cases to which this would apply, as we discussed when we were debating the Bill, I find this to be little more than an example of gesture politics of the cheapest kind.
The second more significant matter, which I entirely support the Government in raising, is Amendment 9 about making use of films and other recordings of proceedings. I would not have spoken at all on this matter except that there was a report in the press at the end of last week about the position in Scotland where it now appears that a drama is going to be broadcast based entirely on recordings in the criminal court. This is under Scottish legislation; it is not legislation that applies in this country. This is exactly what those who have expressed fears about filming proceedings in court were really worried might take place. Apparently witnesses, parties in criminal cases and, in this particular case, a retrial of a significant case regarding a serious offence have been filmed and will be shown on Scottish television, presumably, as a rather dramatic production rather than a factual and low-key look at how the courts work. The English legislation that we are debating does not facilitate that, and I would be glad to hear the Minister give a firm assurance that it will not be extended to allow that kind of development, which would be a significant change in the way that the Government have envisaged matters and one in which we should in no way seek to experience what Scotland is about to undergo.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank the noble Lord for his support for much of what has been covered. He referred to self-defence as “bash the burglar”. He may think that; I could not possibly comment. We believe it is important that if the legislation is passed, no one should fall into the trap between Royal Assent being given and this becoming law so that it can be used as a defence. If we are making these changes, it is important that they happen as quickly as possible so that we prevent any occurrence of people who act. I contend that anyone confronted with a burglar, faced with such a situation where they are protecting their home, their family and their loved ones, is often faced with that instant decision. It is important that we give that instant protection. I therefore believe that the Government have taken the right way forward on this. I am sure that, on reflection, the noble Lord would agree with me.
The noble Lord mentioned broadcasting and, again, I welcome his support. As I said, we have put four locks in place. He raised the specific issue of broadcasting in Scotland and the filming of all parts of a trial. I assure him that we are not proposing to allow this at all. The safeguards that I have outlined will protect such an extension. He raised the specific issue of witnesses. I share his concern. The Government’s intention is to provide that level of protection. With those clarifications, I beg to move.
Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) Regulations 2013
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the regulations we are debating today are one of the last remaining building blocks needed to implement the rates retention scheme on 1 April this year. We will also cover the Local Government Finance Act 2012 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2013.
Only a little over two years ago, this Government announced that they wished to end the current system of business rates being centralised. That is an ambition that those of us who have worked in local government have heard many times over the years but, up to now, with no expectation of it being achieved. With the passing of these regulations and others which will follow shortly, we will start to deliver this particular government intention and policy. It has been widely recognised in both local government and business that the current rating system does not provide an incentive for local authorities to support growth. Currently, when a new business or development moves into an area and generates extra business rates, that is passed on in full to central government—never mind the fact that the local authority may have to meet new costs associated with it. That is a system that has been widely criticised and will end on 1 April; from then, under the new business rates retention system, local authorities will retain 50% of their local business rates income. If local government uses its expertise and local knowledge to create a strong economic environment and encourage development and new businesses into its area, it will be able to share in the resulting growth in business rates.
In this House, we have had many opportunities to consider the new rates retention scheme, particularly through the Local Government Finance Act 2012. That scrutiny allowed us to make a number of amendments to the Bill to improve the operation of the rates retention system. In particular, on 10 October last year, we brought forward a group of amendments to allow local government to use a “collection fund” approach to rates retention. This is a system that has been requested by local government. It is a system with which it is familiar and that all people who have served in local government know is used for council tax. The regulations we are considering today implement that system.
Throughout the development of the rates retention system, we have ensured that local government has been fully consulted on the principles behind the scheme and, importantly, its practical implementation. These regulations were developed in partnership with experts in local government and were published in draft for consultation last October. This proved to be a valuable exercise and we are confident that as a result the system will be workable. The rates retention regulations implement the collection fund system. They will also ensure that local authorities are fully funded for qualifying rate relief awarded in enterprise zones.
I turn first to the operation of the collection fund system. It provides stability for local government budgets. This is because, under these regulations, an estimate made by billing authorities of the coming year’s rating income is used to fix the shares paid to major precepting authorities and to be retained by the billing authority for its own budget. These amounts do not change in the year, even if the amount of rates collected changes. Thereby, authorities can plan with certainty for the coming year.
Of course, the estimate for the year is unlikely to be perfect and we can expect the actual amounts collected from ratepayers to be different. Under the collection fund system, that will generate either a surplus or a deficit. Again to provide financial stability that surplus or deficit will be rolled forward into the calculations for future years. This avoids sudden changes in a local authority’s budget.
The rates retention regulations also provide that the central share will be paid to central government in 10 monthly instalments, in line with the instalments of rates income paid by ratepayers to local government. The same instalment schedule will be used for other payments to and from central government in the rates retention system. The regulations also offer that schedule for use between billing authorities and precepting authorities, but we have ensured that, if they wish, they can agree different arrangements.
I turn to the funding of relief in enterprise zones. The regulations ensure that local authorities are fully funded for qualifying rate relief in enterprise zones, which will provide an important boost to economic growth across the country. The Government have promised that ratepayers moving into an enterprise zone before 1 April 2015 can receive up to five years of rate relief, up to the state aid de minimis limit. However, under the rates retention scheme, local authorities would normally have to share in the cost of that relief. We have agreed that central government should fund enterprise zone relief in full. Therefore, these regulations allow local authorities to deduct from the share of rates income they pay to central government their share of the cost of relief in enterprise zones. As a result, local authorities will be no worse off financially from central government’s policy of awarding rate relief in enterprise zones.
I turn briefly to the Local Government Finance Act 2012 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2013. These are technical amendments that, for want of a better term, tidy up the draft regulations. They make a number of technical and consequential changes to other legislation, where it refers to the current system of redistributed non-domestic rates. The draft order replaces those soon-to-be-obsolete terms with references to the new rates retention system and locally retained non-domestic rates. The order also makes technical changes to the way that authorities must calculate their council tax requirements to ensure that these calculations correctly reflect the rates retention scheme.
In conclusion, these regulations will provide local authorities with in-year stability of income from the rates retention scheme through the collection fund system, and will ensure that local authorities are fully compensated for the cost of qualifying rate relief in enterprise zones. They have been discussed in detail with local government and utilise systems that we know work well for council tax.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am sure that those of my constituents in the west end of Newcastle who have been glued to BBC Parliament during the course of these 20 minutes will have been enthralled by the presentation. I congratulate the Minister on taking us through an inherently complex, not to say abstruse, area of local government finance and legislation in the clear way he has. I have nothing really to say, he will be relieved to hear—as, no doubt, my constituents will be—about the regulation. It seems eminently sensible.
I want to sound a slight note of warning about the arrangements for enterprise zones. I very much welcome the provisions here, but we will be returning at some later point to the safety net in terms of business rates, which brings to mind the danger that businesses relocating into the enterprise zone will be vacating premises that may stand vacant and not produce a business rate income for the local authority, thereby contributing to the amount—which at the moment stands at 7.5%—above which compensation will be paid. That is not so much in relation to today’s regulations, I have to confess, but I take the opportunity of drawing the Government’s attention to the potential complexities to which these regulations might add and the probable inequity of a limit set at that level. This is just a gentle warning, but I think that in due course a committee will want to revert to that issue. However, in relation to these two sets of regulations, we have no objection.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his support and for the sterling job the noble Lord does in representing the voice of the people of that area.
That said, this is something from my experience in local government. I know that when I served as a councillor, we lobbied long and hard to ensure that local authorities that work hard to attract new income and businesses into their area were allowed to retain and reap the rewards of their efforts in retaining business rates.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, as ever, reminds us that there are issues around the levy. I note what he said about the 7.5% safety net regulation, and I am sure that we will return to discussions on that. I am minded of the total support for the specific regulations and am thankful for the support of the Committee.
Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (Council Tax Increases) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and my noble friend Lord Tope for their contributions to this short debate. I did not expect that we would start talking about time on desert islands with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Regardless of the desire to spend such time or not, I shall certainly share those sentiments with him when I next meet him. However, knowing him personally, I can say that his amusing stories provide good entertainment.
My response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about the Daily Mail and comments allegedly made by the Secretary of State, is the standard adage that you cannot believe everything you read in the newspapers. I thank both noble Lords for their general support of the principle behind what is sought in this. In putting this forward, the Government are clear that it is about giving local people the final say on any excessive council tax increases.
In response to the point made by my noble friend Lord Tope about the outstanding issues with the Electoral Commission, the commission has raised some wider points about voter awareness. He referred to his specific experience of the electorate and I can also refer back to my former experience as a local councillor. We struggled, and not just on this issue, with communication and information sharing. As we go forward, we will work with the Electoral Commission to address these important issues. I reiterate that we take the commission and its views very seriously. We are continuing a constructive dialogue with the commission across all aspects.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised issues about police and crime commissioners and the principle of precepts. The Government intend to bring forward legislative proposals to ensure that in future excessiveness will be determined with reference to the basic amount of council tax from band D, including all levies. There will be an announcement of that in due course. When I say, including levies, in consideration of any excessiveness that will ensure that all levying bodies are subject to the same financial discipline as other tax-setting bodies. There will be more detail on that.
Lord Beecham
In the event that a levying body exceeds the limit, will the cost of the referendum be charged to that body or to the local authority?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
If the noble Lord will allow me, I will come back to him on that specific question. Nevertheless, to date there has not been a council tax referendum, and we are confident that the proposed referendum question and the information available to voters will be fit for the purpose intended. However, if and indeed when a referendum is triggered, we will discuss the scope for an appraisal of the voter experience with the commission. That is an important issue. Whenever or if this occasion arises, what we learn from that referendum will set many thoughts in terms of how we move forward.
The council tax freeze scheme in 2013-14 will, one hopes, make it unlikely that there will be any referenda next year. However, if any authorities choose to reject the freeze and go on to set an excessive increase, the revised referendum question will ensure that voters are presented with a clear an unambiguous choice around it. The principles around which any excesses are dealt with are covered, and it is clear that any setting of council tax above the 2% threshold would be subject to a referendum. Those principles are quite clear. If a local authority was to proceed and still take it forward, and perhaps not call the referendum, the Secretary of State would obviously review any future dealings with that local authority as well.
That said, there is general agreement on the principles. It is about giving local people the final say on any excessive council tax increases. That was a promise of the Government and one on which we are delivering. I beg to move.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
I agree with that. What would be a concern would be the individual smallish councils in an area each seeking a separate agreement. It is the point about co-operation, which I thought the noble Lord was advancing, that I seek to emphasise and I assume the Government would accept.
Again, will the Minister indicate in replying whether the Government will look at the connection between the city deal programme and community budgeting or Total Place, and whether these things need to be linked? If that needs to be discussed further during the course of the Bill—I do not expect an immediate response—perhaps we can have some discussions about that before we get to Report stage.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I first thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I noted that my noble friend Lord Jenkin’s final words in moving the amendment were, “I hope my noble friends on the Front Bench smile” at his proposal. I assure him that whenever he makes a contribution I often smile, because I often agree with what he says. In what he said, there is nothing specific with which I can disagree. I think it would be generally accepted by the Committee that all contributions across the Chamber were supportive of the initiatives that are being taken.
I was particularly delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, agreeing with my honourable friend in the other place, Greg Clark. What can I say? Détente has broken out. I am glad that we agree on these issues. When we have these debates, it is important that things which are working across the board are acknowledged as doing so. I do not think for a moment that we are where we want to be with the city deals. This is an evolving issue. We are clearly seeing the trialling of city deals, as has been acknowledged by many noble Lords.
Look at the first wave of the cities listed outside London: Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, Nottingham, Newcastle, Leeds and Sheffield; I feel a bit like a train announcer here.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I will explain the Government’s position on this amendment. I was amused when my noble friends referred to the distinction between the office and the person. When one thinks of the present incumbent of the Mayor of London’s office, or indeed his predecessor, it is very hard not to talk about the person in the office. One can make that claim about both the current incumbent and his predecessor.
I listened to the arguments in favour of Amendment 39. First, I will say that I concur completely with the point that the Mayor of London should play an important role in strategic decisions affecting the capital. My noble friend Lord Tope made that point very well. As a former councillor in a neighbouring borough to his, I dealt with issues in collaboration with the Mayor of London’s office. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, the mayor already has powers to put in place a strategic framework for planning in London, and to call in for his own decision any applications that are of potential strategic importance. Clause 1 was drafted to ensure that his power to call in such applications would remain where proposals were made directly to the Secretary of State. The question was raised about discussions with the mayor’s office. The Government have had positive discussions with the mayor’s office about how this would best be implemented. We gave the reassurance that applications of potential strategic importance would be notified to the mayor very quickly once they had been received by the Planning Inspectorate, so that he will be able to act immediately should he wish to intervene. This presents a more practical and workable approach than the one proposed in the amendments.
It is also important that we do not overcomplicate the process for applicants. As it stands, the amendment would introduce a three-way choice for those proposing major development in the capital should the borough be designated on the basis of poor performance. They could, for example, choose to apply to the borough as normal, or to the Secretary of State, or to the mayor. In the Government’s view this would complicate matters further. In other words, what constitutes the application’s potential strategic importance or falls into one of the other proposed categories could end up being extremely complicated and confusing and risk further delay should an applicant misjudge the criteria. The mayor would then have to return an application because he could not decide upon it. It is much simpler for the applicant to have a two-way choice, as we propose, and for the planning inspectorate to decide whether an application it has received is one in which the mayor could have an interest. This approach is entirely consistent with the existing situation where the authorities, not the applicant, decide whether an application is of potential strategic importance.
We would also need to make sure that the categories are generally strategic in nature and consider the views of the London boroughs and other interests. We are happy to have that debate but currently feel that the Bill is not the place to make these changes.
Reference was made to Amendment 80. While there may be a case for the changes proposed, this again can be achieved at the appropriate time by amending secondary legislation. Amendment 80 would allow the mayor to delegate decisions relating to planning applications in the capital. As I have already said, we are sympathetic to this proposal but believe that the Bill is not the best place to address it. In this regard, we propose that we look at the mayor’s planning powers as a whole package and then, in discussion with all interested parties, consider the opportunities for making any appropriate changes.
With those assurances and reassurances I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Can the Minister indicate whether it is the Government’s intention to consult the Mayor of London, or indeed any body, about proposals to permit the conversion of office premises to residential premises, which I understand has not gone down too well in parts of London?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It is the standard procedure. We continue to consult the Mayor of London’s office on a raft of issues and discuss them. I am sure that the noble Lord is well aware of such practices.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I take the Government’s point about resources, but as my noble friend rightly points out, there are two sides to that equation. One is the cost to the system, which can flow from inadequate representation of defendants, adjournments and the rest of it, as well as the cost of providing it. Of course, there are defendants who get assistance in the form of interpretation. As it turns out, recent developments in interpreting services have been, to put it mildly, controversial. Contracts have been given to organisations that apparently have not performed very well, at considerable cost in terms of the fees paid to them. Equally, as might be the case in connection with people who are unable to understand proceedings and follow them unassisted, some of the interpreters who turned up to the courts were simply not up to the job. It has been something of a disaster.
This is an analogy for the Government to look at in terms of providing services for people who, for different reasons, are unable perhaps to follow a case properly, to understand it properly, or to give proper instructions to their legal advisers. I hope that the Government will look at that and look at this position in the round. The noble Baroness has already identified the discrepancy between witnesses and defendants. Here, we potentially have two classes of defendants, some of whom may not speak English adequately and for whom interpretation will be provided, and others who may not be able to follow because of learning disabilities or other aspects, and for whom nothing would be provided.
Looking at the whole situation surely is sensible. I hope that the Government will acknowledge that there is a disjunction here between what is provided for different classes of defendants, and will not simply put this on the back shelf but will look at it with a degree of urgency. Miscarriages of justice can flow at any time from failure to provide adequate assistance, whether that is legal aid or, as in this case at least, the kind of support that can be offered by those described in my noble friend’s amendment. I hope that the Government will acknowledge that there is an issue here and that, at the very least, if they are not able to respond firmly and conclusively tonight, that they will give it more urgent attention than was indicated in the letter which was recently sent out.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I must admit that, as I listened to the debate, time stopped for a moment when I saw the annunciator freeze. I do not know whether that was due to the weight of arguments that were presented on the previous amendment. Nevertheless, my attention remains focused on this one. As noble Lords acknowledged—including the noble Lords, Lord Bradley and Lord Beecham—my noble friend Lord McNally, following the last debate, wrote to interested Peers on this amendment.
I have nothing specific to add but certainly I will seek to answer some of the questions that arose. As was said on Report in response to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Linklater, there is already a provision in statute for “certain vulnerable defendants” to receive assistance from an intermediary when giving evidence. I shall return to that point in a moment. That is in Section 104 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
The point was made about the Government deferring implementation. It is important to understand that they decided to defer implementation until full consideration could be given to the practical arrangements and resource implications. I reassure the House that we are still looking at these practical and resource issues because they are important.
On the points raised about discrimination, not only does Section 104 provide for intermediaries to be used in support of defendants but the courts already have the power under common law to order such use when they consider it necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to vulnerable defendants. As I said, common-law powers exist to appoint an intermediary to assist vulnerable defendants if and when the courts consider it necessary. Guidance, therefore—the Government have moved forward on this—on appointing intermediaries in such circumstances was issued to all courts last year. It is the duty of the courts to ensure that defendants receive a fair trial. In the case of vulnerable defendants, that entails making sure that they fully understand what is taking place and that trials are conducted to timetables that take account of their ability to concentrate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, made a point about a fair trial for all vulnerable defendants. To give a couple of examples, the court can make an order allowing a vulnerable defendant, for example, to give evidence over a live link. Much more can also be done by the defendant’s legal representative to aid communication. A vulnerable defendant should always be represented, as one of the criteria in the interests of justice test that is used to determine whether an applicant is entitled to legal aid is that the defendant may not be able to understand the court proceedings.
Coming back to the crux of the point, it is the duty of the courts to ensure that defendants receive a fair trial. The Government are committed to ensuring that vulnerable defendants fully understand what is taking place. I have already alluded to the fact that much can be done in terms of the defendant’s legal representative to aid communication.
In view of the reassurances that I have given, the letter written by my noble friend Lord McNally and the assurance that the Government are looking at this and at the common-law provisions that exist, I hope that the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to issues raised and debated in Committee. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that they have been considered in the intervening time. However, as the noble and learned Lord expected, the Government’s position on both issues is unchanged for the reasons that I will reiterate.
Amendment 116ZA seeks to introduce a sunset clause—I am always conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, often talks of sunset clauses after the sun has set; I am sure there is no direct relevance—for the DPA scheme. The Government still consider that to be unnecessary at present. Let me be clear: our approach to these proposals allows us to test the water, as my noble friend Lord Marks, said, by dipping a toe in to this novel approach. Our proposals have been designed to deal with the particular issue of bringing organisations to justice for economic crime.
However, let me reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that the introduction of the DPA scheme is not a pilot. The Government are committed to DPAs becoming a permanent fixture in the fight against corporate economic and financial crime. For this reason, we do not consider the proposed sunset clause to be appropriate. Additionally, this provision could have a number of prejudicial consequences for any DPA under negotiation, in force or expired. The inclusion of such a clause would introduce uncertainty that might deter prosecutors and organisations entering into a DPA.
Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that the Government will review the operation of the scheme following its introduction, and I am content to reiterate that undertaking here. Pursuant to the Government’s policy on post-legislative scrutiny, of which noble Lords are aware, all new primary legislation is reviewed within five years of Royal Assent. We consider that there is no need to provide a statutory basis for the review of the DPA legislation and consider, on this occasion, that the undertaking we have given on post-legislative scrutiny conducted in the usual way is sufficient.
Amendment 116E, which was tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, broadens the scope of the Secretary of State’s power to specify by order further offences in relation to which DPAs may be entered. As has been stated already, the amendment would extend its scope to the addition of any offence whatever that could be committed by an organisation. We discussed this issue in Committee and have considered with great care the potential to extend the scope of the DPA scheme to cover a broader range of offences. The Government remain of the view that the scope of the scheme should be limited to financial and economic wrongdoing and that it should not be extended beyond this by way of secondary legislation for the following reasons.
First, 77% of the respondents to our consultation agreed that corporate economic crime is the right focus for these proposals, at least initially. Fewer than half of respondents supported the broader availability of DPAs. As we made clear in Committee, the proposals set out in Schedule 17 have been designed as a response to the particular problems of prosecuting organisations alleged to have been involved in financial or economic wrongdoing. Too few organisations are being held to account for economic wrongdoing owing to the particular challenges in investigating and prosecuting the conduct. These challenges are not as acute for other types of corporate offending, including—and I know other noble Lords have mentioned this—environmental offending, where successful prosecutions have been made and where there is already a range of effective alternatives to prosecution. Those responsible for prosecuting offences other than economic and financial crimes have not identified a broader need for DPAs.
The introduction of DPAs, as I have already said, is very much a toe-dipping exercise. We need to ensure that the benefits of DPAs are proven, that there are no unintended consequences and that the right cases are still being prosecuted before considering broadening the scope. The Government are therefore opposed at this stage to removing the restriction on the offences that might be brought within the scope of these proposals. We remain firmly of the view that the current draft of the schedule draws the scope of the DPA scheme appropriately.
However, I would like to reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that the Government will keep this matter under review. If DPAs prove effective in tackling corporate economic crime, and the case is made for extending their availability for other types of offending, then we will reconsider this issue in the future. However, we consider that such a significant change in the scope of the scheme should be made only following appropriate consultation, and by way of primary legislation, with the more rigorous scrutiny that that entails, compared with the affirmative resolution procedure.
I therefore ask noble Lords to wait until these proposals have been fully tested in relation to economic crime in England and Wales, have been shown to be effective and, most importantly, have gained public confidence, before pressing for an extension in their scope. This is an important step forward. It is a new area and therefore it is right that we focus for the time being on economic crime. In light of these points and with the assurance that we will keep the scope of the DPA scheme under review I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would agree to withdraw his amendment and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, would agree not to move his amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am slightly disappointed by that response. It is not clear to me what form the review will take. Leaving aside the sunset clause—which I virtually left aside in moving the amendment—the amendment really talked about the consultation between the Government and the Director of Public Prosecution and the Director of the SFO and producing a joint report, as it were, for Parliament to discuss. It is not clear to me that that follows from what the Minister has described as the usual post-legislative scrutiny. I would be glad to be corrected if it is intended to bring effectively a joint report to be debated as part of that process.
In relation to the reluctance to envisage bringing forward other areas of law—environmental law was debated at some length at an earlier stage but not necessarily just that area—if we have a five-year review it will be at least six years before primary legislation is likely to be enacted, given that it would have to take its place in the queue, as it were, at that time. That strikes me as rather too long a period to wait, given the general acceptance that this offers a way forward, particularly in the field of something like the environment where you are not just looking at a financial penalty but at different ways, which we will touch on later in the amendments of my noble and learned friend, of corporations recognising their responsibilities in practical rather than purely monetary terms.
I have, as I have previously expressed, some reservations about extending the doctrine to individuals, although I take my noble and learned friend’s point about drugs, which is made on a day on which the Government seem to have been much too quick to reject a call from the Home Affairs Select Committee for a Royal Commission to look into what is not a noticeably successful policy on drugs and their impact on society and the courts. However, clearly, the Government are not minded to move things in the direction that either I or my noble and learned friend would wish tonight. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I understand the points made by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. This is an innovation in English court procedures and we should approach it with a degree of caution. The case for opening up the judicial system to more public information and understanding is well made, and to that extent I concur with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I was less happy with the second part of his speech, which addressed the amendments in my name. I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just said about discretion on the part of the trial judge to decide whether or not to permit broadcasting. That ought to be a significant safeguard, but it is not quite good enough to rely just on the Lord Chief Justice. I say “just”; although one has every confidence in the holders of that office, this is, as I say, a new departure and there is a wider interest to be considered. The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser try to establish the principles both in relation to any decision to extend court broadcasting and regarding the matters to be considered when a court gives a direction, precisely to meet some of the objections and difficulties envisaged by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Amendment 120B requires any statutory instrument to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am in slight difficulty here because, when these matters were raised in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said that the government amendments would make the provisions under what was then Clause 22 and is now Clause 23 subject to the affirmative procedure, as recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. She also referred to what was then Clause 29, which again required amendments to primary legislation to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I may have missed them but I cannot actually see those references in the Bill. They may be disguised under some form of words that does not immediately disclose their presence, but I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, could confirm that the affirmative procedure would apply so that it would not simply be a matter of a decision by the Lord Chief Justice but, if there were to be significant changes, particularly to extend the range of matters that could be broadcast, then the affirmative procedure would apply. If that were the case, we would certainly be content to support the Bill in its present form. Perhaps, with the assistance of the Box, he may be able to help me and, more importantly, your Lordships, to come to a conclusion about whether the Government’s intentions are currently reflected in the Bill.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, it is always interesting to examine such issues. I have listened to the speeches and the arguments, although I was not in your Lordships’ House when the arguments were put forward for the televising of Parliament. I listened, as I always do, to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who spoke about words being put into people’s mouths and perhaps being interpreted differently. I suppose that every now and again parliamentarians, and politicians in particular, suffer that consequence, which is well understood.
This has been a wide-ranging debate. As we have seen, again there is strong opinion on both sides of the argument. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, her amendment would limit court proceedings to appellate proceedings and, in effect, would require the Government to return to Parliament before broadening court broadcasting to other types of court proceedings, such as those in the Crown Court. I am also aware, as my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill pointed out, that this amendment was specifically recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report of the Bill. I would, of course, like to thank the Joint Committee for its report. I am also glad to read that the committee agrees with the Government’s objective of making justice as apparent and as publicly accessible as possible.
We have heard about 18th century judges, although I am minded not to travel back in history to that extent. However, in 1924, the Lord Chief Justice, Viscount Hewart, said:
“Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.
I believe that sentiment underlies the Government’s view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, talked about caution. The Government recognise that as regards court broadcasting. It is our view that any order made under Clause 23 will require, as has been mentioned by various noble Lords, the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. But that is just one lock. It will also require the approval of the Lord Chancellor and will be subject to scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative procedure. Therefore, court broadcasting will be introduced in a safe and proportionate manner. That is akin to putting not one or two locks on the door but to putting three locks. It will take three people to open that door.
However, we can go one step further. We believe that this triple lock, combined with existing reporting restrictions and the additional provision to allow judges to stop the filming and broadcasting of court proceedings to ensure the fairness of proceedings and to prevent any undue prejudice, will ensure that the interests of victims and witnesses, who are most important, as well as jurors, defendants and other parties, are fully protected. I hope that this will address the concerns of not only the noble Baroness but also the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in relation to the court’s requirement to consider when to allow or to prevent broadcasting.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, mentioned that moving cameras changed people’s actions, they certainly changed my action. As she mentioned it, I looked towards the camera and the camera moved. There is some credence and fact behind that statement.
The Government announced plans in September of last year to allow the broadcasting of judgments and advocates’ arguments in cases before the Court of Appeal and, over a longer period, to allow broadcasting from the Crown Court but to limit this to the judge’s sentencing remarks after conclusion of the trial. We believe that this will help to increase the public’s understanding of sentencing, with low risk to the proper administration of justice. Let me assure your Lordships’ House that we have no plans to extend court broadcasting beyond these two sets of circumstances. We believe that, once Parliament has approved the principle of broadcasting selected court proceedings, the details safely can be set out in secondary legislation. I would remind the House that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not take issue with this approach as long as the secondary legislation was subject to the affirmative procedure, which it now is. This means that the Lord Chancellor may make an order only under this clause which has been approved by both Houses. That being the case—I refer in particular to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham —Amendment 120B is not needed as that ground is covered already by Clause 30(4)(f). As with all primary legislation, these provisions will be subject to post-legislative review three to five years after Royal Assent.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I rise briefly to place on record the full support of the Opposition for this amendment. I hope that the Government will accept its spirit, if not the precise wording, today. It seems to set the final stone in the arch, as it were, of the construction of the Supreme Court. It clearly makes sense and I endorse entirely the observations of noble and learned Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Bach.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am minded of the fact that during the dinner break one of my noble friends remarked how cold the House had become given that we are in the winter months. I hope that some of my words may warm the temperature spiritually if not physically. Before I deal with the substance of what has been laid in front of us, I assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government fully and utterly respect the independence of the judiciary, and that there is no question of our duty to uphold that independence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has alluded to, and as many noble Lords will recall, this House considered what are now Sections 48 to 50 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Then, as now, the concern was how the court’s independence might be maintained following the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords transition into the UK Supreme Court. Several noble Lords have already made strong arguments as regards the current situation. I am not here to revisit arguments that have been raised historically. However, the Government retain a fundamental concern with regard to accountability and proper lines of accountability which need to be established so that the elected Government are responsible for the proper fiscal and managerial operation of the court.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who was the Attorney-General, made very specific points about the challenges faced by the Lord Chancellor in appointing the chief executive, and the fact that a chief executive appointed by the Lord Chancellor has two masters in effect—one judicial and the other ministerial—and, as was argued, this breaches the principle of the separation of the Executive and the judiciary.
As I have said, the Government will listen to the arguments and have an open mind on the issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, alluded to, we are indeed engaging with the Supreme Court in order to consider the impact of this arrangement and of the amendment as tabled, and to resolve any concerns it may have about its independence and how this might best be preserved. However, it is our considered view that this constitutional change should not be rushed and that the Government and the Supreme Court should continue to discuss and consider together how any reform may be taken forward.
Reference has been made to Third Reading. I cannot at this time give an absolute concrete assurance from the Despatch Box, which I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, as to whether we will have concluded our consultation with the president of the Supreme Court, but these discussions are of course ongoing.
In lieu of these comments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will be content to withdraw Amendment 112A on the understanding that this is a live issue which is being looked at, and which has been raised directly with the president of the court.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the amendments in this group will make a change to how the court system deals with gang injunction applications for those under 18 years of age. It will transfer the jurisdiction of gang injunction applications from the county court or High Court to the youth courts, sitting in their civil capacity.
As noble Lords may be aware, gang injunctions are a civil injunction introduced in the Policing and Crime Act 2009. They were subsequently extended to 14 to 17 year-olds in the Crime and Security Act 2010. Gang injunctions allow the police or local authority to apply for an injunction to prevent gang members engaging in, or to protect them from, gang-related violence. Injunctions can both prohibit and require certain activities or actions.
When gang injunctions were originally established, it was felt that the civil courts were best placed to hear the applications due to their expertise in handling civil injunctions, and this remains the case for adults. However, following discussions with practitioners, we have come to the conclusion that the youth courts are best placed to deal with gang injunctions for 14 to 17 year-olds. It is our belief that youth courts have the appropriate facilities and expertise to deal with young people and that they will thus be able to handle these cases more efficiently and effectively for all those involved.
To facilitate this jurisdictional transfer, Amendments 79 and 82 also make a change to what can be done by the rules of court governing the injunction process, as well as making a small amendment which applies to all injunctions. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we certainly commend the Government for this very sensible amendment. It is clearly right that defendants under the age of 18 who are members of gangs should be dealt with by the juvenile court in the normal way. It is some reassurance that 18 is the limit, so that, for example, the activities of the Bullingdon Club, should they get out of hand, would not be dealt with in a juvenile court but properly in the adult court. This is an amendment that we support.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his opening remarks where he said he was short so would be brief. I suppose I can replicate those comments. This amendment seeks to provide for parliamentary scrutiny, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, for Sentencing Council guidelines in setting financial penalties.
Schedule 17 provides that the amount of any financial penalty payable under a DPA must be comparable to that which a court would have been likely to impose on conviction. In determining that amount, sentencing guidelines will be relevant. The Sentencing Council, as the Committee may already know, has already indicated that it will produce sentencing guidelines to cover the offences likely to be encompassed by DPAs when committed by an organisation, including fraud, money laundering and bribery offences.
The Sentencing Council is responsible for preparing and monitoring sentencing guidelines with the aim of ensuring greater consistency in sentencing and is of course under a statutory obligation to consult a number of parties when preparing draft guidelines. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, this of course includes, as he may well know, the Justice Select Committee. As such, the Government do not think it necessary to introduce a further requirement for parliamentary scrutiny of any guidelines that may be relevant to DPAs in this way. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am disappointed with the Minister’s response, although it was commendably brief, as he promised. I do not think the response will go in any way to allay what I anticipate will be public concern over this. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but reserve the right to return to it on Report.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I certainly endorse my noble and learned friend’s remarks and support his amendment. I also support Amendment 32 standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I shall speak to Amendments 31A and 31B, which again would provide effectively parliamentary oversight and approval of the code of practice to be drawn up by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office.
In his letter to me that other noble Lords may have seen, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, indicated that of course the Government believe in,
“the fundamental principle of prosecutorial independence”.
We certainly affirm that. The Minister went on to say that it is therefore appropriate for the code to be issued by the DPP and the director of the Serious Fraud Office,
“rather than it being put on a statutory footing in regulations laid by a Government minister”.
In my judgment, prosecutorial independence merely applies to the way in which a case can proceed, whether it should proceed and the like, but not necessarily the framework.
This is a novel framework being established for this purpose and, I reiterate, it will need to command public support. I do not refer to the individuals currently holding those offices or necessarily to those previously holding them, but neither of those departments has, shall we say, an unblemished reputation among the public over a series of quite different matters over the years. I have every respect for the current holders of those offices. As it happens, they both seem to be doing a very good job but the history is somewhat difficult in both cases. After a consultation process, the holders of those offices would have effectively the final word without any real intervention or guidance by Parliament. That is inappropriate in the particular circumstances of this case. What I propose would not interfere with their prosecutorial discretion, but it would allow the public to have confidence that the framework being established, within which prosecutorial independence would be exercised and maintained, is one that has Parliament’s support. It would not simply be left to Parliament to debate, without being able to influence it, following consultation carried out under the provisions of the Bill. For what it is worth, I have the support of the noble and absent Lord, Lord Phillips. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, looks to the heavens in gratitude. I shall direct the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to Hansard tomorrow. There is a serious point here and I ask the Government to reflect upon it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, in providing for a code of practice for prosecutors in relation to deferred prosecution agreements, the Government have sought to ensure consistency with other statutory provisions relating to guidance for prosecutors on operational matters. As I have said before, the scheme for DPAs is a new concept for our criminal justice system and as such does not fall within the scope of any existing guidance for prosecutors.
I will turn to specific amendments and refer first to Amendment 30. The Government consider that there should be a code for DPAs comparable to the code for Crown prosecutors issued by the DPP under Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The code for Crown prosecutors sets out the general principles that prosecutors should follow when undertaking their functions. My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to paragraph 6(1)(a) of Schedule 17, which reflects Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 as to the general nature of the guidance to be set out in the code of practice for DPAs. However, unlike Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, paragraph 6 of Schedule 17 sets out in further detail the matters that must be covered in the code of practice for DPAs. Let me be clear: the key elements of DPAs are clearly set out in the Bill. The code of practice will provide guidance to prosecutors on the exercise of their discretion on operational matters. As such, the code is fundamentally an operational document and seeks to preserve prosecutorial discretion in operational matters. This approach will ensure that the code provides guidance in relation to key procedural matters for DPAs and decisions to be made by prosecutors.
Amendment 31 would add to paragraph 6 a further matter on which the code of practice may give guidance by adding to the list, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said,
“the choice of expiry date for a DPA”.
The Government’s view is that paragraph 6(2) is already clear that the code may give guidance on any relevant matter. If prosecutors consider it necessary and desirable to have guidance on the duration and expiry of an agreement, they would have the power to issue such guidance under that paragraph. We do not therefore see any particular or specific need to highlight this issue, although, again, the points of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, have been noted on this matter.
Amendments 31A and 31B seek to make the DPA code of practice for prosecutors subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the letter issued by my noble friend Lord McNally. He is correct that the fundamental principle of prosecutorial independence means that it is appropriate for the code to be issued by the DPP and the director of the Serious Fraud Office. The code is an operational document, as I have already said. As such, we do not consider that it is either necessary or appropriate to make this code subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This approach is consistent with that under Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 in respect of the code for Crown prosecutors. I should add that a supplementary delegated powers memorandum has been provided to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has not raised any concerns about the approach taken in Schedule 17.
Amendment 32, referred to by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, relates to the duty on prosecutors to take account of the code of practice for DPAs when exercising functions under Schedule 17. It is essential that there is transparency and consistency in the way DPAs operate. The code of practice will play an important part in meeting these requirements. Requiring prosecutors to “take account of” the code throughout the deferred prosecution agreement process will ensure that it is considered and applied in relation to making decisions and exercising functions. Parties to the agreement, the judge and the public can be confident that each agreement will be approached and made in a consistent manner. We do not consider that requiring a prosecutor to “have regard to” rather than “take account of” the code would make any material difference to the extent of its use by the prosecutor.
In conclusion, there is a strong case for ensuring parity between the legislation providing for the deferred prosecution agreement code of practice and the code of practice for Crown prosecutors issued under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. I hope that, in light of the explanations I have given, my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will agree not to press their amendments at this time.
Lord Beecham
I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendments in this group tabled by my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and I will be interested to hear the Government’s response. Both aspects seem to be matters that they should consider before Report.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Transparency and openness are key to the operation of the new deferred prosecution agreement process. In designing this process the Government have sought to strike a balance between the need for the parties to be able to negotiate without prejudice and to discuss a proposed agreement with a judge openly, with the imperative to avoid the perception that this is justice behind closed doors. Certainly, it is not to give the impression of cosy deals being struck in private.
Amendments 33, 37 and 39, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, would remove the preliminary hearing element from the process for entering into deferred prosecution agreements. The Government’s strongly held view is that the preliminary hearing is an essential feature of the process for entering into a DPA. It is at this stage that the prosecutor and the organisation are able to discuss the potential for an agreement and its outline terms openly with the judge.
Judicial scrutiny at this early stage is very important to determine whether an agreement, first, is likely, in principle, to be in the interests of justice, and, secondly, whether its proposed terms are fair, reasonable, and proportionate. More importantly, the preliminary hearing allows greater judicial involvement and judicial influence on the outcome, which critics say perhaps is lacking in the model used in the United States. After all, it is the doctrine of UK law that not only should justice be done but it is seen to be done.
Participation by organisations in the DPA process will be voluntary, as has been said previously. Some 93% of respondents to our consultation agreed that the preliminary hearing should be held in private in order to limit any potential prejudice to an organisation’s commercial interests and to prevent jeopardising a future prosecution.
Amendments 34 and 36, also proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, probe the requirement that at the preliminary hearing and the final hearing the prosecutor must apply to the Crown Court for a declaration that entering into a DPA is in the interests of justice and that the proposed terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate.
It is clear from the legislation as drafted that the hearing and the declaration sought will relate to an agreement which both parties have been negotiating. While the schedule does not state explicitly that the organisation can or will take part in the proceedings we think that this is very much implied. We are clear that while the prosecutor is the party to initiate the court process leading to the declaration, the organisation will be entitled to take part, as a separate party, in those proceedings. The detail of the criminal procedure relating to such hearings will be set out in criminal procedure rules. Adding the suggested words will not in our view clarify either the purpose of the hearing or the organisation’s role in it and we do not, therefore, think that they are necessary.
Amendment 38, in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks, relates to provisions setting out the approval process of an agreement at a final hearing. During a preliminary hearing held in private, the judge will have indicated whether an agreement is likely to be in the interests of justice and whether the proposed terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate.
Before the final hearing. there will be further scope for the parties to refine the agreement, such that the agreement may not be identical to that before the court at the preliminary hearing. The provisions in paragraph 8 of Schedule 17 therefore allow for the final hearing to start in private to give the parties and the judge a final opportunity to ensure in a confidential setting that everything is as it should be before the agreement is approved in an open court.
It must be remembered that there is always the possibility that even at this late stage, either party can decide whether the process should not go forward, or the judge may not be satisfied that the agreement should be concluded. If the agreement is not made, the confidentiality of discussions between the parties should be protected to protect any potential jeopardy to the organisation’s interests and to avoid potential prejudice to any other prosecutions. Restricting the ability to hear the case in private only to situations where there could be a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice is, therefore, too restrictive. It is not expected that the final hearing would need to start in private for all cases, but we make provision for those presumably limited cases where this may be deemed to be necessary.
Importantly, where a DPA is made and approved the prosecutor must publish any declarations and reasons, including any initial decisions not to approve the DPA, so that there will be transparency once the DPA has been made. I hope that the Committee will agree that it is desirable for the parties to have a final opportunity for further discussion with a judge, should they consider this necessary, about an agreement in private, ahead of moving into open court for an agreement to be formally approved. I suggest that it is neither necessary nor desirable for a judge to determine whether the first part of a final hearing should be in private, solely based on the criteria suggested by Amendment 38.
On Amendment 40, if the terms of a deferred prosecution agreement are complied with, the agreement will expire on the expiry date set therein. Under paragraph 11 of the schedule, the criminal proceedings that were instituted and suspended will then be discontinued by the prosecutor by application to the court. The purpose of this is to bring the criminal proceedings to an end clearly and transparently.
Once the proceedings have been discontinued, the prosecutor will publish that fact and will additionally publish details of how the agreement was complied with. Amendment 40, as tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, seeks perhaps to probe further as to why it is necessary to publish this.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for drawing the Committee’s attention to this issue. The Government firmly believe that wrongdoers should not be able to profit or otherwise benefit from their offending behaviour; that is why DPAs will require organisations to comply with tough terms and conditions. These terms may include financial elements such as requirements to pay compensation to victims, a financial penalty, and the reasonable costs of the prosecutor, as well as a requirement on the organisation to disgorge the proceeds of criminal wrongdoing. However, it should also be remembered—as it was in discussions on a previous amendment, as pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith—that DPAs can include other non-financial requirements, such as updating anti-corruption or fraud policies and retraining staff. Those are important attributes.
Deferred prosecution agreements are intended to ensure that organisations recognise and are held to account for their wrongdoing and take steps to mend their ways. Fulfilling the terms of an agreement should not be seen as simple entries in an organisation’s financial book-keeping records. The harm inflicted on the victims of economic crime and innocent third parties should not be seen simply as a cost of doing business.
It will come as no surprise to your Lordships that my noble friend referred to tax. The tax obligations of organisations relating to financial penalties and compensation payments can be, and are, complicated. These obligations have been very carefully developed over many years to ensure the right balance is struck. Although I welcome my noble friend’s efforts to clarify taxation arrangements under a DPA, the question of whether and which financial elements might be tax deductible is, and should continue to be, determined by finance legislation so that all relevant matters and consequences can be taken into consideration. That also avoids a piecemeal and haphazard approach to tax matters which might set an unhelpful precedent or have unintended consequences. Matters in respect of taxation are properly a matter for the Finance Acts and not for legislation such as this.
In light of these points, I would be grateful if my noble friend Lady Hamwee would agree to withdraw her amendment. In conclusion, I say to the Committee, and in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that I think it would be beneficial to arrange a meeting with officials so that we can address some of the issues more specifically in advance of Report stage. But for now, I hope that my noble friend Lady Hamwee will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving her amendment. When devising the new process for deferred prosecution agreements for England and Wales, the Government sought to ensure that it aligned with key strengths and aspects of the existing criminal justice system. To that end, we provided for decision-making throughout the process to be properly guided, including by the code of practice for prosecutors, and overseen by the judiciary.
Paragraph 3 of the schedule provides that the decision to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with an organisation should be exercised personally by designated prosecutors, namely the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office. This is to ensure that there is prosecutorial oversight of each DPA at the highest level. It mirrors existing requirements for such oversight, including, for example, decisions to bring proceedings under the Bribery Act 2010. Offences under the Bribery Act 2010 are among the economic and financial offences for which we propose DPAs. This process should be available, as detailed in Part 2 of Schedule 17.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked what would occur when the relevant director, whom we hope in each case will make the decision personally, is not available. In order that due process can continue without delay, we have provided the power for the relevant director, if they are going to be unavailable, to designate another prosecutor to exercise the oversight and decision-making functions. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked whether they could assign this power to anyone. I suggest that someone who is qualified and in such a senior role will assign it to an appropriate prosecutor in their relevant area.
Consistent with similar powers for personal decisions by directors, such as those under the Bribery Act 2010, we have not sought to constrain the ability to delegate the power to enter into a DPA. We are not contemplating large numbers of deferred prosecution agreements each year, and are confident that the directors are fully committed to making decisions personally, as envisaged, and would designate another person to do so only in exceptional circumstances and with good reason—and, I will add, would designate only an appropriate person.
I consider it important in the interests of openness and consistency that DPAs should align as closely as possible with existing and established law, and with the processes of our criminal justice system. That is what we have sought to achieve in paragraph 3, and indeed throughout Schedule 17. I therefore hope that with this explanation my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but he has not quite addressed the issue. There is nothing in the Bill that would require the substitute prosecutor to be a designated prosecutor; they could be anybody nominated by the original designated prosecutor. I again invite the Minister to take this back and have a look at it. It seems—and I think that the noble Baroness agrees with me—that there is a lacuna here that needs to be filled.
Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) (Amendment) Order 2012
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNally, I beg to move that the Grand Committee do consider the Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) (Amendment) Order 2012. This order is made under the Official Secrets Act 1989. Under that Act, it is an offence for a Crown servant or government contractor to make a damaging disclosure of any information within particular categories which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position, unless he has lawful authority to do so. People who are not Crown servants can be treated as such for the purposes of the Act by being designated in an order. They are then subject to the duties and offences relating to the handling and disclosure of information as set out in the Official Secrets Act 1989.
The order does this by amending the Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) Order 1990 by adding the holders of certain offices to Schedule 2. These officeholders are police and crime commissioners and their deputies, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and its deputy, the Lord Mayor of the City of London and the representative of the Court of Common Council acting in its capacity as the Police Authority for the City of London. Noble Lords will know that the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 establishes a directly elected police and crime commissioner for each police area in England and Wales outside London, with the functions of securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force and holding the chief constable to account for the exercise of the chief constable’s functions. A commissioner is able to appoint a deputy. The Act also establishes in London the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime with identical functions in relation to the Metropolitan Police Service and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The person who is the Mayor of London occupies the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and may appoint a deputy.
In the City of London, the Common Council has the function of overseeing the City of London police force and its commissioner under the City of London Police Act 1839. The Common Council is headed by the Lord Mayor and is able to discharge its policing functions by means of a police committee. Police and crime commissioners, who will be elected on 15 November 2012, their deputies and the officeholders having similar functions in London, will need to receive and be briefed on police information in the exercise of their functions. This may include information on one or more of the categories protected by the Official Secrets Act 1989. They are particularly likely to be briefed on information which, if disclosed, is likely to result in crime or impede the investigation or prosecution of crime. We also envisage that they will be briefed regularly on security and intelligence material.
The Government are clear that they wish to maintain the operational independence of the chief constable, and that he or she should be responsible to the police and crime commissioner for ensuring the safe and effective maintenance of the Queen’s peace. We therefore envisage that a chief constable may on occasion need to brief a police and crime commissioner on operational matters which may involve the disclosure to the commissioner of sensitive material that has been sourced by the police service and/or the security and intelligence agencies, such as material on counterterrorism. The degree to which the police and crime commissioner is briefed on operational matters and intelligence will be at the operational discretion of the local chief constable in close consultation with the security and intelligence agencies where necessary. The commissioner’s role in democratic accountability and transparency needs to be balanced against the public interest in maintaining community safety and justice. Unauthorised disclosures could lead to risk to the public, damage police operations and impede criminal proceedings.
The Government consulted on how to address these concerns as part of our consideration in introducing police and crime commissioners and have concluded on the basis of responses that, as elected representatives, commissioners should not be vetted in advance. We consulted further and there was a consensus that making these officeholders subject to the duties and offences applying to police officers was a proportionate safeguard. We need to maintain the trust and confidence of the public and, of course, the police service. Bringing the commissioners and other officeholders under the Official Secrets Act 1989 will provide the reassurance that there is a strong deterrent to prevent unauthorised and damaging disclosure of sensitive information. These officeholders will be Crown servants for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1989 only, as are Ministers and police officers. That, of course, does not affect the status of commissioners and other officeholders.
The draft order is an appropriate and proportionate safeguard and I hope it will be acceptable to the House.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the forthcoming elections for police commissioners may not be an official secret but I can vouch for the fact that, so far as most of the electorate are concerned—at any rate, the ones I have been canvassing over the last few weeks—they remain very much a secret. They are not aware that these elections are going to happen; maybe that will change over the next few weeks.
Certainly, so far as the Opposition are concerned, we have no objection to the order. Indeed, it seems sensible to include the bodies and persons cited within the requirements of the Official Secrets Act. Perhaps where the Mayor of London is concerned, the Prime Minister would like to take it even further, but that of course is not a matter for debate today. However, there is possibly an issue around vetting. In the consultation document reference was made to the issue of vetting. The response to the consultation was published as long ago as December 2010. I have to say that it was not very accessible from the site mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum today, so perhaps official secrets have overtaken that too, but I was able to obtain a copy from the Library. In it, the Government said that:
“A few respondents identified a need to apply to”,
police commissioners,
“at least the same level of vetting checks applied to police officers”.
That is not an entirely candid description of the response, as in fairness the Explanatory Memorandum points out that,
“the Association of Chief Police Officers, Association of Police Authorities, Association of Police Authority Chief Executives, the Superintendants’ Association and the Police Federation all raised concerns with regards to vetting of the proposed Police and Crime Commissioners”.
Those are not just five individuals. The implication of the response to the consultation might have led one to believe that a handful of people had expressed concern about vetting, but these are serious organisations.
Without wishing to prejudge the argument, and noting the position that the Government have now reached on this, will the Minister at least keep matters under review? Could he assure us that if it is decided at some point that vetting at some level might be required in either a particular instance or more generally, there would be the capacity to institute it without further recourse to legislation? Police and crime commissioners will not just be dealing with matters affecting their own force—of course, some of them in themselves may constitute crimes or suspected crimes within the ambit of national security and the like, and hence be covered by the Official Secrets Act—but potentially they could also be involved in matters that require a national response, which by implication are very likely to include matters to which the Official Secrets Act would apply. In those circumstances and given the potential risks—remote risks, I hope, but they arise nevertheless in areas where the magnitude of a failure might have significant consequences—it might be helpful for a chief constable to have the assurance that, if necessary and if he or she has doubts about the matter, a vetting procedure might be entered into. It may not be the case that government Ministers are thoroughly vetted, but I understand that some procedure applies even to them. It would be strange if there were not the possibility, at any rate, of inquiring further into the elected police and crime commissioner should the occasion arise, even if it is not deemed appropriate to make it a matter of course on their election.
Having said that, we do not object to the order and we look forward to hearing the Government’s response to these points.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support for this order. On his concerns about the elections that are arriving on our doorstep on 15 November, at least for those outside London, of course there is a concern about low voter turnout, just as there would be in any election. It is incumbent on noble Lords and indeed on anyone involved in the political make-up of our country to ensure that we have an effective turnout across the country for these most important elections. I know that all sides will support me on that.
The noble Lord also raised a minor point about access to the particular sites, and the fact that it was not as easy as it perhaps should have been. I shall certainly be taking that up with the department. On his final point about vetting, what has been put forward we believe to be a proportionate response, but as with most things, we will keep this procedure under review and, if deemed necessary, we will look at it again. For now, however, what has been put forward is appropriate and proportionate.
Finally, I have just been updated. As I am sure that the noble Lord is aware, even certain Ministers, including the Home Secretary, have not been vetted; nor has the Prime Minister. However, they are subject to the Official Secrets Act, as are Ministers. Coming back to the issue of vetting policy in general, as I said, we will keep it under review. It is very much a matter for the Cabinet Office. If required, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord on this.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the noble Lord. For the avoidance of doubt, I certainly join with him in encouraging people to vote. I do not share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, on this matter. Although I opposed and continue to oppose the concept, now that we have them there certainly ought to be as large a turnout as possible in the election. If there is to be consideration—hopefully the situation might not arise—would that require further legislation of either a primary or secondary kind to institute a procedure, or would it be the decision of a Minister, presumably the Home Secretary? I would assume the latter, but it would be as well to have it on the record.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I do not believe that there will be a need for further legislation.
Public Disorder
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Beecham(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I welcome the Statement of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I also wish to reflect for a moment that Croydon North is an area I know well. As the riots took place, I was on the phone to a lady who saw her business burnt down in front of her eyes as she watched from a flat opposite. She saw her tenant, an elderly lady, being taken out as the gangs took hold. She saw the police standing back, just along the road. I call upon my noble friend the Minister to ask for a review of police tactics, as the noble Lord, Lord Dear, suggested, because that is important in restoring the kind of confidence we need on our streets and in our police force.
Secondly, I should ask about sustainability. It is undoubtedly true that confidence was being restored when we saw police in numbers on the streets to protect law-abiding citizens of our country. How sustainable are these numbers in the long term, because that is the kind of real reassurance that residents and citizens of our country need?
Thirdly, I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the likes of Tariq Jahan, who lost his son. He did two things. Not only did Mr Jahan show courage in what can only be described as exceptional circumstances that none would wish to experience, he also addressed the issue of community relations. Hequelled what could have been an extremely difficult situation between two rival communities. I therefore call upon the Minister also to highlight what steps will be taken there to ensure that extremist groups do not take advantage of the circumstances we all find ourselves in on the streets of our country.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I have a saddened sense of déjà vu today, because almost exactly 20 years ago riots erupted on Tyneside. Although they were not as severe as those we have recently seen, they extended to the ward that I represent in the west end of Newcastle. One of the responses that the council undertook, with the support of the Government of the day, was actually to invest in the local community and its leadership to build up that community and to rely on its strengths. Indeed, that proved to be extremely successful. Therefore, while I very much welcome the measures that the Government have announced about rate reliefs, help for businesses and the Bellwin fund, will the Government also look at a similar process of investing in the support and capacity building within the communities of the affected areas?
In the interests of future-proofing, I refer to the observations of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in relation to the youth service and ask the Government to look again at the implications of the potential cuts to the youth service. That has not caused these riots but, in the interests of avoiding future trouble, will the Government look again at the issue? Finally, alongside the requests from a number of Members of your Lordships’ House to look again at the cuts in the police service, will the Government look again at the strength of the probation service and the cuts that are affecting it?