Probation Service
Lord Beecham Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we recognise the concerns identified by the inspectorate and are working hard to address these problems. Many of the performance issues with CRCs stem from the financial challenges that providers are facing, which has meant that we have addressed those contractual terms. However, I observe that nearly two-thirds of CRCs have reduced the number of people reoffending.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, this report is another legacy of the unlamented tenure as Lord Chancellor of Chris Grayling. The chief inspector states:
“Regrettably, none of government’s stated aspirations for Transforming Rehabilitation have been met in any meaningful way … I question whether the current model for probation can deliver sufficiently well”.
She identifies a number of deep-rooted organisational and commercial problems and says:
“We find the quality of CRC work to protect the public is generally poor and needs to improve in many respects”.
She adds that,
“unanticipated changes in sentencing and the nature of work coming to CRCs have seriously affected their … commercial viability, causing them to curtail or change their transformation plans”.
They have reduced staff numbers, some to a worrying extent. Is it not time for the Government to review their ideological commitment to private sector organisations playing a major role in criminal justice, with results often as disastrous as these?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, this is not an issue of ideology. Many of the CRCs’ performance issues stem, as I say, from the financial changes they have faced because of the limited number of referrals they have received, and that has impacted on their performance. We hold CRCs to account for their performance through robust contract management. Where that performance is not good enough, we require improvement plans to be put in place.
Selection of the President of Welsh Tribunals Regulations 2017
Lord Beecham Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I have a very brief, possibly technical question, which is probably because I am not legally qualified or an expert in this matter. Paragraph 3.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that,
“the territorial application of this instrument includes Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
Further down, under “Extent and territorial application”, it says:
“The territorial application … is the whole of the United Kingdom”.
I was curious why those two provisions were there and whether it is a standard phrase that appears in all these things. It just seemed a little odd.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I of course defer to the experience of the two noble Lords from Wales, who clearly have a greater insight into the position than either the Minister—with due respect—or I could have. Of course, I join them in welcoming the instrument. However, according to the Explanatory Note, the consultation process was very limited, as it was apparently confined to officials of the Welsh Government and the Lord Chief Justice. Was there any consideration with the professions in Wales about this? Presumably many members of the legal profession would have an interest in the matter.
On the concern about diversity, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is in a position to say—if not, perhaps he could subsequently advise me—what is the present composition of tribunal membership and chairs of the tribunals in terms of gender and ethnicity. Clearly there is an implicit aspiration at paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum to promote diversity. I would be interested to know what the starting point is. Although the question of developing a baseline against which progress can be measured is apparently still incorrect, it would be helpful to see where we are starting from, if not today by a note to those Members present.
This is clearly a welcome step forward. One hopes that it will work well and in particular that the diversity issue will be addressed properly and in a timely way. I join other noble Lords in welcoming the regulations and trust that their impact will be beneficial.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords and to the noble Baroness for their contributions. I begin with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I entirely agree with his observations about the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary and, equally, of defending the judiciary from inappropriate attack. There is an important distinction to be made between what can be regarded as justified criticism and what is tantamount to abuse. We have to underline that distinction if we are properly to defend the judiciary. Of that there can be no doubt.
On the question of whether these powers should be used, I again entirely agree with the noble Lord. This is the alternative mechanism to be employed, but it is contemplated that it will be employed only in circumstances where there is a breakdown in agreement between various parties. It is not something that is contemplated, but because the Act makes provision for this alternative mechanism it is only appropriate that we should have regulations in place so that, if necessary, it can be employed.
On the matter of who will be the president of the Welsh tribunals and his role so far as defence of tribunal members is concerned, remembering that some of those tribunal members are lay members, it is doubly important there is somebody there who can advise and defend their interests. One of the responsibilities of the President of Welsh Tribunals will be not only the training and guidance of members of the tribunals, but consideration of their welfare. That again is important.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the Welsh language, of course we recognise the importance of the Welsh language in the context of proceedings in Wales, but we have to remember that we are making an appointment to the judiciary of England and Wales. While the proceedings of those tribunals may take place in Welsh as distinct from English, it is not considered appropriate that we should extend the criteria for the appointment of this post to include the Welsh language itself.
Probation Contracts
Lord Beecham Excerpts(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
On that last point, I cannot say that the Government will be able to make time for a debate on the subject before the end of the year. On the suggestion of bad contracting, I would point out that contracts were entered into with 21 CRCs, and that those contracts encountered some financial difficulty for one particular reason—namely, it was originally anticipated that some 80% of those undertaking probation would be referred to the 21 community rehabilitation companies. In the event, only about 60% of those subject to probation supervision were referred to the companies, and that impacted directly upon their financial model as determined under the original contracts. For that reason, interim arrangements were made with the CRCs in the year 2016-17, and in the current year. However, the figure of £277 million referred to by the noble Lord is not a fixed figure: it may have to be met, depending on the performance of the CRCs.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, morale in Northumbria’s probation service and CRC is at a low level because of understaffing, with 50% of officers leaving the service, excessive workloads, less supervision and the need to concentrate on high-risk cases at the expense of other cases. This is exemplified by case loads of 40, including four to five high-risk cases, now being replaced by much higher case loads, with a greater proportion of high-risk cases and problems with escalating cases from the CRCs to the National Probation Service. What do the Government regard as a satisfactory case load for officers to manage in terms of overall numbers and the balance between high-risk and other cases?
Lord Keen of Elie
There is no fixed proportion as between officers and the number of persons being supervised. That will depend upon the particular CRC and the circumstances in which it is engaged with the individual. The National Probation Service is in the course of recruiting 1,400 additional staff. In addition, the CRC contracts require providers to ensure that they have sufficient adequately trained staff in place. Indeed, results tend to bear that out. Nearly two-thirds of CRCs have reduced the number of people reoffending in the past year, according to statistics up to June 2017.
Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2017
Lord Beecham Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham (Lab)
Noble Lords will have to wait a little longer for what I suspect will be the most enlightening speech of the evening.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on tabling his Motion, which we on these Benches, and perhaps those who are not, will shortly support through the Lobbies. There are only two things wrong with the Government’s policy in relation to the specific part of the Civil Procedure (Amendment Rules) we are debating: the process from which it emerged and the substantive effect of the policy it embodies.
On process, yet again the Secondary Legislation Committee, composed of highly experienced Members from all parts of the House, finds cause to be highly critical of the lack of information on or a clear understanding of the policy objective and intended implementation of the radical changes embodied in the rules. As we have heard, these are likely to deter challenges to decisions in the planning arena under the Aarhus convention by raising the cap on costs to be paid by unsuccessful applicants—very often, voluntary organisations or other groups of a non-commercial nature—to the benefit of the defendants, who are likely to be better endowed financially and, in this environmental area, may include the Government or public bodies. I concur with the rebuttal—if I may use as strong a term—made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay.
On process, the committee found that the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the rules apparently forgot to report that fewer than 10 of the 289 responses—some of them admittedly merely replicating answers provided by Friends of the Earth—supported the proposals. The vast majority of the respondents averred that the proposals failed to meet the principles emerging from the Edwards case, to which reference has already been made. The committee stated that the Government should have better explained their interpretation in the memorandum and identified any changes made following the consultation—they did not do so. It went on to point out that, whereas the consultation document pledged a review within two years, no such undertaking is mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum supporting the statutory instrument we are debating. It called for clarification of the Government’s intentions—no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Minister will provide such clarification.
The committee’s conclusion was damning. It proclaimed:
“The Ministry of Justice has not addressed any of these concerns in its paperwork and we therefore draw the matter to the special attention of the House on the ground that the explanatory material … provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the … policy objective and intended implementation”.
That is a very severe critique by the committee.
Time and again, we have similar critical reports from the committee and still the Government proceed to adopt a cavalier approach to the process, which, at a time when Brexit is in train, is even more worrying than in the past. What undertakings will the Government make to improve their lamentable performance in the use of secondary legislation not merely in this area but across the whole range of secondary legislation?
It would appear that there is already evidence of the chilling effect of the new regime, to which some references have already been made. As we have heard, Friends of the Earth estimates that the number of cases has reduced by around 25% since the introduction of the new regime. Can the Minister, if not today then subsequently, publish the relevant data so that a proper assessment of the position can be made?
It is instructive to compare the different scenarios before and after the change. Friends of the Earth cites two cases under the old regime which exemplify the workings of the previous system. In one case, the Campaign to Protect Rural England Kent sought judicial review of a planning decision affecting an area of outstanding natural beauty. It succeeded in having the planning permission quashed by the Court of Appeal. Commenting on the case, CPRE Kent said that,
“the certainty of costs protection allowed Trustees and staff to assess the likely expenditure over the duration of such a challenge”.
In another case, this time in Norfolk, residents of Norwich were much exercised over proposals to build a major road which they contended would irreversibly damage the environment, destroy areas of countryside, farmland and wildlife habitats, and increase noise and pollution. A local parish councillor sought judicial review on behalf of the Wensum Valley Alliance and the council, to its credit, accepted that the scheme was unlawful. It was quashed in the High Court. However, the salient point is that the councillor—Councillor Boswell, who was also involved in the case—stated that the local community group, the Wensum Valley Alliance, would have,
“found it impossible … to contemplate legal action without knowing the extent of their financial liability in advance”.
We heard earlier the experience of the Liverpool Green Party, which again illustrates the chilling effect of the new regime. The net result of the changes seems likely to reduce significantly access to justice in this area of the law, in which applicants under the old system were 12 times more likely to succeed than fail. Given that under Brexit, there would be no recourse to the European Court of Justice, the recent developments are even more worrying.
As we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, we await the outcome of a case brought by Friends of the Earth, the RSPB and ClientEarth contending that the changes already made are incompatible with the UK’s obligations to provide access to justice as set out in European law. Can the Minister offer any assurances that, with or without Brexit, UK citizens will not be deterred from challenging authority by the potential exposure to large claims for costs?
I understand that we currently await a report from the compliance committee of the Economic and Social Council on the UK’s compliance with its obligations under the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. I trust the Government will abide by the recommendations of the committee and thereby distinguish this country from some countries in, for example, eastern Europe which seem, alas, to be reverting to a more authoritarian mode of government whereby access to justice and the independence of the courts appear in danger of being undermined.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for tabling this evening’s Motion on this topic. I welcome the valuable contributions from noble Lords across the House.
The United Nations Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, generally known as the Aarhus convention, requires countries which have signed the convention to guarantee rights for their citizens of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. In particular, it requires those countries to make sure that the public have access to legal procedures to challenge relevant decisions taken by the countries’ public authorities and specifies that those legal procedures should, among other things, not be “prohibitively expensive”. Both the UK and the European Union are signatories to the Aarhus convention, and the convention has been incorporated—albeit in part—in EU law, including the requirement that the legal costs of relevant environmental claims must not be prohibitively expensive.
The costs regimes and the amendments made to them to fulfil this requirement in respect of claims within the scope of the Aarhus convention are similar between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, there are important differences. In the present context, I address the position in only England and Wales. In seeking to comply with the “not prohibitively expensive” requirement, successive Governments have taken steps to control the costs that a losing claimant may be ordered to pay a winning defendant. I will set out key recent events, although most of them have been touched on at various points during the course of this debate.
In April 2013, an environmental costs protection regime was introduced by amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules, which capped the amount of costs that a court could order an unsuccessful claimant to pay to other parties. Under this regime, the claimant’s costs liability to a successful defendant was capped at either £5,000 for claimants who were individuals or £10,000 for other claimants, as alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The defendant’s costs liability to a successful claimant was similarly capped, but at the rather higher level of £35,000.
Prisons and Youth Custody Centres: Safety
Lord Beecham Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the Chief Inspector of Prisons describes a “staggering decline” in safety in young offender institutions and secure training centres, not one of which is,
“safe to hold children and young people”.
He asserts that the current state of affairs is,
“dangerous, counterproductive and will inevitably end in tragedy unless urgent corrective action is taken”.
Adult prisons have seen,
“a dramatic and rapid decline”
in standards, with a rising incidence of violence and drug abuse, but also shocking sanitary conditions. What urgent action will the Government now take to address the scandalous state of our prisons, and in what timeframe? Is it not time to acknowledge that having the fourth highest incarceration rate in Europe contributes to the shameful state of the service?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his observations. First, on the safety of the youth estate, since his report was published the inspector has acknowledged that at the institution at Werrington, the standard of safety for both inmates and staff is at a scale of three out of four: that is, at 75%. Of course, the fact that one of these institutions has achieved such a level of safety takes us only so far. We will seek to emulate those standards across the entire estate going forward, but it is not the case that all these institutions have failed. I accept, however, that the failure reported upon by the inspector is unacceptable and has to be addressed.
As the noble Lord may recollect, we have already committed to spending £1.3 billion on the prison estate. In addition, I note that Her Majesty’s Prison Berwyn, which has been completed, now has 430 places in use, and, once fully operational, will have a further new 2,100 prison places. That is but a step but it is a step in the right direction. As for periods of incarceration, I note that the level of sentences imposed for violent and sexual crimes over the past decade has increased. That, of course, has an impact upon the prison estate. That is a feature that we have to take into consideration in looking at the overall operation of the system. But we cannot lose sight in this context of the issue of public safety.
Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2017
Lord Beecham Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, the regret Motion I have tabled may appear dry, complicated and technical. It is technical and complicated but it is not dry. It will have practical, everyday consequences for every taxpayer, for everybody who has an insurance policy, especially if they drive a motor car, and for every person who receives a long-term award of damages following an accident.
The setting of the discount rate to be applied to lump-sum damage awards is a critical decision. On the one hand, the situation cannot be allowed where, because the discount rate has been set too high, someone who suffers a catastrophic injury, maybe as the result of a road accident or an NHS operation going awry, finds that the lump sum runs out too soon. On the other hand, setting the rate too low means that the accident victim is overcompensated, which has a knock-on effect on motor and other insurance premiums, and on the overall operating costs of the NHS.
While the power for the Lord Chancellor to set the discount rate is to be found in the Damages Act 1996, the process by which the rate is set is based on case law, in particular on the 1998 House of Lords judgment in Wells v Wells, which reached two important conclusions. First, any lump sum awarded should neither overcompensate nor undercompensate the unfortunate victim. Who could possibly disagree with that conclusion? Secondly, the legal judgment was that the appropriate benchmark for setting the discount rate should be the yield on index-linked government stocks—that is, index-linked gilts or ILGs. I understand that the court concluded that the sums paid in compensation should be invested only in what the court saw as risk-free assets. The court appeared to anticipate that 100% of every amount paid in compensation would or should be invested in index-linked gilts. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that the conclusion was drawn that the benchmark for setting the discount rate should be that on index-linked gilts.
That second conclusion, 20 years on from the Wells v Wells judgment, is a good deal more controversial than the first, for the following reasons. First, the supply of index-linked gilts is limited. They offer particular attractions to those insurance companies and other financial institutions that seek perfect risk-matching. As a consequence, index-linked gilts tend to be fully priced—some may say overpriced—and arithmetically, as a result, the running yields are driven down. Many index-linked gilts are today traded above par so that a capital loss on redemption is inevitable. Further, if portfolio theory teaches us one thing, it is that diversification is the best way to offset risk. Any proposal that suggests investing in only one asset class needs to be approached with care. It is the all-your-eggs-in-one-basket belief. A more conventional approach might suggest, in addition to index-linked and other gilts, investing in some prime corporate bonds and some blue chip UK or overseas equities.
This rate setting is such a sensitive issue that successive Governments have shied away from changing the rate. Until earlier this year, the discount rate was set at 2.5% and had not been changed since 2001. That is patently unfair. The shape of the yield curve has altered dramatically as a result of the 2008 financial crisis and interest rates remain at historic lows. I am afraid that, as a result of the failure by successive Governments to address this issue, victims may prove to have been undercompensated in recent years.
Then suddenly, essentially out of nowhere, in February the then Lord Chancellor took action. And my goodness, it was draconian. At a stroke, she changed the discount rate from plus 2.5% to minus 0.75%. What is the effect of this rather arcane statement? A simple example may help clarity. Let us assume that you are a 25 year-old young man who has, sadly, been catastrophically injured in a motorcycle accident. The court must consider what sum is needed to look after you for the rest of your life—that is, probably more than 40 years. If the court concluded that on the old rate a sum of £2 million was sufficient, under the new rate that sum would arithmetically need to be £7.3 million. That is an increase of more than £5 million, or more than triple the original sum. Of course, the award assumes that interest rates will stay at the present low—historically, very low—level for the rest of your life. If they begin to rise, you will have been overcompensated at the expense of the taxpayer and other insured people.
Specifically, the Lord Chancellor’s decision had a direct and substantial effect on the public finances. Box 4.2 in the spring Budget policy costings paper indicates that as a result of this decision, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to find an additional £1.2 billion every year for the next five years as a guard against future claims. On page 35 of the same report, the suggestion is that the Lord Chancellor’s decision will result in an increase of 0.1% on CPI, or 0.2% on RPI.
The Times of 28 February this year, while pointing out the importance of not undercompensating victims, said:
“But basing the so-called Ogden formula on just three years’ history of index-linked gilts is crazy, as insurers point out. No accident victim in their right mind would invest their entire lump sum in inflation-protected gilts in this era of superlax monetary policy. One-third now opt for ‘periodic payment orders’, which guarantee a return of at least zero in real terms. Most others invest in a mix that includes higher yielding corporate bonds and equities”.
It went on to say:
“Either way, assuming that the best a prudent investor can achieve is a long-run real return of -0.75 per cent displays an Eeyorish level of pessimism. If this is really the government’s official thinking on likely future investment returns then its policies to encourage pension saving amount to mis-selling on a gigantic scale”.
More recently, on 24 June, the same paper highlighted that drivers now face a rate of increase in the cost of their motor insurance that is five times that of inflation. Not all of the increase can be attributed to the change in the discount rate but its impact will be felt particularly by younger drivers, those under 25, who have seen an increase of 13.1%, and—this may be of more interest to Members of your Lordships’ House—to older drivers, those over 50, who have seen an increase of 17.9%. Of course, this rate of increase will continue as reinsurance contracts run off—they last for only 12 months before they have to be renewed, and will have to be replaced at the higher rate.
I suspect—perhaps I should say I hope—that the Lord Chancellor did not understand or was not properly briefed or advised on the likely full impact of her decision. Certainly, having made this dramatic decision on Monday 27 February, which led to a storm of controversy, she then announced that there would be a further consultation. As my regret Motion makes clear, this appears to be putting the cart before the horse. I understand that the consultation is now closed and the MoJ has to report back by 3 August.
A regret Motion is probably not the place to discuss a remedy in detail but perhaps three brief conclusions can be drawn. First, it is critical that accident victims are properly compensated but in future the discount rate needs to be renewed more frequently to minimise the risk of overcompensation or undercompensation. This will also avoid the massive jerks on the tiller which have so disconcerted the insurance industry this year. Secondly, any new system should recognise that an assumption that all the compensation sums will be invested in the same asset class fails to account for the different circumstances of the various injured parties, so that the Wells v Wells conclusion that investments should be ILGs only is no longer appropriate. Thirdly and finally, those parties that are very risk-averse should place increased reliance on periodic payment orders as a better means of offering security to the injured party while avoiding overcompensation or undercompensation.
While tonight the House cannot discuss any remedies in detail, there is a need for action quickly to right the costly inequities of the present system. Following the recent consultation, the Government now have a wealth of information at their disposal. They also have a legislative vehicle on the stocks in the shape of the civil liability Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech. When the Lord Chancellor herself said, as she did on 7 March, that,
“the system needs to be reformed, because I do not think it is right that a discount rate is set on an ad hoc basis by the Lord Chancellor”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/17; col. 657]—
we can surely all agree that action is needed, and quickly. When he comes to reply, I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to reassure me and the House that the Government recognise the significance of this issue and intend to take remedial action shortly. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord has done the House a service in raising this issue. I should refer to my interests as an unpaid consultant in my old firm of solicitors, which specialises in personal injury claims.
The changes effected by the order we are debating have been a long time in the making. As the Explanatory Memorandum to the order makes clear, the procedure was prescribed in the Damages Act 1996, which vested in the Lord Chancellor the power to prescribe a discount rate which the courts must consider—though not necessarily apply—when determining compensation in personal injury cases in the form of a lump sum. Until that time, the rate had been determined by the courts.
This is only the second occasion since 1996 when a change has been made. As we have heard, the rate has been reduced from 2.5% to minus 0.75%. The purpose of the order is to reflect in relation to awards of lump-sum damages in cases of significant monetary loss—for example, long-term loss of earnings or the cost of round-the-clock care—the average yield of index-linked gilts, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, explained. Thus the damages awarded will reflect a rate of return which is designed to ensure that the claimant does not make a profit from the compensation but is adequately provided for.
In 2010 the then Lord Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, initiated the process of a review and a consultation was launched in 2012 that was inconclusive. It was followed in 2015 by the report of an expert panel commissioned by Chris Grayling. A further 16 months elapsed before Mr Grayling’s successor but one consulted the Treasury and the Government Actuary, and the relevant order was finally made. Over time it became apparent that the 2.5% discount did not reflect the realities of a changing investment market, such that the compensation could run out or the injured party have to invest in higher-risk products.
Needless to say, the insurance industry has opposed the changes and claims that they will lead to higher premiums. This is par for the course for an industry that in recent years has done so much to increase its profits, not least by persuading the Government to effect changes in the realm of personal injury claims while making little, if any, reduction in premiums. APIL, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, reports that Admiral Insurance stated that motor insurance profits after the change would still be of the order of £336 million. APIL commended the statement in the Government’s consultation that they could be influenced by the effect of the change in the rate on defendants.
Another organisation, Hastings, said that the reduction,
“is not expected to have a material impact on the Group’s financial outlook for 2017”—
so that is one insurer not apparently overconcerned at the change. Even more illuminating is the figure which Thompsons Solicitors calculated as the saving to motor insurers during the last 10 years of the 2.5% rate—a staggering £30 billion. There is little or no evidence that this has been reflected in reduced insurance premiums.
Given the nature of the claims in question, where long-term losses of income can occur alongside a need for special care, home or vehicle adaptations and the like, periodical payment orders—rather than one-off lump-sum payments—may well feature increasingly in the award of damages or the terms of settlement of claims. The noble Lord alluded to that desirable move.
Public Guardian (Fees, etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2017
Lord Beecham Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations apply to England and Wales and reduce the fee for registering enduring and lasting powers of attorney. The current fee of £110 will be reduced to £82. The resubmission fee, paid when an application has to be resubmitted because of an error with the original application, will be reduced to £41 from £55. If Parliament agrees, we intend these changes to take effect on 1 April this year.
The new fee will be an enhanced fee, allowing us to cover the full cost of registering a power of attorney as well as to ensure the efficient and effective discharge of the public guardian’s functions. The power to charge an enhanced fee is contained in Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
There are currently more than 2 million powers of attorney registered. These comprise lasting powers of attorney and their predecessor enduring powers of attorney, which remain valid and may still be registered. In October 2017, we will celebrate 10 years since lasting powers of attorney were introduced. In that time, the Office of the Public Guardian, the body responsible for maintaining a register of powers of attorney, has registered nearly 2.5 million powers.
The high uptake of lasting powers of attorney is an indication of the success of the Mental Capacity Act. They allow individuals to plan ahead for a time when they may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves and to appoint someone they trust to make those decisions for them. It is, of course, positive that so many more people are now making powers of attorney, but it has led to a position where the income we receive from fees charged is exceeding the cost of delivering the service. A detailed review of power of attorney fees, together with an improved forecasting model for volumes of applications, taking into account the ageing demographic and the rise in dementia, has enabled us to take decisive action to reduce fees and bring them closer to the cost of providing the service.
As many more people have been registering LPAs in recent years, increased volumes coupled with greater efficiencies in processing applications have resulted in fees being charged above the operational cost of delivering the service without our having exercised the power provided by legislation to allow us to do this. Clearly this situation must be remedied, which is what these draft regulations seek to do. Furthermore, alongside the reduction in fee, we will also introduce a scheme for refunding a portion of the fee to customers who may have paid more than they should. Full details of the scheme will be announced in due course. We will take such steps as are necessary to make sure that people are made aware of, and receive, the refunds to which they are entitled.
The Government’s aim is to ensure that the public guardian’s functions are properly resourced. We consider that an enhanced fee will go towards funding vital wider functions carried out by the Office of the Public Guardian. The enhanced fee will allow the public guardian to ensure that those who cannot afford to pay still have access to the key services offered by the Office of the Public Guardian; there is a remission scheme in that regard. The fee will also contribute to costs of the public guardian’s safeguarding activities, including the annual costs of supervising deputies appointed by the court to manage the affairs of people who have lost capacity to do so for themselves. I therefore commend these draft regulations to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure whether I need to declare an interest in this matter as having registered an enduring power of attorney myself, which might entitle me, I suppose, to a rebate. It is pretty unlikely, I suspect, but it is a possibility and I shall have my old firm explore it.
Obviously, therefore, I welcome the main thrust of the order, which is to reduce the fees from their current level. The Government have acted perfectly properly in that respect. However, it is interesting that the Explanatory Memorandum confirms what the Minister has described as the Government’s policy—namely, that they have decided,
“in view of the financial circumstances and given the reductions in public spending, that a fee above full cost is necessary in order to ensure that the Public Guardian is adequately funded and that safeguarding the vulnerable is protected in the long term”.
That does not seem to be a logical explanation for retaining, albeit now reduced, a fee that is above the full cost. It is a philosophy which I hope will not be applied elsewhere in public services—namely, that you contribute not just to the cost but to an excess of the cost. Have the Government made any estimate of how much they will benefit by this device over time? How do they justify charging more than it actually costs to provide the service? They have been doing so, as it were, unconsciously for some time; now they will do so consciously. That strikes me as a very odd way of proceeding.
Lord Keen of Elie
The fees charged in respect of a power of attorney in 2007, when the scheme came in, were £150. They have reduced steadily since then, although they increased between 2009 and 2011, while transitional measures were being taken to upgrade IT for the Office of the Public Guardian. When they were reviewed in 2013, they were brought down. Subsequently, audit has indicated that they are still above a necessary and appropriate level.
However, with regard to the question about the enhanced fee, that allows for the fact that over and above the actual cost of dealing with a power of attorney, the Office of the Public Guardian also has to deal with other costs and demands—namely, those involving the application of parties who get a fee exemption and therefore the cost of their application has to be covered, as well as the cost of appointing deputy supervisors by the court. I did not use the correct term. It is not deputy supervisors but supervising deputies.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am sure it does—to somebody. Therefore, the limits in Section 180 of the 2014 Act are there to ensure that although we can recover more than the actual costs of the operation itself, it is for the purposes of funding the wider demands on the Ministry of Justice.
Lord Beecham
Is there any report of how that actually works in practice? I do not expect the Minister to have the answer today but what is the amount that has been raised in that way and where has it been spent?
Lord Keen of Elie
So far as the additional funding is concerned, I should have made it clear that it is funding for the Office of the Public Guardian and not wider than that. As to the precise sum, no, I do not have the figure to hand.
Collection of Fines etc. (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 2017
Lord Beecham Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his very comprehensive explanation of the order, and I very much welcome the order, which will provide the courts in Northern Ireland with additional sentencing, collecting and enforcement options. It will go a long way in helping to reduce the number of people—I believe 2,000—who are jailed each year for non-payment of fines by increasing the availability of community-based options in place of custody, by deducting money from their benefits each week. I believe that the vehicles of habitual offenders can be seized.
Can the Minister say how much money in unpaid fines is owed to the Stormont Government, going back over the last number of years, and how much money in police time is spent in enforcing fines? Is the Minister confident that there are enough safeguards with regard to the policy of possible seizure of vehicles? However, these amendments will go a long way and will prove effective in saving money.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, this order—one of five we are discussing today—is the only one so far to have been taken in the Commons. In that place a very brief explanation was given by the Minister—the noble and learned Lord has given a rather fuller explanation than was given then—and my honourable friend David Anderson replied with a sentence only. I do not propose to add to that except to say that the noble Lord who has just spoken has raised some salient points and I was interested to hear what he said. We certainly have no objection to the order.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords. I will address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont. I do not have precise figures for outstanding fines, but if those figures can be collated I undertake to write to the noble Lord, although I am not sure that they can be collated in the manner he indicated. However, perhaps at a higher level of generality, I can say that at present we are dealing with about 20,000 cases a year where there is a financial imposition. Of those, more than 16,000 currently result in a default hearing, and the default hearing itself is an extremely time-consuming exercise, taking up manpower and, in particular, police time. It is anticipated that with these measures we will be able to reduce the number of default hearings to something of the order of 4,000 cases. That in itself will bring about a significant saving in time and money. I hope that goes some way to satisfy the points raised by the noble Lord. With that, I invite agreement to the order.
Judicial Pensions (Additional Voluntary Contributions) Regulations 2017
Lord Beecham Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I will set out the purpose of the draft regulations in turn.
First, the fee-paid regulations are required to establish a pension scheme for eligible fee-paid judges, to mirror the existing pension scheme for salaried judges established by the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993. This is required following the court’s decision in the case of O’Brien v Ministry of Justice. These regulations make provision for a pension scheme for the benefit of those people who have held eligible fee-paid judicial office between 7 April 2000 and 31 March 2015. They also establish the Fee-Paid Judicial Added Voluntary Contributions Scheme, the Fee-Paid Added Years Scheme and the Fee-Paid Judicial Added Surviving Adult Pension Scheme to enable members of the principal scheme to pay voluntary contributions towards the costs of additional benefits under one of more of these additional schemes.
Following the case of O’Brien v Ministry of Justice and subsequent decisions it is now established law that a lack of a pension and other specified benefits amounted to less favourable treatment than some fee-paid judicial office holders in comparison to salaried judges doing the same or broadly similar work, contrary to the part-time work directive. The Ministry of Justice made a commitment to implement a pension scheme for these fee-paid judges. This commitment was honoured for future service, subject to transitional protection, by the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015. However, a new scheme is required as the remedy in respect of reckonable fee-paid service from 7 April 2000—the date when the part-time work directive ought to have been transposed into UK law. The power to create such a scheme was created by Section 78 of the Pensions Schemes Act 2015, which inserted a new Section 18A into the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.
The draft fee-paid regulations have been the subject of a detailed public consultation and were modified as part of that consultation process, taking account of responses and as part of our own review of the draft. A response to the consultation was published on 27 February alongside the final draft regulations.
The amendment regulations amend the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015 to take account of the creation of the fee-paid judicial pension scheme and ensure parity of treatment between individuals with entitlement in the existing Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 scheme and those with entitlements under the fee-paid scheme in respect of their pension entitlements under the 2015 regulations. In addition, we are taking the opportunity to amend the 2015 regulations to make a number of other changes: to amend a drafting error in Regulation 1 of the 2015 regulations; to enable the Lord Chancellor to determine the eligibility of particular Scottish fee-paid judicial officeholders to join the pension scheme created by the 2015 regulations; to remove negligence as a basis for forfeiture or set-off; to make a correction to the definition of index adjustment for revaluation purposes; and to apply full and tapering protection for those judges who were in fee-paid office on 31 March 2012 but who have subsequently been appointed to salaried office.
The 2015 regulations were made under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to create a career average pension scheme for judicial officeholders as part of the Government’s wider reform of public service pensions. This is the first time the 2015 regulations have been amended.
Thirdly, I turn to the additional voluntary contributions regulations, the purpose of which is to make provision to establish a judicial additional voluntary contributions scheme. This is a money purchase scheme that enables scheme members to make contributions within a range of investment options. This is in addition to their contributions to the 2015 scheme. The AVC scheme is to be managed by the Lord Chancellor and the Judicial Pensions Board will oversee the governance. The 2015 judicial pension scheme was established on 1 April 2015 in response to the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. The 2015 scheme applies to fee-paid and salaried judicial officeholders.
The existing judicial pension schemes provided a facility to contribute to a money purchase pension scheme and the same facility is provided for members of the 2015 scheme through these AVC regulations. This includes the pension flexibilities contained in the Taxation of Pensions Act 2014 and the Pension Schemes Act 2015. Amendments to the additional voluntary contribution scheme established under the older judicial pension scheme, made by the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, are being made in separate instruments containing similar regulations, which also give effect to the pension flexibilities.
To summarise, the fee-paid regulations are necessary as the remedy to provide eligible fee-paid judges with pension benefits that are equivalent to their salaried comparators. The amendment regulations are necessary as they introduce a range of amendments required to the 2015 judicial pension scheme. The additional voluntary contributions regulations are necessary to honour the department’s commitment to provide such a facility to members of the 2015 judicial pensions scheme. I hope that noble Lords will welcome these three sets of regulations as necessary to make important provision for judicial pensions. This is in terms of the Government’s legal obligations and to meet outstanding commitments, and to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are in place for a consistent approach relating to the relevant provisions across the judicial pension schemes. I therefore commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I must declare a paternal interest since my daughter is a part-time, fee-paid district judge. The noble and learned Lord will, no doubt, be particularly pleased with the Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2017 inasmuch as they contain a rather rare provision for the Scottish Government to request permission to join a national UK scheme, which is a remarkable volte face from the present Administration in Edinburgh. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will make that point on his next return to that city, and I wish him well in such an approach.
The three regulations dealing with judicial pensions are, of course, welcome so far as they go, but they come at a time when we face a shortage of judges and apparent difficulty in finding sufficient numbers of suitable applicants to fill a rising number of retirements. The Lord Chief Justice’s report of 2016 referred to,
“serious concerns about recruitment to the judiciary, in particular the ability to attract well-qualified candidates for positions in the higher levels”.
He pointed out that this created an impact both on the administration of justice and the position of the UK as a forum for international business litigation, where we are already facing growing competition from other jurisdictions.
The degree of unhappiness with the situation is reflected by results of a recent survey which shows that nearly half of High Court judges plan to retire early. Respondents to that survey alluded to resentment over loss of earnings, deteriorating working conditions and even fear for their personal safety in court. The latter will not have been helped by the scurrilous campaign against the judges by sections of the media and the further reaches of the Conservative Party and of UKIP, which were roundly denounced by the Minister, much to his credit.
A survey of judicial attitudes last year showed that 42% of all judges would leave if they had a viable option, nearly double the number of the previous survey in 2014. A more recent survey suggests that 47% of High Court judges and 36% of all judges indicated they would consider early retirement from the Bench over the next five years. Their attitude is partly coloured by the large number—78%—who suffered a loss of net earnings over the past two years and the 62% who were affected by pension changes. The Lord Chief Justice warned in 2016 that a new High Court judge would have a pension less than that of a District Judge, which is hardly conducive, one might think, to retention or recruitment to the High Court. He also felt that the situation was likely to have a considerable inhibiting effect on promoting gender and ethnic diversity, which the survey disclosed. Significantly 43% of judges felt unappreciated by the public but, tellingly, only 3% felt they were esteemed by the media, and, shockingly, only 2% felt they were esteemed by the public.
If this were not bad enough, one-third complained of the quality of court buildings and two-thirds referred to the low morale of court staff. Just over half the judges expressed concerns for their safety in court, partly due to the number of unrepresented litigants, especially in somewhat fraught cases in the family side of the courts’ work. The same proportion said that out-of-hours work was affecting them—a rise from 29% in 2014.
Currently there is a shortage of 25 High Court judges and between 120 and 140 circuit judges. Lord Justice Burnett, who is vice-chairman of the Judicial Appointment Commission, has complained that suitable applicants for the High Court have been insufficient in the past two years, while the demands on the judiciary continue to grow across the whole system. It would appear that only 55 applications were made last year for 25 vacancies and only eight were filled.
Prosecutions: Defence Legal Costs
Lord Beecham Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we are of course aware of the particular case to which my noble friend refers. I observe that the individual in question did apply for legal aid, was eligible for it and was offered it, but declined to accept it. Had he accepted that offer he would have been required to make a relatively modest contribution, which he would have been able to recover upon being acquitted. However, the individual in question decided not to accept the offer of legal aid and instead instructed lawyers privately. In those circumstances he was not eligible for recovery of costs. Of course, all these matters will be subject to the review that is to be completed by April 2018.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as, effectively, a non-practising solicitor. It would appear—I am advised by leading counsel—that a change was effected to the 1985 Act via Schedule 7 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, which precluded an award of costs from central funds after an acquittal in the Crown Court, or after a successful appeal to the Court of Appeal. But where the acquittal occurs in magistrates’ court or an appeal is allowed in the Supreme Court, costs apparently may be allowed. Should not the practice be the same in all relevant courts, with the judiciary able to exercise its discretion?