Solicitors: Professional Qualifications

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we do not believe that if these proposals were taken forward it would have such a stultifying effect upon the university law schools to which the noble Lord refers. I observe that there are currently 110 qualifying law degree providers, 40 providers of the graduate diploma in law and 26 providers of the legal practice course, and no consistency of examination at the point of qualification.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, given the massive cuts in legal aid, the rising costs of tribunal and court proceedings, and the difficulties resulting from the consequential growth in the number of unrepresented litigants, should not any qualification programme include a requirement to provide pro bono advice and representation?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, as I have already indicated, the question of what qualification requirements there should be is a matter for the Solicitors Regulation Authority and for the Legal Services Board. However, of course they are concerned to pursue their statutory obligations, which include a requirement to have regard to the demands upon the profession.

Personal Injury Claims: Motor Vehicle Incidents

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I quite understand the point that has been made. That is why we have included in the proposed legislation a ban on insurers making offers to settle such claims without medical evidence. We have of course addressed the issue of medical reports through the MedCo scheme.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest as an unpaid consultant in the firm of solicitors in which I was senior partner. The increase in the small claims limit for whiplash cases is likely to lead to greater activity by claims management companies, which will take a substantial cut from any damages. Will the Government take steps to control this parasitic industry? This week, the Lord Chancellor announced changes to the way in which damages for personal injuries are calculated. Such damages are estimated to cost the National Health Service, which recovers the costs of treatment for motor accident claims, an estimated £1 billion a year, and they increase insurance premiums. Is this not a classic example of a ministerial car crash?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

No, my Lords, this is not a ministerial car crash. I remind the noble Lord that the increase to which he refers arises as a result of the application of the discount rate introduced by the Damages Act 1996, which was last reviewed in 2001. The object of the change in the discount rate is to ensure that those who suffer catastrophic and life-changing injuries are fully and properly compensated for those injuries by reference to the damages calculation for their future care and support.

Prisons: Staff

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Beecham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the recruitment and retention of prison staff in private prisons, and prisons outside London and the South East.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, private providers are obliged to maintain sufficient staff to ensure that prisoners and staff are safe and secure. We monitor performance against measures specified in the contract. High application volumes are generally received for prison officer and other vacancies in prisons outside London and the south-east, most of which have relatively low levels of staff turnover.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, there are prisons outside the south-east that have acute staffing difficulties, such as Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds, where the problems have been exacerbated for some years by staff being sent on detached duty to southern jails. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government are addressing that issue? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the new terms being offered to London and the south on recruitment by private prisons such as Birmingham and Northumberland, where already the low numbers of staff have led to serious, indeed shocking, incidents?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

As the noble Lord acknowledged, we have taken steps to improve the rate of recruitment in the south-east, and London in particular, by introducing a range of financial incentives. That is because in these areas there is considerable employment competition. That does not apply to the same extent in the north-east and north-west. Indeed, application rates in that part of the country are considerably higher than they are in the other parts of the country. Accordingly, it is not anticipated that these incentives, directed to particular areas where there are difficulties of recruitment, will have an adverse impact elsewhere.

Lay Magistrates

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

It is of course important that the magistrates’ Bench should be representative of the communities they serve, but it is equally important that we have regard to the skills, experience and talent required of those who sit on it. That tends to come with age and experience.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, some 7,000 magistrates will reach retirement age in the next five years. That is something like eight times the membership of your Lordships’ House. Fifteen per cent of cases are heard by Benches of two magistrates, yet district judges are still being recruited at salaries of around £100,000 a year. Is not the increasing reliance on district judges, alongside the failure to extend the recruitment of lay justices beyond the middle and upper classes and the impact of court closures, eroding the concept of local justice rooted in a sense of local community?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The noble Lord draws attention to a number of issues concerning the disposal of cases between the district court and the magistrates’ court. That will be further addressed in detail as we proceed with the prison and courts reform Bill, which is presently under consideration. I reassure the noble Lord that there is no attempt to direct recruitment towards particular social classes or backgrounds. The 44 advisory committees responsible for recruiting magistrates in England and Wales are concerned to ensure that they recruit talented people from all backgrounds and all communities.

IPP Prisoners

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to my noble friend. These prisoners have been the subject of assessment by the Parole Board and, where they have failed to satisfy the board that they cannot be released without a risk of serious harm to the public, further provisions have been put in place for psychological assessment and assistance. Where before there were long backlogs, various courses are now available to help these prisoners towards an open system of supervision.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, last September the Chief Inspector of Prisons reported that there were 3,200 prisoners over tariff, 42% of whom—1,400—were five years or more over their tariff. The chief inspector called for decisive action to,

“ensure adequate resources and timely support are available to work with IPP prisoners to reduce their risk of harm to others and to help them progress through the custodial system towards consideration for release”.

How many of those 1,400 prisoners have since been released and what is the likelihood that they will be released over the next year or two?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

As regards the figures, the maximum term of imprisonment available to the courts for the offences that the vast majority of IPP prisoners were convicted for was and remains life imprisonment. Therefore the significant majority of IPP prisoners will never reach the point of serving more than the statutorily available maximum penalty. I do not know how many of the 1,400 cited by the noble Lord have been released but I will undertake to write to him if those figures are available. Their prospects for release must depend on an assessment by the Parole Board, but I would add that the ministry is addressing the question of whether the onus that lies with regard to those Parole Board hearings should be reconsidered.

Disabled People: Medical Records

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Baroness for her observation, however I fear that some confusion has entered the debate around the issue of discrimination. The Equality Act 2010 deals with the issue of discrimination on the part of individuals. Judicial decision-makers are exempt from the provisions of the Act on very reasonable grounds; however, any judicial decision-maker is bound, in any event, by the provisions of Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and is therefore bound never to discriminate against any party on grounds of disability.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, support for 3.7 million disabled people has been cut by £28 billion since 2012 under the Welfare Reform Act. Five years on, will the Government undertake a thorough review of the Act’s impact on this important section of the community? In relation to medical records and reports, will the Government intervene to prevent general practitioners charging the victims of domestic abuse up to £175 for letters which are required to support applications for legal aid?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord for raising a series of questions unrelated to the original Question from the noble Baroness. The question of fees for reports is not a matter that is under immediate review but it is, of course, borne in mind in the context of legal aid provision as a whole. Not every general practitioner makes a charge for such a report.

Courts and Tribunals: Administration Charges

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interest as an unpaid consultant in my former solicitor’s practice, and I suppose I should mention that my daughter practises in the fields of housing and employment law, and sits as a part-time deputy district judge. I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness on securing this debate. Her initiative is the more welcome coming, as it does, from a respected occupant of the Government Benches.

Access to justice has been an all too regular subject of debate in my six and a half years’ membership of this House, with the coalition and Conservative Governments laying down road blocks in the form of huge increases in fees where they already existed, new impositions where—as in the case of employment tribunals—they did not exist and savage reductions in legal aid, to which noble Lords have already referred. Senior members of the judiciary have repeatedly complained, rightly, that these measures have led to a significant increase in the number of cases in which parties are not represented, with the consequent legal equivalent of bed-blocking wasting the time of the courts and proving the validity of the old maxim that justice delayed is justice denied.

A year ago, the then Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, giving evidence to the Justice Select Committee, described the evidence on which the Government based their increase in court fees as “hopeless” and pointed out that they had consulted all of 31 people on the proposal. Sir Ernest Ryder, in charge of employment and immigration tribunals, pointed to the 70% reduction in tribunal applications, which he described as,

“an extraordinary position that demands an explanation”.

Needless to say, no such explanation has been vouchsafed. In one sense, of course, the explanation is simple: the fee can be as much as £1,200.

The Civil Justice Council had warned that the,

“reductions and changes in legal aid will have the most serious consequences. This is not simply because of their scale, it is also by reason of their design and incidence. Among other things they will have a disproportionately adverse effect on the most vulnerable”.

It forecast correctly that,

“the number of self-represented litigants will increase, and on a considerable scale”,

leading to cases being longer than they need to be, and with,

“increasingly wide and serious of consequences for the individual, for families, and the state”.

Indeed, there have been large reductions in important areas of the law, including housing, where there has been a reduction of 18% in cases at a time when there have been record numbers of repossessions of private rented property. Some 43,000 households were evicted in 2015—an all-time high and 53% more than in 2010. Legal aid is available in housing eviction cases, but the problem here is the collapse of the supply side in the shape of legal aid lawyers specialising in housing law, such that there are areas of the country with very few legal aid housing lawyers and in a couple of cases, Suffolk and Shropshire, none at all. One-third of legal aid areas have just one solicitor providing legal aid in housing cases. As Legal Action Group director Steve Hynes observed:

“Civil legal aid services are in freefall, with solicitor firms and advice agencies closing”.


Given that even where legal aid is available fees are only £57 per hour, or £63 per hour for a court appearance, it is hardly surprising that not too many people are practising. My charging rate when I was last in practice 13 or 14 years ago was higher than that, and I venture to surmise that the Minister’s charging rate at the Scottish Bar might have been somewhat higher still. Interestingly, McKenzie Friends, unqualified people assisting litigants, are now charging as much as £125 an hour for their services. Shelter has 17 offices offering legal assistance, some of them being the only source in their area.

So how much have the Government been saving from the impact of the changes in housing law? How much have council housing and other budgets such as those for benefits and social care been affected as a consequence of evictions and disrepair, which might otherwise have been dealt with via the justice system? In the area of family law there has been a significant drop in cases where domestic violence, which could trigger legal aid, is not an issue, so that in those cases legal aid is not available. However, the much-vaunted alternative to court proceedings, mediation, has fallen by two thirds. The people most likely to be affected by that are, of course, women and children. Mental health cases have also declined—due largely, it again appears, to a shrinking of the supply side of legal advice, as in housing. Debt and welfare cases have seen large reductions of 61% and 56% respectively. Nor are these difficulties confined to individuals. Small businesses also face difficulties from higher court fees.

The Justice Select Committee’s report was damning about the Government’s policy. It is unlikely to have been impressed by what passes for the Government’s reply, published five months later and consisting of four full pages and five other pages containing a total of all of 15 paragraphs. One of those pages deals with the controversial proposal for immigration tribunal fees, and I am thankful that the Government have at least abandoned that proposal. The Government declared that they would publish their review of employment tribunal fees “in due course”. How long will this pretty simple issue take to resolve? How long does the Minister expect the review of pregnancy and discrimination claims to take?

The Government dismissed the committee’s concerns about the significant increase in the fees for issuing divorce petitions, saying that help is available for those unable to pay. But how widely is that known? In so far as the Government are right to claim that women are less likely to have to pay the full fee than men, is it not the case that by the same token they are less likely to be able to pay for legal advice and representation, thereby being placed at a disadvantage and increasing the problem of litigants in person, especially acute in cases of this nature?

In responding to the committee’s suggestion that there should a pilot of graduated fees, the Government declared that a balance had to be struck between the certainty of fixed fees and charging more for those who,

“make greater use of the courts and tribunals”.

Can the Minister explain this wording? Does “greater use” refer to frequency and, if so, in what sense, or content? Would an income-related or means-related system not be sufficient?

The committee suggested that in employment tribunal cases the respondent should pay, but the suggestion was rejected because respondents have,

“little influence over the decision to litigate”.

That is an interesting argument. A recalcitrant employer must not be troubled by paying a fee, but in many cases a dismissed employee must fork out with a fee that is disproportionate to the claim.

I mentioned immigration cases. Again, I welcome the fact that the Government do not propose to increase the fees, but already immigration judges report very high levels of unrepresented applicants, contrary to the impression given by the official statistics. The latter were questioned in a letter to Michael Gove by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association in 2015. Litigants in immigration tribunals will often suffer the additional difficulty of being unable to speak English.

The Government have been pressed time and again to review the working of LASPO but so far have resolutely resisted, and insist that they will do so only after five years of the Act’s operation. Given the scale of concerns and the time that such a review will take, why will the Government not now set a review in train, at least in respect of the most contentious areas?

I conclude with three further short points. The first is to remind the House that the Government’s proposals on the increase of the small claims limit is likely to engender still more problems for would-be litigants and a further depletion of qualified lawyers willing to undertake cases.

The second is that the closure of courts imposes additional costs on parties who now have to travel to have their cases heard.

Thirdly, I commend the work of the Public Support Unit, which has been mentioned today, whose staff and volunteers do valiant work in non-legal support of litigants in person as they encounter an unfamiliar and daunting experience in the 13 court centres that it supports. Will the Government at the very least help this organisation as it attempts to help those whose access to justice has been made ever more difficult by this Government and their coalition predecessor?

Family Court

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, while the Secretary of State’s announcement is welcome, this issue was highlighted in a report in 2014, and was pursued by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Domestic Violence, which, in a report last April, listed seven recommendations, including one on this issue, none of which appears to have been implemented. In 80% of cases in the family court, one or more parties is unrepresented, a major problem being access to legal aid. How much has been saved on legal aid in the family courts, given the minimal grants of exceptional funding in domestic violence and abuse cases? In the first six months of last year, only five out of 125 applications for exceptional funding were granted. Will the Government now act on the other recommendations of the all-party parliamentary group? Do they have a view on the perhaps more controversial proposal of Sir James Munby for family court hearings to be in public, for which he is proposing a trial run?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

We are, of course, aware that this has been a matter of concern. That is why we are determined to address it as urgently as we can. On the matter of legal aid, clearly there are many circumstances in which individuals will seek to represent themselves in family proceedings. Even where that is done, there has to be some degree of control over their conduct. I believe that everyone in this House would agree with that. I point out that we spend in excess of £1.5 billion a year on legal aid. That was the figure for last year. We have increased the availability of legal aid in domestic violence cases—for example, by increasing the period during which evidence of abuse can be produced from two years to five years. As regards the other recommendations under consideration, I invite the noble Lord to await the outcome of the urgent work being done by the department and the conclusion of that work.

Legal Services Act 2007 (Claims Management Complaints) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, the Legal Services Act 2007 (Claims Management Complaints) (Fees) Regulations 2014 enable the Lord Chancellor to charge fees to regulated claims management companies to recoup the costs of the Legal Ombudsman’s work in handling complaints from consumers about claims management companies. It is right that the costs of handling such complaints fall on the claims management services sector and not on the taxpayer.

The draft regulations before us amend the level of fees set out in the existing 2014 fees regulations for the financial year beginning 1 April 2017 and for subsequent years. Revising the level of fees will ensure that the Lord Chancellor can accurately recover the costs of the Legal Ombudsman dealing with complaints about the claims management services industry in the 2017-18 financial year. In addition to the Legal Ombudsman’s expected costs for 2017-18, we also need to take into account an overrecovery in the amount recovered by the end of 2016-17.

Taking both elements into account, the total cost to be recovered from the market for 2017-18 of around £1.6 million is lower than last year’s £2.3 million. There has been a reduction in the size of the market since last year, but the assumptions about future market change used in our fee model are still valid. Taking into account both the total to be recovered and the current market, the fees need to be reduced.

Noble Lords will be aware that it is intended to move the regulation of the claims management services sector to the Financial Conduct Authority, and in tandem with this it is intended to transfer the complaints handling for the sector to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Until this occurs, however, it remains appropriate for the Legal Ombudsman to deal with complaints about the sector.

I know that noble Lords welcome the fact that the Legal Ombudsman’s costs relating to complaints about regulated claims management companies continue to be met by the claims management services sector, in the same way that the costs relating to complaints about the legal services sector are met by that particular sector. Fees do, however, need to be reduced where this is appropriate to ensure that the fees charged mirror as closely as possible the actual costs of the Legal Ombudsman in handling complaints. I commend these draft regulations to the House.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, we support the transfer of responsibility for regulating this somewhat parasitic industry to the Financial Conduct Authority, not least because my noble friend Lady Hayter played a part in making the necessary legislative provision for the step that the Government are now taking.

Most of us, I suspect, will have been subjected to cold calling from a range of outfits of this kind. I confess to sometimes being tempted to adopt the approach that I heard someone once advocating—saving the presence of the right reverend Prelate—of saying, “I am so glad you called, I would like to talk to you about Jesus”. That could have the effect of shortening the conversation, although in practice, like most people, I simply put down the phone. But this is an increasing nuisance that we all have to contend with.

It is a nuisance that the industry has failed to tackle. It has an appalling record. Fines of over £2 million have been levied since 2015, and 1,400 licences have been revoked. In the current year there have been some 40 investigations, 16 of them leading to withdrawal of a licence. In 2013 there were 8,500 complaints, and no less than 76% of customers in a survey were doubtful about the benefits of using these companies.

The Brady report, which recommended the change in regulation, stated that,

“there is a widely held perception among stakeholders and government that there is widespread misconduct among Claims Management Companies”.

They flourish in part, of course, because of the withdrawal of legal aid, which, together with changes to court fees, has curtailed access to justice for many who need properly qualified advice and representation. The Government are consulting on the small claims limit, below which it will not be possible for a successful claimant to recover costs. Is not that move likely to increase the role of CMCs, as the Transport Select Committee warned as long ago as 2013? Moreover, we are dealing only with registered claims management companies. Are there statistics on the number of unauthorised companies which may be operating? What is the Government’s estimate of that number, and how can the companies be dealt with?

As the Minister said, regulation of the sector needs to extend beyond the—admittedly crucial and obvious—financial aspects to monitoring how it performs on behalf of clients and requiring minimum standards, preferably before licences are granted. This will no doubt fall to the Financial Ombudsman Service, as opposed to the Financial Conduct Authority. I take it that the two organisations will remain in close touch. It might have been better if one could have contrived a situation in which a single authority dealt with both aspects. However, presumably there will be communication between the two. In the meantime, should not the Government or one of the authorities involved warn the public about the risks involved in engaging with such organisations and offering independent guidance on which companies they should consider instructing on the basis of their past performance?

As I said, we welcome the approach taken here. Perhaps the Minister can indicate when the further change of responsibility involving the Financial Ombudsman will take place; it looks as though it will be some time in the coming year. We very much support the Government extending that element.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his observations on this matter, and I note the general level of support given to the regulations and their amendment in the current circumstances. On his last point, the transfer to the Financial Conduct Authority and the Financial Ombudsman is anticipated to be implemented by April 2018 under the present procedure.

As for the conduct of CMCs, the particular concern expressed is with regard to cold calling—unsolicited calls. That issue is being addressed as a priority. Indeed, the Claims Management Regulation Unit works continually with the Information Commissioner’s Office and Ofcom, which are the primary enforcement authorities in the field, to share intelligence and to target and investigate CMCs that indulge in inappropriate behaviour. The noble Lord himself observed how many fines and investigations there had been.

Of course, we know that many of these claims management companies are fleet of foot and alter their business model in the face of further investigation. For example, they no longer carry out this form of cold calling themselves: it is carried out by third-party bodies, which then seek to sell the product that they have harvested to the claims management companies. Steps have been taken to deal with CMCs which illegally purchase or acquire such unsolicited data; again, fines will follow. I acknowledge that this is an ongoing and developing problem. The Claims Management Regulation Unit is developing its response with Ofcom and the Information Commissioner to try to deal with that, but it is very difficult.

The noble Lord alluded to the introduction to the market of unauthorised operators, to whom I just referred in passing. Of course, the very fact that they are unauthorised and unregulated makes them very difficult to identify, pursue and deal with—but where they are identified, steps can be taken.

With regard to independent guidance about which claims management companies to go to, I hesitate to suggest that the guidance might be very short. It would be difficult to advance such guidance when in other sectors we do not provide such independent guidance. For example, we do not provide guidance as to which solicitor a person should consult or which barrister should be briefed. It would be very difficult to single out claims management companies in this context.

The increase in the small claims limit was mooted in the recent consultation document that was issued. We shall look at that; it may impact on the role of CMCs. Equally, a process of educating people as to the simplicity of making PPI claims may result in a reduction in recourse to the CMC companies. It is well known that what often happens is that these claims management companies harvest claims and essentially pass them to the banks to process. They do nothing other than act as a middleman, endeavouring to take a cut of the proceeds. Again, production of the consultation document and other steps are being taken to address that issue—in particular, the question of how far CMCs can go in securing fixed fees and, in addition, a percentage of the recovery they can take. Steps are being taken in that regard.

On the question of statistics on unauthorised operators, I understand that we do not have those statistics at present. I rather suspect that they would be extremely difficult to ingather—but if there is some data about the scope of unauthorised activity in the market, I will arrange to write to the noble Lord and place a copy of such a letter in the Library if the data are available. But I venture to doubt that such data are available in any meaningful sense. By that I mean that, beyond the fact that we know they do operate, it is very difficult to determine and measure the extent of that operation. I hope that that addresses the principal points raised by the noble Lord, and in those circumstances I beg to move.

Serious Disturbance at HM Prison Birmingham

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, another week, another crisis for our underfunded, understaffed Prison Service, this time of a magnitude unmatched since the Strangeways riots 26 years ago. They prompted the seminal Woolf report. Last week I suggested that we needed another Woolf Report and I repeat the suggestion today. Thankfully, we still have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, among us, although I am unsure whether he would be willing to undertake the task, especially if there is to be no commitment by the Government to implement any recommendations which might emerge.

As matters stand, we have an unprecedented level of violence, self-harm and drug abuse, and several riots or near-riots occurring in what should be and must be quintessential places of safety. We are told that the Secretary of State was warned two months ago of the risk of a riot at Birmingham. Was she, and if so what action if any was taken to forestall trouble? For that matter what is the Government’s response to the charge of Nick Hardwick, the former Chief Inspector of Prisons and now chair of the Parole Board, that:

“Successive ministers cannot say they weren’t warned about this”,

adding that he had been sounding warnings for several years?

Birmingham, a once renowned establishment, has been made a dangerous laughing-stock by the vacuous ineptitude of G4S, fully illustrated by the removal of a third of the prison population back to a state-controlled establishment away from the indiscipline and naive ideology of G4S and its hopelessly over-promoted and inexperienced management structures. These are not my words, but those of Michael Kelly, a retired senior manager who worked at Birmingham for nearly 30 years.

Last week I commended the Secretary of State for her presentation of a White Paper on prison reform, but voiced regret over her stubborn failure to acknowledge that at the heart of the problem lies the fact that we have far too many people in prison and too many of those are jailed for too long. We need to reduce our prison numbers—the fourth highest, in proportion of population, in Europe. This should include reviewing the length of sentences.

Several Members, across the House, have tried to pursue this issue. My noble friend Lady Smith, for example, tabled two Written Questions on 22 November, respectively on drug use and violence, and on the ratio of staff to prisoners. She should have had an answer by 7 December. She has not. There are seven other MoJ Questions beyond their reply date. Nor can the adequacy of any reply be taken for granted. I asked about the number of prisoners on remand and how many of them ultimately did not receive custodial sentences, only to be told that the information was not available and would be too expensive to collect. There remains, of course, the oft-challenged failure of the Government to deal with the vexed question of IPP prisoners held long after the tariff for their sentence has been exceeded. Both these groups contribute to the overcrowding which places such enormous pressure on prisoners.

There is widespread scepticism about the Government’s plan to recruit extra staff. Some 2,500 are promised, but this would still leave the workforce down 4,500 from what it was just a few years ago. In addition, it is estimated that some 5,000 more will have to be recruited to replace officers retiring or securing jobs outside the service—numbers which may well be enhanced by recent events.

Pay for the men and women willing to work in this challenging environment clearly needs to be reviewed. New starters can expect to earn all of £20,544 and qualified officers £21,166. G4S, I understand, recruits on a weekly basis from the jobcentre. In these circumstances, the Secretary of State’s call for officers to be recruited might be compared to the captain of the “Titanic” telegraphing the ship’s owners for additional crew members after the iceberg has struck.

We need to reduce prison numbers. This means looking at sentencing policy with a view to reducing the length of sentences, and investing in well-run probation services—where there are also signs of growing pressures—and health, especially mental health, services. We need the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Justice to exercise greater oversight of the system, listen to the advice of the Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Parole Board and cease to rely so heavily on providers such G4S, with a reputation as providers of everything and masters of next to nothing.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement I ask him to recognise that, but for the skill, courage and day-to-day resourcefulness of prison officers and governors across the prison system, there would have been even more serious and violent incidents than have occurred. The prison system is holding far more prisoners than it is resourced to manage. As a result, rehabilitation programmes are disrupted or not in place at all. To make matters worse, when there are riots those prisoners who want to do their time peaceably, take the courses and train for a job are prevented from doing so and therefore more likely to reoffend when released.

I put two questions to the noble and learned Lord. First, will he say whether G4S had fallen short of its contracted staff numbers at Birmingham? Then, on the wider question, when will Ministers accept and cease to deny that there are offenders in prisons who could be better dealt with by tough community sentences? Unless we use the expensive resources required for prison places more sensibly, as most other European countries do, and unless we address sentence inflation we will build up even more potential for future violence in prisons. Getting the numbers down is not a quick solution to the immediate crisis, but if Ministers do not begin to deal with it now the problems in our prisons and outcomes on release will just get worse.