Brexit: Proposed UK–EU Security Treaty (European Union Committee Report)
Lord Bach Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the members of the committee on conducting this excellent inquiry and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who opened our debate today in such a comprehensive fashion. I declare my interest as the elected police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Further, and more specifically, I am one of the three police and crime commissioners asked to look at the consequences of Brexit on behalf of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. In that role, the three of us had a meeting this very afternoon with the Home Secretary. I expressed my gratitude to him for seeing us on a day when other matters are so pressing. The issues raised at that meeting concerned the post-Brexit position for policing and security. Different conditions arise—all of which are incredibly serious—depending on whether we leave as part of a deal or with no deal at all.
In my short contribution tonight I want to say a few words about the position as I see it if there is a deal. I speak as someone who, every day of my working life, deals with senior police officers on this and other matters. Chapter 4 of the report we are debating tonight deals with the transition period. With a deal, that would take us to the end of 2020, with an agreement that present arrangements would continue, for the most part, for 21 months from the end of March this year. But 21 months is not a long time to reach consensus on the future of the vital agreements that at present play such an important and positive role in policing, not just here but in the EU. I will not detail these agreements; that has been done many times and they are well known to noble Lords, as is the fact that they have added greatly to the efficiency and effectiveness of policing, both at home and abroad.
The United Kingdom will become a third party—a rather special third party, or so we would like to think. But history shows that it can take many years, and is sometimes impossible, for agreement to be reached by the EU and countries outside it, even when both want to agree on the issues raised. We cannot allow that to happen in this case.
Unfortunately, it is pretty clear that even now—let alone in July, when the report was published—negotiations have not seriously commenced on these issues between Her Majesty’s Government and the EU Commission. I am sure that some work has been done on both sides, but it has clearly not been anywhere near a priority for either side, and proper discussions about the future have in my view been too long delayed. European Parliament elections and the setting up of a brand new Commission will potentially considerably reduce the period of 21 months, maybe to as little as 15 months. That is a short time indeed. How grievous it would be if, almost by default and unintended consequence, these hard-won and successful agreements and arrangements fell. As has already been said in this debate, it would directly affect the security of people’s lives in both our country and the EU. Frankly, it would be unforgivable.
Police: Serious and Violent Crime
Lord Bach Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, perhaps topically, declare my interest as the police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the serious violence strategy sets out our response to tackling serious violence and it includes an ambitious programme of 61 commitments to take action on this issue. We have already delivered on our commitment to establish a new national county lines co-ordination centre and to improve police capabilities to tackle this issue, and we have provided £1.4 million to support a new national police capability to tackle gang-related activity on social media.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. The early intervention youth fund is obviously a good idea and I welcome the support that the Government have given to Metropolitan Police forces—by goodness, they need the funding. I know that the Minister has been a supporter of Leicester’s projects to fight serious and violent crime in the past, but how can the Home Office justify giving no funding at all to Leicester, a city which has seen an increase of 12.5% since 2015—more than double the average around the country—alongside massive child poverty, child crime and youth crime? Further, how can the Home Office justify giving nothing to Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire or Leicestershire, by far the three largest police force areas in the East Midlands, each of which has a city conurbation and whose population amounts to over 3 million people? Why has the East Midlands been treated so much worse than any other part of England and Wales?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I first pay tribute to the noble Lord as Parliament’s only PCC. He is absolutely right that I support the work that Leicester does. I have been to see the work that he has done as PCC, particularly some of the multiagency work across services to improve the lives of people in Leicestershire. There were 111 bids for the early intervention youth fund, so it was a very competitive process indeed. As he has let me know that Leicester was unsuccessful, I would like to sit down and talk to him, perhaps about the youth endowment fund that the Home Secretary has announced and what might be done there. This is a metropolitan problem, as well as everywhere else.
Police and Crime Commissioners
Lord Bach Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The PCC, in recruiting his chief constable, has to be mindful of the quality of candidate he is recruiting. The thing about PCCs, which was not true of police authorities when they existed, is that the public can hold them to account at the ballot box.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire. As the Minister knows well, Leicestershire has a long-standing chief constable—who is still fairly young, by comparison—who it is a pleasure and an honour to work with. Police and crime commissioners do come together in their joint concern—a concern the Minister will know of, and which is shared around the House—that Her Majesty’s Government have allowed cuts in this area to go too far, and this is seriously putting at risk the ability of the police anywhere to do their jobs.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
First, I express my sympathy with the noble Lord—Parliament’s one and only PCC—regarding the number of times that his Benches stand up and criticise PCCs. I have been to Leicester, I have seen him in action, I have met his chief constable and I pay tribute to the work that they do. In terms of funding, the noble Lord will know that the Policing Minister visited every police force in England and Wales with regard to coming to a funding settlement for 2018-19. In addition, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has recently said that he appreciates the pressures that the police are under, not least because of the things that they have had to deal with in the last 12 months.
Police and Crime Commissioners
Lord Bach Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, for giving me and the House the chance to debate these matters. When, in the spring and summer of 2011, I walked through the Content Lobby to support big amendments to the then Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, I did not think that, five years later, I would be an elected police and crime commissioner myself. I reminded myself of the Second Reading debates in both Houses and I must confess to being a little shocked at the strength of opposition to the establishment of this new system of civilian oversight of policing.
Was this opposition justified? It might not entirely surprise noble Lords to hear me say that I do not think it was. Taking away some of the natural political hyperbole, the underlying genuine fear was that police and crime commissioners would politicise the police in an unnecessary and in particular an un-British way. I do not think it has. Of course, most PCCs are elected on a party ticket—indeed, it was inevitable from the legislation that they would be—but in practice there do not seem to have been many, if any, blatant examples of party-political partisanship that would embarrass the community and the police force itself. I am proud to be a Labour police and crime commissioner and I hope that some of my beliefs and principles show through in how I do the job, but the notion that I can use my executive position either to do down my political opponents, with whom I have to work every day in my job, or even to work to try to persuade my chief constable and his force to somehow adopt my politics is frankly absurd. I believe, as do all my colleagues, whatever party they belong to, that one of the greatest strengths in our society is that its police remain entirely independent of party politics. Long may that continue.
My role is to hold the police accountable to all the people of Leicestershire and to deliver an effective and efficient police service. Frankly, I do not have much time left to spend on party-political shenanigans, even if I wanted to. This is not to say that this very new system does not have real problems. First, I am not sure that all chief officers have accepted the important role in the system that police and crime commissioners now enjoy and are bound by law to assert. Of course it was intended that there should be a natural tension. But, after more than five and a half years, there is sometimes, I believe, not just tension—which is a good thing—but a lack of understanding.
Secondly, there remains, as has been said, a democratic deficit that all of us, as police and crime commissioners, are doing our best, I hope, to reduce. Thirdly, I am not sure—and I say this to the Minister—that the Government really know what they want police and crime commissioners to be. Do they want them to be the elected champions of all the people in their force area, holding the police to account and partnering with others so that crime can be prevented and the criminal justice system improved? Or do they want us to be fall guys who can be conveniently blamed by the Government, which, I am afraid, continue to reduce their central funding to police year on year?
Lastly—something which I hope touches a bell with some noble Lords here—some of us have a concern that the workforce reforms, pushed at great speed by the Home Office and the College of Policing, will mean that many from deprived communities may no longer consider a career in the police, and we will lose that sort of police officer whom we all know, who may not have a master’s degree but has the emotional intelligence and the common sense—
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I am sorry. Time is up, if we are to enable other noble Lords to take part.
BBC World Service and British Council
Lord Bach Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in this excellent debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing it, and all other speakers who have added to it immensely with their wide expertise.
Before beginning my remarks, I have to declare an interest—which has already been declared for me—as chairman of the British Council All-Party Parliamentary Group. The make-up of its officers is truly all-party. The secretary is a Conservative Member of Parliament and its treasurer is a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament. As the House has heard, two of its vice-chairs are the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, from the Cross Benches, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, at whose feet I often sit to learn about foreign affairs and particularly about the British Council. I suppose that I should also declare an interest as a British Council child—my father was a senior British Council officer for many years.
I believe that both the institutions we are discussing are profoundly important to Britain’s place in the world. I call them institutions, as we have during the course of this debate, as a mark of respect. They have both earned that title over time. We have heard many examples of the good that they do in today’s world. They are something of which this country can be proud—not only in the field of soft power but because they are a significant part of modern Britain itself. We would be a much less civilised country without them. Each faces challenges of its own and I shall try to deal with some of these. However, if there is one overriding danger that both face, it is the danger of short-termism. That was exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, made a few minutes ago. By that, I mean the tendency of Governments—Governments of all complexions—not to think sufficiently of the long term.
In the British Academy paper The Art of Attraction, which some of us were sent for this debate, the authors make that point powerfully in relation to both the World Service and the British Council. In the summary, it says:
“Despite their relatively low cost to the public purse, higher education, cultural organisations, arts and museums, the BBC World Service, and other soft power assets have not been protected from financial cutbacks. Neither have the substantial advantages of proper investment in them been fully recognised. If governments are patient enough to wait for the long-term gains, they will reap more benefits than by striving too hard to deploy these potential assets or by running them down for the quick fix of improving a budget deficit”.
It continues:
“Governments would be well-advised … To invest in and sustain soft power institutions such as the BBC, the British Council, and the education system over the long term, and at arm’s length”.
I accept that it is much easier to say all that than actually to do it, but I believe that it is an argument that demands very serious consideration.
There was a general feeling that the cuts made to the World Service and the British Council following the 2010 spending review were unfortunate, to say the least. My right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary argued at the time that foreign policy should advance British values and British interests—which are almost exactly the same words as are used in this Motion. I am sure that the Government would agree with that statement. Of course the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could not be exempt from cuts, but was it wise to reduce expenditure on those two organisations, given their reach across the world and their significance to millions around our planet?
Here we are some time later, and challenges still abound. However, there seems to be a consensus—certainly in this House, shared by the major political parties, but outside it too—that both these organisations are an essential part of the soft power agenda. This was recently reported on by the Select Committee on Soft Power and the UK’s Influence, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
The World Service reaches a huge proportion of people worldwide. Not surprisingly, it has been warmly praised in this debate, in the same way as it is praised outside Parliament too. The fact that so much jamming and blocking takes place is surely another huge compliment to this service. If its broadcasting did not have an effect, why would some Governments seek to prevent it? As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, stressed in his opening, we should be very concerned by increasing violence and intimidation against journalists the world over.
The move to licence fee funding is clearly a significant step, and it is good that the BBC has managed to put some—I think it would agree minor—new investment into the World Service. However, as has been said, the real test will come in a little while, when the charter is up for renewal. We will then be able to judge better what will happen in the future. Alternative sources of funding are of course a fact of life for the World Service; and I note the corporation’s belief that, at most, that could and should provide no more than 10% to 15% of World Service funding in the long term. The point has already been made about the new digital news stream in Thai and English. It is hard to overstate the crucial role that the World Service plays. Does the Minister agree that Her Majesty’s Government must do all in their power to ensure that such a crucial asset is not allowed to wither away?
The British Council has had to undergo huge changes in the past few years, too. A grant cut of 26%—down to £154 million in 2014-15—befell the British Council as a consequence of the spending review. On its own, that would have been near fatal. However, as we have heard, thanks to the leadership that the British Council has shown—great credit should be given to various previous chairmen of the trust, and in particular to the chief executive, Sir Martin Davidson—it has built up at least 75% of its income through fees and income from services and commercial activity. Frankly, that mixed economy of mixed funding has allowed the British Council to continue its vital work in nearly 150 countries and territories.
I shall conclude with a couple of points. First, these days the British Council plays a significant role in areas of the world where enormous changes take place every day. It is in the front line in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. It represents British interests and does good in very difficult circumstances, from Syrian refugee camps to Ukraine. That demands special qualities from its staff, not least courage, whether they are local or British. The British Council libraries have of course been a council tradition for very many years, and around the world, many of them have been modernised. The old saying is apparently still true—that in various countries the protesters protest in the streets during the day, but in the evening they sit in the British Council library and talk. That is a reputation that the British Council should be proud of. The council has been very quick to respond to changes taking place in the world. Just look at its current work in countries such as Burma—where it has worked closely and very successfully with the FA Premier League—Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and, as we have heard, Sudan.
Secondly, about two years ago I instigated a debate on the British Council in your Lordships’ House. One message that came across from around the House, and it is even more relevant today, is that the council must remain a public service organisation. That allows it to have the influence that it has. There was much concern that the balance between public funding and commercial income should not go too far in the latter direction. If the council should ever be considered primarily as a commercial organisation, its influence would gradually disappear. Any Government must constantly be alive to that danger. We await the outcome of the triennial review. Can the Minister tell us when we can expect it? This has been an excellent debate and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord Bach Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all those who have contributed to this debate. It has been an extremely useful one. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for reminding us that this is the 200th birthday of Charles Dickens, who gave us the most well-known phrase about the law: “The law is an ass”. He also gave us the best example of the futility of litigation in Bleak House. Dickens was certainly not in awe of the law, and very few of his legal characters are particularly warm.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I shall add that he was saying it in the context of a married woman, who had no separate identity in those days. She was regarded as a part of her husband.
Lord Ramsbotham
I shall be very brief. Sub-paragraph (1)(c) of Paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, to which these two amendments refer, allows a court to sentence an offender to custody for breach of a community order even though the original sentence was non-imprisonable. Figures published in 2009 show that 3,996 people were received into prison for a breach of such a community sentence—
Lord Bach
This is an important point that the noble Lord is making, but I wonder whether he is right in saying that sub-paragraph (1)(c) refers to being in breach of a community order. It refers to a person who,
“has wilfully and persistently failed to comply”.
It is the difference between those two that is quite important here. I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord so early in what he has to say.
Lord Ramsbotham
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach. I am speaking about the breach, and I will come to my conclusion if I may. I am not talking about inconsiderable numbers. There is nothing meaningful that can be done in prison to prevent a person from breaching a community order, so what such people are doing merely exacerbates the main problem facing our prisons at considerable expense and to no good effect.
I am very conscious of the problems facing the magistrates. Those problems were very ably set out by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I refer particularly to the effects of this on the Prison Service ever since the 2003 Act and the increased numbers of people in prison merely for breaching a community order. I personally welcome the flexibility that Clause 63 allows, in that a court dealing with breaches now has new options of taking no action or fining. However, the clause does not provide enough protection for the Prison Service, which is why I am tabling the two amendments, deleting the sub-paragraph and inviting the Minister to consider that the powers to resentence someone to custody for breach should be awarded only if the original sentence was an imprisonable one. I beg to move.
Lord Bach
My Lords, in many of his amendments I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and I hope to do so later this evening, but on my understanding of his argument here I find it difficult to accept the amendment on behalf of the Opposition.
I shall make a general point. This is not a government amendment—but when there are government amendments dealing with a different Act, as in the case of this Bill, where we are amending the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Keeling schedules, which set out what the amended 2003 Act would look like if we passed this legislation, are incredibly helpful. Indeed, when we were in government, the opposition on all sides used to ask us where the Keeling schedules were—and they were often there. In this Bill, later on tonight or whenever we reach the 17th group, there are very helpful Keeling schedules in important government amendments. But they do not exist elsewhere, as far as I can see, although the Minister has been helpful in writing to noble Lords about government amendments. There is a value in having Keeling schedules in that the House can understand what is being amended.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 states:
“If it is proved to the satisfaction of a magistrates' court before which an offender appears or is brought under paragraph 7 that he has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with any of the requirements of the community order, the court must deal with him in respect of the failure in any one of the following ways”.
The Bill changes that “must” to “may”. The following ways include,
“amending the terms of the community order so as to impose more onerous requirements”,
and,
“where the community order was made by a magistrates' court, by dealing with him, for the offence in respect of which the order was made, in any way in which the court could deal with him if he had just been convicted by it of the offence”.
I know that the noble Lord has no objection to those provisions, as amended by this Bill. It is sub-paragraph (1)(c) that his complaint is with. That sub-paragraph is not just about a breach. It refers to,
“where—
(i) the community order was made by a magistrates’ court,
(ii) the offence in respect of which the order was made was not an offence punishable by imprisonment”—
that is the noble Lord’s point. It goes on to refer to,
“(iii) the offender is aged 18 or over, and
(iv) the offender”—
and these are the crucial words—
“has wilfully and persistently failed to comply with the requirements of the order … by dealing with him, in respect of that offence, by imposing a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding”,
six months.
Provided that the Bill reads “may” rather than “must”, I can see nothing wrong with that. The danger is that someone who is given a community service order for an offence for which there is no imprisonment can get away for ever in breaching community service orders to the extent that he wilfully and persistently fails to comply, and the court will never have the power to deprive that person of their liberty. I agree with the Minister’s point from earlier that if community orders are to succeed—we want them to succeed because they are vital—they must be, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, “robust” community orders. There must be something there, eventually, if someone wilfully and persistently fails to comply with them. It is not just a breach in sub-paragraph (1)(c), but a wilful and persistent failure to comply, which is a step beyond a breach. Clearly, it is more than one breach; one breach would not be enough. Two might be—three might well be. In those circumstances, my case—I may be wrong about this—is that if we agree to these amendments, the result would be that someone who was given a community order for an offence that was not in itself subject to imprisonment could never be sent to prison, however wilfully and persistently he failed to comply with it. On this issue, which I concede is not a major one, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his support on this, the first group of amendments that I am dealing with on this Bill. That is extremely welcome. Maybe the issue to which he refers rather reflects upon the quantity of legislation that this House has dealt with over a number of years. I absolutely take his point about the need for clarity and for linking Bills one to another.
I will seek to clarify what we understand these two amendments would do and why we resist them. They would repeal some of the provisions giving powers to both magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court to deal with breach of a community order. The provisions that the amendments propose to repeal give the courts the power to imprison offenders for serious breach of community orders which have been imposed for offences which do not carry imprisonment. Noble Lords agree on that.
As it so happens, community orders cannot currently be imposed for offences which do not carry imprisonment, so these provisions may appear to be redundant and I can appreciate why the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, might have tabled these amendments. However, they were certainly needed in the past and it was only in 2008 that the community order stopped being available for non-imprisonable offences. Before then, a community sentence could be imposed for a non-imprisonable offence. When that happened, these provisions were the only way that a breach could be dealt with—by sending the offender to prison—so however serious the breach, there would have been no custodial disposal without these measures. As I have noted, since 2008 there has on the face of it been no further need for them to remain on the statute book because they are, in practice, no longer necessary.
However, it is not quite as straightforward as that, complex though that may seem. There is an unimplemented provision in Section 151 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which, if it were commenced, would allow the courts to impose a community order on a persistent offender, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has spelt out, who has at least three previous fines, even if the offence they committed was not serious enough to cross the community sentence threshold. If that provision in Section 151 were to be implemented, it would become possible once more for a community order to be imposed for an offence which did not carry imprisonment.
It follows that we would therefore need the provisions which the noble Lord’s amendments would repeal to ensure that a persistent offender who gets a community order because they have received at least three fines could be penalised by imprisonment in case of breach. Effectively, these two measures go together. While we retain the sentencing power, even if it is not in force, we also need the breach power. I should perhaps say that we have no intention at present to implement the sentencing power but, as I have explained, while this is still an option, we need the breach power against the possibility that it might happen in the future.
Lord Bach
I follow the noble Baroness’s argument, which she has made very clearly. Indeed, I was not aware that the law was changed in 2008 so that non-imprisonable offences could not receive a community order, but I see the noble Baroness's way around that. However, to describe it as a breach power seems to be wrong on the basis of how the 2003 Act is phrased. It refers to a person who,
“wilfully and persistently failed to comply”.
In one sense, that is about a breach but not a breach on one occasion. It is the court having to find that there has been a wilful and persistent failure to comply and I hate to see that lessened to a mere breach, if I may call it that.
Baroness Northover
I heard what the noble Lord said and was very interested in the points that he made. Perhaps it is best if I come back to him to clarify that point. In the mean time, I hope that after this incredibly clear explanation—
Baroness Northover
My Lords, the amendments in this group are minor, technical amendments to ensure that the extent of court-imposed foreign travel prohibitions includes territories as well as countries. I beg to move.
Lord Bach
Whenever I was sitting where the noble Baroness is sitting now and I began my speech on government amendments by saying that they were minor and technical, those sitting opposite me used to look doubly hard at those amendments to see whether they really were minor and technical. I am not saying that I have looked doubly hard at these amendments but they are clearly minor and technical and we have no objection to them.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I do not want to detain the Committee for long partly because I agree with virtually every word that all noble Lords who have contributed to the short debate have said. The speeches made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay, Lady Jenkin and Lady Newlove, and the speech of my noble friend Lady Hayter encompass all the arguments.
I have to disagree, however, with one point made by the noble Baroness Lady Finlay, which was the dismissal of possible technical solutions. Quite fortuitously, after the debate on a similar amendment to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act, I met some manufacturers of equipment who, in passing, referred to equipment they have developed—I gather that three or four other manufacturers have done similar things—that enables remote alcohol monitoring. It would be wrong to dismiss that as an option. The equipment that I saw when I asked further about this—I understand that it has been shown to the Home Office, although I do not know the outcome of those discussions—clearly did not have all the disadvantages that the noble Baroness described.
I hope that the Government will respond to the views that have been overwhelmingly expressed in the Committee today and recognise that this point should be taken on board. This is a permissive proposal that will allow the pilots to take place. It is not mandatory either on magistrates or the police in terms of the action that they take. About 40 per cent of violent crimes have an alcohol component to them, so if this demonstrates that you can do something useful to reduce the level of alcohol-fuelled crimes, reduce the number of people who have to be admitted for longer periods or reduce the numbers at the revolving door into penal establishments, then it has to be in the interests of society as a whole. I hope that the noble Baroness who will respond to this debate has been briefed to say that the Government will support the scheme, and that they will either accept the amendment or table a suitable one on Report or Third Reading that will put this on to the statute book and enable these pilots to go ahead.
Lord Bach
My Lords, the problems of drugs in this country are always in the news. The arguments about whether they should be legal, illegal or somewhere in between are a constant source of debate among talking heads—quite rightly too, as it is a very serious problem and issue. By comparison, the issues of alcoholism and too much consumption of alcohol have always taken, certainly in recent times, very much a second place in discussion. Of course, if we read our local newspapers, we will see one such case after another—often they are minor, but sometimes they are very serious, which I shall talk about in a moment. We hear of X being found drunk and disorderly at the very bottom end of it, or of criminal damage or damage to a person. Every week countless cases are there to be recorded by any enterprising journalist who goes along to the local magistrates’ court. It is a wonder that, over many years, we have allowed this imbalance to grow—as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, emphasised—in our discussion of drugs and alcohol. Alcohol when misused is a drug. There is no question or doubt about that.
We have heard some extraordinarily impressive speeches in a very impressive debate. From the opposition Front Bench we welcome the amendment and will support it all the way. I can be brief, as I know that people are waiting for other business to begin, but the facts are truly terrifying. There are 1.2 million alcohol-related violent incidents a year, including about half of all violent crimes. There are 360,000 incidents of domestic violence, a third of which are linked to alcohol misuse. There are all those arrests for drunkenness and disorder. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about medium and serious crime. There are 530 drink-driving deaths—what a waste that is. There is also the appalling statistic that 58 per cent of rapists reported drinking, no doubt to excess, beforehand. They are horrifying figures for a civilised society and more needs to be done.
We are living in a time of austerity—it does not matter whose fault it is for these purposes—when more people are unemployed and people are probably poorer than they were. The figures for relationship breakdown are not exactly encouraging. Those are all factors that have been associated in the past with heavy drinking. We cannot be careless about the issue now. The cost each year is absolutely huge—£8 billion to £13 billion a year, as estimated by the Home Office in 2010. We have heard about the National Health Service and the ridiculous amount of money that it has to spend on people who constantly get drunk and then get hurt.
Of course I claim that the previous Government did useful and good things in this field, and no doubt the Government before that one did too, but that is no argument in itself. We have to do more and we have to take slight risks. We have to do more than we would otherwise think of doing. It is not a matter for some bureaucracy to decide that we can move forward on this step but not that one. This suggestion has been well discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and her supporters, and I pay special tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who speaks with such effect on all these matters. The argument has been so one-sided that is very hard to see any argument at all against the Government supporting, at least in principle, what has been suggested. I hope that they will support the amendment. We certainly support it—it would be a crying shame not to. It is, after all, a pilot that is being proposed. It is not a dramatic implementation across the country all in one go. A pilot has been proposed and I cannot think of one argument against adopting it.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, in responding to these amendments I am aware that these proposals were discussed previously in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act last year. I am very glad to say that we very much support the principle of the intention of the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. It is very clear that alcohol-related offending causes a great deal of harm and there is an undeniable logic in tackling alcohol-related offending by preventing an offender from participating in the activity that has given rise to or exacerbated their criminal conduct.
The noble Baroness makes a very cogent case, and we all know how very damaging the abuse of alcohol can be. I can therefore confirm to the Committee that the Government will shortly be establishing two pilot schemes to test the principles and effect of enforced sobriety schemes as part of our effort to tackle and reduce alcohol-related crime, drawing on the success of similar schemes that have been trialled in the United States.
At the time of the policing Bill, the Government committed to testing sobriety schemes as part of conditional cautions within existing legislation. Since then, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office have developed further proposals to pilot sobriety as part of community orders within the existing law. There will be two pilots using tags and breathalysers because it is extremely important to assess the practical advantages and disadvantages of schemes such as this. The conditional caution pilot will focus upon offenders who commit high-volume alcohol-related offences, such as drunk and disorderly, common assault and criminal damage. Offenders will face the tough choice of accepting sobriety conditions or facing prosecution and the prospect of receiving a drinking banning order on conviction. Anyone failing to comply with these conditions would be prosecuted for the original offence.
The second pilot will test sobriety as part of community orders, which will target a range of more serious offences where alcohol is a contributing factor. We will be looking at making use of the latest technology through which to monitor an offender’s compliance with the terms of the sobriety requirements. Breach procedures will exist as they currently do. We will set out further details of these pilots in the Government’s forthcoming alcohol strategy.
We want to hear the views of the judiciary, professionals within the criminal justice system and the public on the proposals. We will therefore be consulting in parallel with the pilot schemes to ensure that we give full consideration to the purpose, effect and benefit of sobriety schemes as we develop work further. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, as a medical scientist, knows how important it is to evaluate evidence. In her introductory remarks, she flagged up some of the complexities in this area. It is extremely important that we learn from these pilots in order that we can take forward what works best.
Alongside this we are taking a range of other measures to tackle alcohol-related offending. Pricing is one crucial lever for tackling alcohol misuse and its associated crime and health harms. I have just mentioned that the Government’s alcohol strategy will be set out shortly. We are also rebalancing the Licensing Act in favour of communities by giving greater powers to police and licensing officers to tackle irresponsible businesses. We are also strengthening violence reduction programmes to incorporate a greater emphasis on tackling the impact of alcohol and drugs and gathering evidence from drinking banning orders that are being piloted in 50 areas across England and Wales.
The noble Baroness has done a great deal to bring this issue to the Government’s attention, and I congratulate her for it, but as I have said, it is extremely important that we are certain of the effectiveness of this policy before it is put in statute, which is why I am very glad that we can take forward the pilots under current legislation so that the practical aspects can be properly assessed. There are some concerns not about the principles of the amendment but about the design of some of the elements. We feel that some safeguards are not quite as they should be.
The noble Baroness mentioned questions over the tagging equipment. It will be assessed, but I flag up that in 45 states in the United States it has been used for more than 5,000 offenders and has the confidence of the US judiciary and so on. There are a number of things that I can write to the noble Baroness about in regard to that, but as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, there are different views on some of the equipment which are slightly at variance with what the noble Baroness said. That shows how important it is to pilot and to see how these various approaches work.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord Bach Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
My Lords, one of the advantages of these debates is that we will hear proposals for new ways to divert people from custody. Any amendment that carries the names of both noble Lords, Lord Adebowale and Lord Ramsbotham, needs careful and sympathetic attention because both their histories in helping particularly young people who find themselves in potential conflict with the criminal justice system are proud records, and they have a lot to teach us. We are sympathetic to the idea behind this amendment, not least because of its reported success in the pilot areas where it has been tried out.
Noble Lords will know that Section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 includes a series of requirements for persons aged 18 or over who are convicted of an offence. Those requirements include,
“(e) a curfew requirement … (k) a supervision requirement”,
and the list goes all the way to paragraph (l). There are all sorts of different requirements, and there has been no reticence to acknowledge that divergence from custody and the treatment of the underlying issues—whether they be mental health or socioeconomic—are important and can be more effective than custody. It is not legislators who have been afraid of proposing alternative measures.
One of the problems is the availability of schemes which are often administered by local authorities, the probation services, youth offending teams or other diverse, multi-departmental agencies. The idea for a new community supervision requirement seems an amalgamation in one sense of powers (e) and (k) from the list that I read out earlier—but probably because it is a combination of the two, it is the stronger for it. It is a recognition that, in that transition to adulthood, a community sentence that helps to socialise people to realise that what they are doing is wrong can be a powerful and tough sentence.
There are two elements to the amendment that I want to touch on briefly. As has already been said, there is a growing recognition that there is not a cut-off point at 18 for beginning crime or carrying on with crime. The years between 14 and 24 are generally considered prime offending years, with delinquent behaviour tending to start in early teenage and tailing off at age 21 to 24. Perhaps these things are not entirely surprising; but because of them, it seems sensible to choose the ages between 18 and 25 for this new requirement. We are sympathetic to the amendment. If it has been as successful as has been claimed in the debate, the Government should be sympathetic, too. I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their amendment. Young adult offenders are a particularly difficult group and outcomes are not always as we would wish. I have a great deal of sympathy with the intentions here.
The amendment proposes a new requirement of the adult community order called,
“an intensive community supervision requirement”,
available for offenders aged 18 to 24. It is clearly intended to mirror the intensive rehabilitation order available for juveniles. I agree that we need to reduce the level of reoffending by young adult offenders and that more intensive engagement may very well have a role to play. However, we need to find ways of achieving this without further complicating the legislative framework and constraining how the needs of this age group will be addressed.
Affordability is, of course, critical. If we were to create extra burdens through statute by delivering intensive interventions, supervision and surveillance to this age group, the Government would not have the resources to deliver what we prescribed. We want to see more effective and efficient use of resources, with payment by results and competition being used to secure improved outcomes for 18 to 24 year-olds and other offenders. A range of interventions may be used to achieve these outcomes, and we wish to avoid prescribing which approach must be used with different age groups.
I heard about the problems at Isis, and the MoJ will be commenting in due course. I also note what noble Lords have said about intensive alternatives to custody. The Green Paper Breaking the Cycle said that the Government were looking at how the IAC principles could be extended nationally. The analysis of the reoffending rates of offenders who took part in the IAC pilots is under way at the moment. We will write to noble Lords as soon as the results are available. I hope that is useful to noble Lords.
The spirit of the amendment ties in very well with work that we are already doing to improve community sentences generally. In addition to provisions in the Bill to strengthen community sentences, we want to deliver a step change in the way they operate. They must address the problems that have caused the offending behaviour in the first place: the drug abuse, alcoholism and mental health problems that noble Lords have referred to. They must also punish properly and send a clear message to society that wrongdoing will not be tolerated. We are hoping to provide sentences with a much improved community sentence offering a robust and credible punishment to deal with both young and old offenders. To this end, we are currently conducting a review of adult community sentences and hope to publish a consultation document shortly. I encourage noble Lords to feed into that. In the light of my comments, I hope the noble Lord will accept that this is not a necessary step to take at this stage and will accordingly withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, I rise to add briefly to what has been said for two reasons. The first is the growing concern in the business about the lack of adequate work being carried out on behalf of people in this age group. They are missing out. In missing out, they bring in their wake a whole range of the problems and difficulties that we have been talking about. It means that they are more vulnerable and needy, and that they need more attention.
Anecdotally, I should say that I have sat in on referral orders, particularly the restorative conferences that are now run rather routinely. These are remarkable and really quite moving occasions. A young 18 year-old suddenly faces the reality of what it was they unthinkingly had done, and how important that is. It is also important in the context of the ongoing support that the referral order requires and thus implies in terms of support from the probation service. It is right to say that this does not come without a price tag, but when you compare price tags you realise where the dice should fall, and therein lies the challenge for the Government because everyone is judging them on where they are going to make cuts. It is an extremely difficult equation which does not really measure up, except to say that if we do not address this hitherto undersupported group, we are going to pay a huge price. The referral orders that are being discussed are really very creative and impressive, and mark a good way forward.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I can be very short. These are amendments that appeal to us, too. Referral orders, which were created in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, seem to work pretty well. Increasing the age from 18 to 21 is a sensible course to take. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked whether they should not be extended to an age greater than 21. We talked in the previous debate about the crucial years between 18 and 25, and 21 seems a slightly arbitrary figure. I think that I understand why it is in the amendment, but it would perhaps make more sense if the age went between 18 and 25. Twenty-one is not an age where you begin to say, “This is where offending ceases”; it is usually a bit later than that, although it is very difficult to generalise on such things. If we are going to take this course—we will certainly be interested to hear what the Government have to say about it—to extend the age from 18 to 25 would be a better course than from 18 to 21.
As far as the probation service is concerned, there are great concerns, as my noble friend Lord Judd has said. The second amendment in this group quite rightly suggests that the probation service is probably the best venue for those over 21. Once again, we look forward to hearing what the Government’s attitude is towards this innovative idea.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, was a Minister in the Ministry of Justice during the previous Administration. In a number of debates, I have supported raising the age for referrals. Did the noble Lord undertake any costing at that stage in terms of what additional resources would be required, as against the benefit that would accrue? My fear is that the probation service in many parts of the country is nearly at breaking point. At the end of the day, the question of additional resources will boil down to whether money is available to do the work. Does the noble Lord have any information that might advance this debate further?
Lord Bach
My Lords, our time in government retreats into the mists of time day by day, month by month, and my memory fails. I certainly am not in a position to answer the specific question that the noble Lord asks, but to say that there were not concerns about the probation service at the time would be to tell an untruth. Some of the cuts that our Government felt were necessary to make—as do the present Government, too—related to the probation service. One of the achievements of my then ministerial colleague, the honourable Maria Eagle, was to make sure that the cuts were not so great as originally planned and that the probation service had some extra resources that it was not expecting. However, I have to concede that it was not a period, particularly in the latter years, when the probation service was getting as much money as it needed to deal with the problem.
On costs, I think that the noble Lord’s noble friend Lady Linklater had it right, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. Comparing costs is very difficult throughout the Bill, not least in this particular area. I am sorry that I cannot help the noble Lord with more detail.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I was very struck by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, dividing things between those which were desirable and those which were essential, and pointing to the need to prioritise. It has struck me that this Bill is above all about prioritising. It would be wonderful to be in government when there was a great deal of money to lubricate things but, even when that is the case, not all problems are corrected. We have just heard of an earlier period where, certainly during the early years, there was much more money to lubricate things yet problems persisted.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment.
My neighbour’s wife was parking her car in the car park nearest to the Wrexham Council offices some months ago and she put the sticker, which cost her 80p, on the windscreen but it fell on to the seat. It was still visible there but those who were collecting in the area decided that this was in breach of the regulations, so she was charged £40. A certain amount of correspondence took place with Wrexham Council, as you might imagine—indeed, the ticket was produced—and it was pointed out that there was no need for this, but nothing happened.
In the end, a magistrates’ court warrant was issued, after a lot of argument, and it was enforced. By this time, the 80p that had been paid for the sticker had become £450. The bailiffs alleged that they had been to the premises on a number of occasions. There was no sign of them having done so and the people concerned were in throughout the period, but that is what they said, and they charged an extra fee for every attendance at the property. There was absolutely no control over what they were charging. Of course, as has been stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, they said that a distress warrant cannot be withdrawn. Indeed, on a bailiffs’ website that I have just looked at, they say precisely that, that it is impossible to withdraw a warrant once it has been made.
I decided to look at the case that the noble Baroness referred to, the MacRae case at Hereford and Worcester Magistrates’ Court in 1998. According to the judgment that I read, the procedure was based essentially on publications in 1990 and 1992 of the Home Office’s best practice advisory group on fine enforcement and relied substantially on a computerised fine enforcement system. When an offender is in default and has not contacted the court to request more time to pay, the court issues a final demand. If there is no response to that, the computerised system produces a draft distress warrant, which passes through certain manual checks to ensure that there are no known circumstances that would make it inappropriate to issue the warrant. MacRae decided that once that computer has produced the distress warrant and one or two people have looked at it, that is the end—the bailiff can do nothing about it.
The noble Baroness referred to Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. That was the response received from the Ministry of Justice. Section 142(1) states:
“A magistrates’ court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so”.
So there is power, which is contrary to what was said in MacRae and to what appears on current websites by bailiffs, and which is in accordance with the advice given in the case to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred.
However, there is confusion. My neighbour eventually paid up the £450 because his wife and children were in tears. Rather than keep that scene of distress going on, he produced his chequebook and paid up. What is happening is that people are being bullied on the doorstep. This amendment would put that right. It would make it clear and would clarify what is currently wrongfully being done, in my submission to your Lordships, by bailiffs.
The amendment states that a warrant of enforcement may be suspended or withdrawn but very importantly it states that a,
“person enforcing a warrant … shall be paid a single fee”.
There would not be any of these ghost returns clocking up the fees for every attendance at the property. The amendment makes specific provision for those who are in a vulnerable position and are not in a position to stand up to these bailiffs when they come round to collect. That situation has been a disgrace. This is an opportunity for the Government to put it right and clarify what the law is so that we all know what should happen and what the proper procedure should be. I support the noble Baroness in her amendment.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in support of this amendment. I am also aware of the arguments made by Citizens Advice and the Z2K Trust. There are essentially two issues as regards the amendment. The first relates to the current law relating to the power to withdraw warrants for non-payment of fines, which has not been particularly explored in these discussions but to which I will return.
The second relates to the practice of bailiffs enforcing those warrants particularly against fine defaulters, especially those who may be considered to be particularly vulnerable. I understand the concerns that many people have about bailiffs enforcing warrants. However, many people are concerned at the level of fines that remain unpaid. There is a balance to be struck between the need to have an effective way to collect unpaid fines, and therefore to enforce the orders of the court, and the need to allow for some flexibility in the treatment of fine defaulters.
The national standards for enforcement agents were revised last month. They set out specific standards—for example, for dealing with vulnerable and socially excluded people—and I hope that the noble Baroness has seen them. It includes a list of those who may be potentially vulnerable, including the elderly or people with a disability or where someone has a difficulty in understanding English. In addition, the contracts with bailiffs include several conditions relating to their behaviour and treatment of vulnerable people. The Government remain of the view that the national standards, guidance and contractual arrangements are the best and most effective way to ensure the appropriate use of enforcement powers.
With regard to the first issue under the amendment, which relates to the legal powers to suspend or withdraw warrants, the Government think that this area deserves further consideration. We do not think that there is any doubt that a court has the power to suspend a warrant that it issues but there is at least an ambiguity about the question of whether a court or a fines officer can withdraw or suspend a warrant issued by a fines officer. I am willing therefore to take away these points and to consider whether there is a need for a change to the primary legislation and whether that change can be made in this Bill or at a later stage. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I shall be as quick as I can. Clause 83 is one of the shortest clauses in the Bill. It states:
“Schedule 11 (amendment of enactments relating to bail) has effect”.
If we turn to Schedule 11 on page 193, we see that it sets out the proposals for amendments to the Bail Act 1976. If there was ever a need for a Keeling schedule, it is here. Amendments to the 1976 Act are set out in various paragraphs of Schedule 11, and frankly, it is not good enough. There really ought to be a proper Keeling schedule of the amendments being made to the 1976 Act, and I really would ask the Minister to arrange for one.
My substantive point is this. Schedule 11 would subject bail in adult cases where a person has been accused or convicted of an imprisonable offence, or where a person has been released on bail but fails to surrender to custody, to a new test where bail could not be withheld if there was no real prospect that the person would receive a custodial sentence upon conviction unless he might, if released on bail, commit an offence involving domestic violence. It would also remove the court’s power, where an adult is accused or convicted of a non-imprisonable offence, to remand them in custody on the current available grounds: likelihood of failure to surrender to custody and/or previous arrest for breach of bail to commit offences or interfere with witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. It would create a new ground for withholding bail on the grounds that he might commit an offence involving domestic violence. There is a power to withhold bail, but the grounds are only that the accused might commit an offence involving domestic violence.
Of course it is a good idea to prevent remands in custody where the system can, and we support that. But the concern is—and here I am grateful to the organisation Justice for what it has to say about this matter—that the new test leaves no residual discretion to the court to withhold bail even where there is strong evidence that a defendant will commit a violent offence, intimidate witnesses or otherwise interfere with the course of justice on bail. The exceptions in the Bill relating to domestic violence, while welcome, are confined to too narrow a class of case, providing no protection for other deserving grounds; for example, where there is a substantial risk of violent intimidation of a victim of crime not of the same household as the defendant—so not domestic violence.