Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I want to say a word about the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. He said that, as the Bill changes the common law, it ought to have been referred in the first instance to the Law Commission. I entirely agree that from time to time it has not been at all easy to discover what the government case has been, but their final position is that it does not change the common law in any way; it merely confirms what was already the common law and what was included as Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006. I hope that that answers the noble and learned Lord’s difficulty.

So far as the rest is concerned, I shall say nothing more about the arguments put forward by the noble Lord in answer to the debate. They have already been dealt with very fully. However, I want to say a word about the attitude of the Opposition to the amendment. As I understood it until 2.15 pm this afternoon, the Opposition would be supporting the amendment. That was my clear understanding.

[Lord Beecham]

If the noble and learned Lord understood that, he misunderstood it, and if I have contributed to a misunderstanding, I apologise. It was never the Opposition’s position that we would support the noble and learned Lord. We were considering the position and I tried to contact him unsuccessfully over the weekend. Therefore, we have not resiled from the position that we previously adopted.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am quite happy to accept that there must have been a misunderstanding. However, that was certainly my understanding of the position, just as my understanding of the position at Second Reading was that they would be supporting my amendment. I was wrong about that and I am wrong again. However, that still leaves the question of why on earth the Opposition are not supporting the amendment. After all, on the whole, it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. If they found that they were against something—and I understood them to be against Clauses 2 and 4, just as they are against Clause 3—in the ordinary way they would oppose it.

However, I am wrong about that. The reason given for this seems to me to be entirely incomprehensible. The reason why the Opposition now do not want to oppose Clauses 2 and 4 is that if they did so while opposing Clause 3, that would then have some effect—which I really did not understand—on the attitude of the Lord Chancellor in relation to some other Bill; namely, the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. That is a wholly irrational ground for an Opposition to act on. I would have thought it their duty, if they are against Clauses 2 and 4, to oppose them. They say, however, that, for reasons which I do not understand, they do not intend to take that view officially. I hope that at least some members of the party which is represented by those on the Opposition Front Bench who take that view will think differently.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I tried hard to persuade the Labour Opposition to support this amendment. They attacked all three clauses in the other place. I assumed that they were against the Bill in principle so I thought they would support this amendment: it would have been the logical thing to do. However, I am afraid that the ways of political parties are beyond my understanding. Try as I might, I simply could not persuade them. I was told they would definitely be opposing the amendment. If that is their intention now, it would certainly not be my intention to divide the House. However, as I understand it—and I may be wrong—they have decided at the last moment to abstain. Are they opposing or abstaining?

[Lord Beecham]

Perhaps I might assist the noble and learned Lord. It has been our formal position, in the discussions we have had over the last few days, that we would not support the amendment but we would not vote against it. We will abstain.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

That makes it much more difficult. It puts me in a quandary. I believe there are very many Members on the Labour Benches who want to support this amendment, if they are allowed to do so. I believe there are Members on all sides who want to support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, wants to support this amendment. So what am I to do?

I will say that I wholly disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said in one aspect of his speech, which was that to oppose the Bill on Second Reading would create a fundamental conflict between this House and the other place. Did the Labour Party’s reasoned amendment in the Health and Social Care Bill create a fundamental disagreement between the two Houses? Did the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment in the fraud Bill create a fundamental conflict between the two Houses? Clearly not. Although the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was right in every other respect in regarding the Bill as a wretched Bill which should have no support in this House, I cannot agree with the reason he gave that we should not agree the amendment now.

I come back to where I was. I do not want to disappoint Members who are here to vote for this amendment. I feel on the whole that the points that have been made, very forcefully, against the substance of the Bill have probably been enough for my purpose. My guess is that at the end of Committee, on which we will waste more valuable time, we will find that there is nothing we can do with the Bill—which is what I think they suspected in the other place. That is because essentially this is an unamendable Bill. I do not think that there is quite enough support for actually rejecting the Bill at this stage to justify wasting the time of the House in dividing on the amendment. I respectfully beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Monday 22nd October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I strongly support the thinking which lies behind the amendment, for all the reasons so eloquently given by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and for all the reasons which she gave late at night last week at the very end of the Report stage. I regret that I was unable to be present on that occasion.

My only concern now is that the single word that she has chosen to bring about her purpose may not be the very best one. There may, after all, be all sorts of reasons for a person failing to comply with a requirement, good as well as bad, and there may be good reasons even when a person knows that he is failing to comply with the requirement. What is needed is a word which distinguishes between the good and the bad reasons. The ordinary words which are always used to do that, which I think is the objective that the noble Baroness has in mind, would not be “knowingly” failing but failing “without reasonable excuse”. It so happens that those are the very words which are used in paragraph 1(2)(b) of Schedule 3 to the 1992 Act, which is the Act that we are amending and which there imposes a civil penalty of £50. Those words, “without reasonable excuse”, which we already find in the Act, are all the more relevant and important now that we are turning the civil remedies into criminal offences.

I am of course aware that this is Third Reading and that a manuscript amendment is not permitted, but if the Minister is attracted by the thinking behind the amendment, as I certainly hope that she and other Members of the House are, perhaps she will bear these words in mind when she gives the matter further thought.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in endorsing the thrust of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and I respectfully adopt his formulation, which I think meets the drafting point. In any event, I have an inherent aversion to the creation of absolute offences, which is what new Section 14B does. It is not appropriate to criminalise behaviour which could be dealt with in the way of a civil liability, particularly when there is not a necessary element of dishonesty. I hope that, when the legislation goes back to the House of Commons, the Minister will look sympathetically with her colleagues in government at whether the provision could be improved.

However, in addition to the matters which the noble Baroness’s amendments address, I am concerned about some further provisions in the proposed new section. New Section 14B(4) states that regulations under subsections which refer to false statements and the like—that is, subsection (1)(d), (e) and (f),

“that create an offence that may only be committed by a person acting dishonestly … must provide for the offence to be triable summarily or on indictment”.

I have no objection to that, but new subsection (6) states that regulations under those provisions which,

“create an offence that may be committed by a person acting otherwise than dishonestly”,

would incur a lesser sentence. So there is still a provision within the new provision to allow for somebody not acting dishonestly to be brought before the criminal courts under the provisions of new subsection (1)(d), (e) and(f). That is another example of stretching the creation of an absolute offence.

It is clear that people who deliberately fail should be dealt with but, in my view, not necessarily by the criminal courts. It is equally clear that those who may fail inadvertently or for the reasons advanced by the noble Baroness should not be treated as criminals, although there may be and perhaps should still be a procedure for them to suffer some penalty as an inducement to provide information. That point may be more debatable. I join with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord in thinking that those provisions go too far to criminalise behaviour—particularly, as the noble Baroness said, as that may well affect vulnerable people, for whom a criminal sanction is simply inappropriate.

Without the Minister committing herself today, I hope that she will at least agree to discuss this further with colleagues to see whether a less draconian process could be used.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, the real scandal is that IPP sentences have gone on for so long. The previous Government had the chance to do something about them in 2008, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has indicated, when it was already obvious that IPP sentencing was going badly wrong. I remember tabling an amendment at that time to raise the bar and therefore reduce the number of those eligible for IPP sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, was sympathetic but met me only half-way. The Conservatives, I am sorry to say, opposed the amendment. As a result, we have the situation in which we now find ourselves. I entirely share the indignation so well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I add only that in my view something must be done, and done soon.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, it is quite clear that more people are serving longer sentences under the system introduced by the previous Government than was anticipated. It is also clear that insufficient resources were devoted to meeting the requirement that people should undergo training and courses, on programmes to be provided within the custodial setting, as a condition of release. As the Prison Reform Trust has pointed out, the situation is even worse for prisoners who are mentally ill or suffer from a learning disability. There is certainly a very real problem with how prisoners are to be assisted in demonstrating their fitness to be released. That undermines what would potentially have been a valuable way of protecting the public. It undoubtedly caused the system to fall into disrepute. The fifth report of the Justice Select Committee of the House of Commons made a number of perfectly valid criticisms of those matters.

Not the least irony of the situation is that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. He pointed out that the cost of keeping substantial numbers of people in prison is excessive in relation to the cost that would arise from investing in the necessary programmes to assist people to make their case and earn their release. I am bound to say that that position is likely to recur in conjunction with the Government’s proposals for extended sentences.

I do not dissent from the critique of indeterminate sentences, although I remain far from convinced that extended sentences necessarily resolve the problem. In that context, will the Minister indicate in replying what additional resources are planned for rehabilitation and the like under the new system? How will people who remain under the old system be dealt with? As has rightly been pointed out, a substantial number are still in that position.

I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the Answer given by the Minister in the House of Commons to a Question from Andy Slaughter MP about the number of people who were likely to be retained in prison as a result of the extended sentence programme. That was a very illuminating document. It showed that around 550 people a year would be sentenced and treated in that way, so that over 10 years 5,500 people could be in the same position as those who were sentenced under the previous regime. That is a formidable figure and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, implied in respect of the existing system, a very costly one. I am not aware of any impact assessment or analysis of the cost of that new proposal. I do not know whether the Minister can direct me to any such analysis. In any event, the figures suggest a very significant cost.

Having said that, I have difficulties with various amendments that are being proposed. In particular, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, it is asking too much, even if the system were to receive an injection of money, for courses and the like to be laid on in such numbers and in so short a time as to meet the targets that some of the amendments suggest. Therefore, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to require that within 30 days of the Act coming into force prisoners must have,

“access to relevant rehabilitation programmes”,

or be released simply does not seem realistic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am grateful to the noble Lord who is pointing out all sorts of difficulties. I am bound to say that I would be happier if he could at least feel the same sort of indignation that some of us feel at what has already gone wrong, and support the need to do something about it now. That is for the Government to do.

[Lord Beecham]

I share that view. I had hoped that I had made it clear that I think the previous Government did not invest anything like sufficient resources to fulfil their intentions. The intentions were reasonable but the means to fulfil them were not provided. That has to be acknowledged. However, I am afraid that the present Government are, to an extent, following the same course, if they do not look to avoid repeating the experience of under-resourcing a system that on their own figures is likely to lead to substantial numbers of people being held for a very long period—longer than is necessary for their good or society’s good—although there will always be some people who will have to be held for a long period.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, there is certainly a unanimity of view in the debate thus far that the present system is not satisfactory. It should perhaps be pointed out that there have been very few instances of compassionate release, including three cases arising out of the Good Friday agreement and the case of the East End criminal, Reggie Kray, but that is a little beside the point.

My problem, such as it is, with the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, is more in the rubric than in the intention. It is clear that there will always be some cases in which release will not and should not occur. I suspect that there will be few, but there will be some. The public need to be persuaded that the people who are not reformed and who might well continue to constitute a danger will not be released. There will always be a small number of those.

The amendment refers to the,

“Duty to release certain prisoners serving a whole life sentence”.

I can see whence that comes—that is the end of the process, as it were, which would be acceptable—but as it stands, the wording seems to imply an implicit or explicit duty to release prisoners serving a whole life sentence instead of posing the duty to consider the release. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, that would have been a better way to phrase the amendment and would give the public more assurance than what appears on the face of it—and I appreciate that it is only on the face of it—to be an absolute duty to release certain prisoners serving a whole life sentence.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

That ignores the function of the Parole Board, which has the discretion, not the Minister.

[Lord Beecham]

That is precisely my point. The amendment rightly envisages a duty to refer to the Parole Board, but on the face of it it looks as though there is a duty of release ab initio. That is not the noble and learned Lord’s intention—and I say this with great respect, because of course he is a very eminent and learned judge—but it might have assisted his case if it had been put in that way. That point in a sense echoes the point made by my noble friend Lord Borrie.

It is sensible to restore a situation in which a release after 30 years can be contemplated and, after due process, properly agreed. If the Parole Board adjudges that it is safe to release someone, that should be the Secretary of State’s duty at that point. In fact, relatively few people are serving these sentences—I think there are 40 prisoners, and that 20 have been sentenced in that way in the last 10 or 12 years as a result of their trial and the conditional decision at the time—so I think there is a way forward on this, with a slight modification of the way in which the amendment is phrased, and I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on it while clearly bearing in mind that there will be some prisoners for whom, in the end, there will be no hope of release. One hopes that there will not be many in that category, but there will be some, and that ought to be recognised from the outset.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Of course I am; that is my purpose. I am putting it in the way it should be put. To my mind, whatever group the individual may be in, it remains his individual right. That is not a private right as described in the Standing Orders.

[Lord Beecham]

Will the noble and learned Lord turn to the question of locality? What does “locality” mean if not what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and my noble friend Lord Harris referred to?

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am still on the question of whether the right to elect is a private right. That is the question. Unless it is, these so-called private rights are not private rights within the meaning of the Standing Orders.