Prison Officer Pension Age

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the cost to public funds of bringing prison officer pension age into line with that of firefighters, the police and armed services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government currently have no plans to change the pensionable age of prison officers, which is set under the Civil Service-wide pension scheme. Any estimate of the cost of doing so would require complex actuarial calculations to determine the higher contributions that would need to be met by the employer and by current and future members.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for that reply. Is it correct that Treasury Ministers are responsible for setting the pension age and not MoJ Ministers? Is it also correct that for a newly recruited prison officer, the pension age is 68 years old? Is this policy not really one of “lock until you drop”?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, on the first question, the Treasury has overall responsibility for setting pension arrangements for the Civil Service; that is not an MoJ responsibility, and my noble friend correctly makes that point. As for “lock until you drop”, can we please distinguish between the age at which you get a full pension and the age at which you can retire, which is something quite different? A prison officer does not have to work to the age of 68 to qualify for any pension; he can retire earlier on a smaller pension and then, unlike most situations in the armed services, he can return to work—in a less front-line role, typically. He will continue to work and earn a pension, as well as the other pension he has already accrued. It is not at all clear that prison officers under the present scheme are worse off than they would be if they were in the armed services, especially given the higher contributions the latter have to make.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, prison officers are, unfortunately, banned from taking industrial action and the Government are, in my opinion, exploiting this unjustifiable restriction. Lifting the pension age to 68 is a classic example of this, and looking after violent, overcrowded and understaffed prisons is not a job for older workers. Does the Minister agree that this policy, which is “lock until you drop”, is reckless, dangerous and plain wrong?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Government are unable to agree with the somewhat colourful language used by the noble Lord. The Government have the highest regard for our prison officers, who stand on the front line in prisons and are some of our finest public servants.

However, it is as well to remember that the pension contributions paid by prison officers are much lower than those paid by other uniformed services—between 4% and 6% for prison officers, as against 12% to 15% for other services. These days, if you are a young person in your 20s or early 30s entering the prison service, you are not necessarily thinking about what you are going to get when you are 68. You may be more than satisfied with a lower pension contribution now.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, undoubtedly, people want prisons, but they should not forget about the people who have to run them. It is a very dangerous profession. There was a settlement in 2016 which, unfortunately, because it was wrapped up in other settlements, was rejected by the prison officers. Last year, it was indicated that the Secretary of State would hold talks about talks with the Prison Officers’ Association, but there does not seem to have been much movement towards negotiations since then. Does the Minister agree that this section of the benefit—mainly pensions, including, if necessary, increased contributions—should be revived in the interests of these most hard-working servants of the state?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that it was a great pity that the arrangements negotiated in 2016 were rejected by the Prison Officers’ Association in 2017. Since then, Ministers have done their best to reopen the matter. As my noble friend Lord Attlee said in opening, it is a matter ultimately for the Treasury. The Treasury is currently besieged by many calls on its resources, including in the pensions sphere, with very large sums of public money being taken up by the McCloud Remedy, which I can explain to noble Lords in more detail—if your Lordships would remain awake. The overall position is that, of course, this matter should continue to be pursued.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, in this House, 68 may seem only early to mid-career, but the general public will be worried at the thought of prison officers of that age carrying on in a very difficult and dangerous job. As part of a broader programme of prison reform, should the Government and the service not be thinking of allowing an earlier retirement age and using the experience gained in other parts of the prison and probation service in the proper through-treatment of prisoners?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I take the point the noble Lord is making. When I had the honour to join this House, I was told that life begins at 70, which has a certain amount of truth in it these days. What the noble Lord suggests is very close to what is currently happening. A typical position is for an older officer to step back from front-line duties, be re-employed by the Prison Service and continue to earn a pensionable salary, as well as having his earlier pension. I am not completely convinced that that is not a perfectly sensible solution to the problem.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Does the noble and learned Lord not agree that our job is not like the job of prison officer? We do not face the same danger as they do on a daily basis. He described prison officers as the finest public servants, and of course, we agree, but does he not think that the Government’s policy is short-sighted? One of the criticisms that the Prison Officers’ Association continually expresses to us is the lack of retention of experienced prison officers. Retention is the key to maintaining prison officer morale. Will the Government look at this policy again?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government will certainly continue to look at this policy. As the noble Lord says, the job of a prison officer is absolutely not like our job. On retention and short-sightedness, the Government currently have no evidence that the pension arrangements as such are affecting initial recruitment or are a factor in retention. There are many factors that affect retention, but pensions do not seem to be very significant in that package. The fact that lower contributions are paid is very attractive to a young man, who does not necessarily worry about what will happen when he is 68.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, this situation goes back to the report of my noble friend Lord Hutton back in the early years of the last decade, in which he specifically mentioned that police officers should have a lower retirement age. The issue the noble and learned Lord needs to address is that, surely, the comparable profession for prison officers is police officers. The differential in respect of police officers, who fully merit their early retirement, applies equally to prison officers. Mentioning pension arrangements for the Armed Forces in the same breath illustrates the hole that the Minister is digging for himself.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, my understanding is that the 2011 Hutton report to which the noble Lord refers made a distinction between certain uniformed services—the Armed Forces themselves, the fire service and the police—and everybody else. Part of the problem we are discussing has occurred because the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, put prison officers in the latter category, so they were brought into the general Civil Service pension scheme that came in in 2015, which, in fact, is quite a good scheme. For the reasons I have already given, the Government do not accept that prison officers are as badly off as is sometimes claimed. On the other hand, the Government are perfectly prepared to continue to consider and reflect on the points that have been made.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very struck by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about light at the end of the tunnel. That is what this suite of amendments is about for a cohort of young people who, at the moment, will not be seeing a light at the end of that tunnel. I thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for speaking with such clarity about what these amendments are about, and other noble Lords who have described what this must feel like for a young person and pointed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, did, to some of the remedies that these three amendments offer to the Minister and the Government. I hope that they take them up and carry them through.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, I again thank noble Lords for all the points made on this part of the Bill. I shall take it first in the general and then the particular. In the general, these amendments quite rightly put on the radar, the horizon and public consciousness the importance of dealing with prisoners who received their sentence when they were still under the age of 18. This is already a very important function that these amendments have performed. As for the question of the light at the end of the tunnel, I share the thoughts of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, were very pertinent as to what it feels like to be incarcerated in the dramatic circumstances that he related.

It is the Government’s view that these prisoners, among others, need to have light at the end of the tunnel. This is the whole purpose and thrust of the Government’s approach. In practical terms, as I understand it we have 32 prisoners in this position who have not been released, another 48 who have been recalled, and a hundred or so out in the community. These figures may not be exactly right; they are not quite the same as those given by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, although they are approximately the same. For the recalled cohort and for those in the community, the reduction in the licence period from 10 years to three will be significant and very much benefit those serving this DPP sentence. Against this background, the Government are not quite persuaded that these amendments would achieve our joint objective of providing this light at the end of the tunnel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he comment on the point I was making about the aim of having these reviews written into the statute? Subsection (2) in the new clause set out in Amendment 162 says that they are taking place

“with a view to ensuring that all possible steps are taken to enable their safe release at the earliest possible time”.

That flags up, at the outset, exactly what these reviews are dealing with. I do not know whether it is already in the action plan that the Minister has been referring to, but is there some way of getting that purpose clearly identified, and of course communicating that purpose to the DPP prisoners themselves who are subject to the system, so that they know that that is the purpose for which these reviews are being conducted?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for that point. It is certainly something I will take away when we come to consider the Government’s position.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I apologise, because I know my noble and learned friend wants to complete his speech, but I ask this question simply because I failed to hear. The action plan has been spoken of a lot during the course of this evening. Is that an existing document, and is it published?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Yes, and yes.

On the basis that I accept, on behalf of the Government, the importance of this topic, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords in the Committee. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, not least for giving us an opportunity to thank, once more, the Prison Reform Trust, and I would add the Howard League for Penal Reform and UNGRIPP, in particular, who are the family members of these desperate people in many cases. I thank her for pointing out this issue of the window of opportunity for rehabilitation and seeing another possible way of life.

Hope springs eternal, and therefore we are particularly lucky to have “hope” in the form of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who is so active in this Committee. Every point he made was quite hard, if I may say so, to resist. But my man of the match, I am afraid, was, none the less the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, because I feel that one of the reasons that we have not had a serious penal reform campaign in this country, possibly since the Victorian period, is because we have lost empathy for the prisoner. We have locked them away—out of sight, out of mind. They do not vote, et cetera: all these things that will set the alarm bells ringing at the Daily Mail, if anybody is up there. We have lost empathy for these people. They are not human anymore; they are prisoners; but in this group of amendments at least, we are talking about people who were children when they were given this sentence, and the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, had sufficient empathy to compare “criminals” with his late father’s friend and a war hero is the kind of empathy that I rarely hear about any demonised group in our society, whether it is convicted people, refugees and asylum seekers or anyone else who is, for the moment, in a demonised category. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said.

I am grateful, of course, to my noble friend Lady Thornton for the support of the Labour Front Bench. She of course was an Equality Minister in the not-too-distant past, and I hope that she will be one in the not-too-distant future, shortly, or in due course, or whatever these other phrases are that are occasionally—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I do not wish her noble friend to place overreliance on the word “quite” in terms of statutory amendments. Statutory amendments are rather different from a proper approach in the action plan and putting that on a statutory basis.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful, but my hope is not dashed, not least because my noble friend is a force of nature, as he has demonstrated throughout his career with the integrity that others have referred to in the way that he has conducted himself over this particular issue in recent times. I need to put on the record for the Committee that he feels particularly strongly about the injustice faced by this cohort. I repeat: every argument we have aired earlier this evening becomes turbocharged in relation to these people, who were children when they were placed under this sentence. But for the moment, at least, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for the force and sincerity with which she put forward her views, as indeed have other noble Lords who have supported Amendment 167, which would go down the road of the resentencing exercise that we have been discussing.

In setting out the Government’s position, I find it hard to improve on the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, just made. This is a situation where we are dealing with the potential release of IPP offenders, who have committed mostly very serious sexual or violent offences. One would be overriding the decisions that the Parole Board has already taken, in most cases on multiple occasions, and would be putting the judge in the most difficult position.

Indeed, it is not a resentencing exercise in any normal sense of the word because, in most cases, the tariff has already expired. It is essentially a question of trying to do something different, dressed up as a resentencing exercise, to release persons who have already been held, on many occasions, to be unsafe to release. It is very difficult for the Government to go down that road. Again, there is a real risk, if one does go on that road, of wrongly raising the hopes of those who have put their faith in what is, in the Government’s view, not an appropriate way forward.

I want to add just one or two points. First, as the Committee is aware, I have on previous occasions—and I will do so on future occasions—emphasised the pressures we have at the moment on the prison population. The Government would be only too pleased to create further space in the prison population, or to relieve those pressures by releasing certain prisoners, but we have to consider the interests of public protection. It is not a question of being frightened of the media or of cowering in fear of the Daily Mail; it is a question of the protection of the public.

Any responsible Government would have to think very hard before a process that would allow the release, or that was envisaged to achieve the release—perhaps even unlicensed, without supervision—of large numbers of people in this position. I fully accept that the situation is regrettable. I accept the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that it is very regrettable that the whole thing arose in the first place. Terrible things may well have been happening back in 2005, but we are where we are. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord wants to intervene.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I have made my point; I will not reprise it again. The fallacy in both the Minister’s arguments is that he says they are dangerous, but actually the state has helped make them dangerous, if they are dangerous, by acting in the way in which it has. Normally, someone who has made a mistake accepts it and bears the consequences. I am not going to say any more because I will not persuade the Minister otherwise.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, from the point of view of the Government, I am not in a position to accept the premise advanced by the noble and learned Lord. I hear what he says. I do not accept, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, implied at one stage, that there is anything wrong with the Parole Board processes. I think I heard the word “dodgy” at one point, but I may have misheard. The Parole Board is a body that the Government have complete confidence in in this respect. This exercise should remain with the Parole Board.

I will say again: can we please distinguish between the problem of the released cohort and the problem of the never released cohort? We seem to drift from one to the other a lot of the time. Cases such as those of Matthew Price and, I think, the case of David Parker, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, are cases where people have been recalled after having been in the community for many years. That will no longer happen. The question of the recall is very largely dealt with, or very substantially improved, by the Government’s amendments in this Bill. What we are dealing with primarily is the never—not yet—released cohort.

I say again, in the light of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s remarks about the expected possible reaction of those who are still in prison and how to be particularly vigilant in supporting IPP prisoners in the light of these debates and related points, that the action plan is intended to give people hope. It is focused on their future to prepare them progressively with a sentence plan, the psychology services support, and a multidisciplinary progression panel towards eventual release. I think he would accept, even now, that the action plan has made a difference already; I see him nodding. We will take that forward and, as I say, it may well be the case the Government will be in a position to propose to your Lordships that the idea of an action plan should have a statutory basis, that the broad terms of its content should be set out and that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament so that—whatever Government comes into power—we can continue on the process that we have already started. The resentencing exercise is not, in the Government’s view, the way to go.

On that basis, the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Attlee would not arise because we are not going down that road. I do not think I need to say anything further about them, save to remark that what is being proposed would impose a very significant burden on our existing probation services. For that reason as well, one would have to reflect very seriously before going down that route. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment on this point.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, my amendment was a very fine amendment, but my noble and learned friend the Minister has addressed it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, and we will hear what the noble Baroness has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with all the speakers so far. My concern is that Clauses 49 to 51 may be another way for the former Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab, to dilute the human rights framework through the back door.

Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires courts to interpret legislation compatibly with rights under the convention on human rights as far as is possible. The clauses would disapply Section 3 to prisoners as a group when it comes to legislation about their release. Several groups have rightly raised concerns about that.

I, too, cite the Prison Reform Trust, which said:

“The introduction of specific carve-outs from human rights for people given custodial sentences contradicts one of the fundamental principles underlying human rights—their universality and application to each and every person on the simple basis of their being human. Moreover, it is precisely in custodial institutions like prisons that human rights protections are most vital, because individuals are under the control of the state”.


In written evidence to the JSC, the Bar Council stated:

“There is no evidence of any systemic impairment due to the HRA of the Parole Board’s ability to make high-quality, safe, decisions about prisoners—no statistical analysis of recidivism/public safety concerns from prisoners released due to interpretation of legislation in line with Convention principles”.


In his speech at Second Reading in the other place, the chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Bob Neill, said:

“Whatever one’s view of the Human Rights Act, there is no evidence that this is a problem in such cases. In fact, the evidence we heard from practitioners, from both sides, is that it can be helpful to have to have regard to section 3 in these hearings. These clauses seem to be trying to solve a problem that does not exist, and I wonder whether we really need them. It is perfectly possible to have a robust system that still complies with section 3. This is a needless distraction that sends the wrong signal about a certain desire to pick unnecessary fights, which I know is not the current Secretary of State’s approach”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/23; col. 604.]


I really could not have put it any better, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, as your Lordships know, this group is a stand part challenge to Clauses 49 to 52 of the Bill, which, in essence, disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act to prisoner release legislation. The issue before us is, as much as anything, to do with the constitutional balance between Parliament and the courts. It is not about disapplying the Human Rights Act; it is about who does what. What do the courts do and what does Parliament do? That is the issue.

The provisions with which we are concerned include the new release test for releasing prisoners on licence—namely, the public protection test set out in Clauses 41 and 42, which make it abundantly clear that the protection of the public is the overriding factor. The Human Rights Act is also disapplied in relation to the referral mechanism, referring the most serious release decisions by the Parole Board to a court—currently the Upper Tribunal—and to other prison release decisions. As far as I am aware, no amendment has been tabled in this House objecting to the principle of the new public protection test, nor to the proposed referral mechanism—though there is an argument about which court it should go to—nor to the principle of our IPP reforms, except that it is argued that we should go further. Parliament has plainly indicated what it is trying to achieve.

Against this background, where exactly does Section 3 of the Human Rights Act fit in? Lest any misunderstanding persist—which it seems to do—my first point is that nothing in these clauses removes or limits any convention rights enjoyed by any prisoners, or anyone else for that matter, by virtue of Section 1 of the Human Rights Act or under the convention. A breach of human rights may still be pleaded before any domestic court or in Strasbourg in the usual way, whether it be the right to liberty, family life or any other right protected by the convention. Clauses 49 to 51 do not alter or detract from those rights in any way.

Even if—which I do not for one moment believe—anything in the legislation from which Section 3 has been disapplied were held by a higher court to be incompatible with the convention rights, in such a hypothetical case it would be for the court to make a declaration of incompatibility. Then, in accordance with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, it would be for Parliament to decide what to do—whether to amend the legislation and, if so, in what way. In other words, it is the job of Parliament to make challenged legislation compatible with the convention. It is Parliament’s legislation; it is for Parliament to fix it, and it is the constitutional responsibility of everyone in either House to find a legislative solution.

The problem with Section 3 is that it gives finding the legislative solution to somebody else altogether—namely the court. This is Parliament’s legislation and not the courts’. That was why I said at Second Reading that Section 3 of the HRA is, in essence, a procedural and interpretive provision that requires legislation to be given effect to in a way which is compatible with convention rights. Those words “given effect” have led, in certain circumstances, to the court reading in or reading down words into the legislation that Parliament has passed. In other words, the court is empowered under Section 3 to add to or subtract from what Parliament originally intended. This has been a difficult section to apply. It has required courts to depart from Parliament’s intention and, if I may say so, to stray into the legislative realm.

These amendments directly raise the proper balance between the courts and Parliament when it comes to legislative matters. That issue was highlighted in the 2021 Independent Human Rights Act Review. It was discussed over 80 pages, toing and froing on all sorts of points and suggesting numerous recommendations and amendments, with the majority of the panel finally recommending a series of reforms to Sections 2 and 3.

On the Government’s position that Section 3 is a most unusual power in this respect, I can do no better than refer your Lordships to the trenchant criticism of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act on constitutional grounds by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, King’s Counsel, present in this Chamber, in his evidence to that 2021 review. His basic point was that it is not the function of the courts to legislate; it is the function of Parliament. Against that background, in the present context, the Government’s position is that, on an issue of importance, such as public protection and prisoner release, it is for Parliament to determine what the test should be.

In the unlikely event of any of those provisions being disapplied, and a declaration being made under Section 4, again, it is for this House and the other place to put it right and not to delegate, abdicate or push away that responsibility on to the courts. That is the Government’s position and it is essentially a question of the constitutional balance between what we do and what somebody else does—in other words, the courts. That is essentially the background to these amendments.

Clause 52 sets out the approach a court should take if there is a challenge on human rights grounds regarding the release of a prisoner. I do not accept the characterisation by the noble Lord, Lord German, that the wording of Clause 52 is effectively saying that public protection is an exclusive requirement; it simply says that that is a requirement to which weight should be given. No doubt, the courts are perfectly capable of arriving at a sensible interpretation of the provision, but the Government’s view is that the importance of public protection is a matter that Parliament can rightly draw to the court’s attention as something to which weight should be given. I will just add that that requirement does not apply to the so-called non-derogable rights under the convention, which are: Article 2, the right to life; Article 3, the prohibition of torture; Article 4, the prohibition of slavery, and Article 7, no punishment without law.

The courts already consider risk to the public. The Bill simply ensures that weight is properly given to that consideration. The essential point is that on these matters, in this context, it is not for someone else to be reading in or reading down what your Lordships decide; it is for your Lordships and for Members of the other House to put matters right.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, having heard that explanation, on the first part I suspect that this will have to come back when we have an array of former judges of all sorts in this House to test the position the Government have placed on this matter. To a lay person, it seems to be on a trail of chipping away Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, in particular. Therefore, I think this can wait for another day to have that legal learning that I think we will all need to take it on board.

In respect of the Minister’s second point, about weight, it would not be so bad if it were simply “weight”; it would not be quite so bad if it were “great weight”; but it is “the greatest possible weight” and the greatest possible weight to me means virtually everything you can possibly put into it. I will take a simple Welsh analogy. You have a scrum. You put the weight of everybody into it with the objective of pushing the other side off the ball so that you can take it yourselves. That is where you would apply “the greatest possible weight”. There might be a bit of pulling of hair and ears, and whatever else goes on inside a scrum—but I am not going to talk about that any more.

If you think about it, though, the words “the greatest possible weight” are pretty conclusive that what you must do is virtually everything that is in sight. So, I take on board the Minister’s view that the word “weight” is important, but I do not take on board the words “the greatest possible weight”. However, on the basis of the future legal discussion we are likely to have in this House, I beg leave to withdraw my objection to Clause 49 standing part.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will first briefly recap some basic points that apply equally to the second and fourth groups of amendments that we will come to.

First, this Government recognise the highly regrettable history of this particular sentence. The Lord Chancellor himself has described IPP sentences as

“a stain on our justice system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/23; col. 592.]

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, rightly said, the question is what should be done. I will briefly summarise, to encapsulate our debate, what the Government think should be done.

The Government are making some very determined efforts to mitigate the situation of IPP offenders who are still subject to a sentence that was abolished in 2012. To bring noble Lords up to date, there were originally approximately 8,100 people subject to these sentences. Of those people, as of last December 1,227 had never been released, 1,625 had been released and later recalled, and there were still about 3,000 on licence in the community. Currently, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, an offender cannot apply to the Parole Board to have their licence terminated until 10 years after first release.

Taking the released and then recalled population first, this is a challenge because that population is slowly rising. The major statutory change in Clause 48 will reduce the qualifying period before the offender becomes eligible for licence termination from 10 years to three years from first release, with a presumption of termination after three years and an automatic termination two years thereafter—provided that the offender can pass two years in the community without further recall. That is, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, a huge change and a major achievement for the Government to be proposing. It should substantially mitigate the problem of prisoners being released and then recalled, which we will come to in more detail as this debate continues.

Regarding the second cohort—perhaps the first, depending on your point of view—of those who have never been released, most of these people have come up before the Parole Board, which is responsible for deciding on their release. In many cases, this has happened many times and the Parole Board has decided that it is not safe to release them as the risk to the public is too great. What is the Government’s approach to that problem? Spurred on by the 2022 report of the JSC, to which I pay tribute, the Government are developing a robust, coherent and detailed action plan in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including the families, with the aim that each prisoner has a tailored sentence plan, appropriate support and clear objectives to work towards eventual release.

This last cohort is difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has just pointed out because, aside from having committed very serious offences, many suffer from trauma, mental health issues, substance issues and so on. However, the Government are determined to see this cohort further reduced and to get rid of the idea that there is no hope. In the Government’s view, no one has given up on the IPP prisoners who have never been released. They have to be worked on. That is a hard task, but one that the Government—any Government—should take on.

For example, the number of those released has been reducing over the last two years at roughly 200 per year. There are now 200 of these prisoners in open conditions who are being prepared for further release. It is not as if nothing is going on or as if things are just vegetating and no one cares. The Government are very focused on doing something about this most difficult cohort. That is the overall framework, which I hope your Lordships will view, despite the difficulties of the past, as something of a new beginning for the future.

With that background, I turn to Amendments 149 to 151 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. The effect of these would be that, if the Parole Board refused to terminate the licence at the new three-year point, the offender would have the right to apply annually to the Parole Board for a licence determination. As the Government understand it, the offender would be in the community rather than waiting out the two-year period, which results in the automatic termination of the licence. The offender would be able to apply to the Parole Board for termination after one year.

The Government recognise that released offenders in many cases need better support and have accepted all the recommendations to that effect in the recent report of the Chief Inspector of Probation on the recalls of IPP prisoners. However, the Government are not at present persuaded of the need for Amendments 149 to 151, on the following basis. If the offender has applied and the Parole Board, after three years, does not terminate the licence at that point, it does not seem to the Government unreasonable to expect the offender to spend two years in the community with the incentive of the certainty of licence termination at the end of that period. This amendment would enable the offender to make an interim application at the end of year four. That would impose further resource costs on the Probation Service and Parole Board because reports have to be prepared, hearings have to be convened and so forth. It would necessarily take the Parole Board several months to process that application.

We have come back several times in this debate to the pressures on the Parole Board and the time these applications take. It appears to the Government that, even if you could apply after year four rather than waiting until the end of year five, there is probably only a marginal gain for the offender. The Government are not at the moment persuaded on these amendments, although the Government continue to be in listening mode on this part of the Bill, as on every other part of the Bill.

Amendments 152 and 153, also moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, address what one could call in shorthand “questionable recalls”. I think there are two sorts of recall that we should be thinking about. The amendments suggest the possibility of the Parole Board disregarding a recall for the purpose of calculating the two-year period. Perhaps I may first clarify what is considered to be the existing position. If a recall is based on a fundamental mistake of fact—for example, the probation officer thinks that the offender has missed an appointment but the offender is in hospital because of a road accident the previous day—the Lord Chancellor considers that he already has the power in such a clear case to treat the recall as a nullity, as never having happened. That is a relatively clear case and I respectfully suggest that Amendment 152 is unnecessary.

The situation envisaged by Amendment 153 is effectively a challenge to the judgment call made by the probation officer about the recall. Technically it is a decision by the Secretary of State, but in practice of course it depends on the report by the probation officer. Amendment 153 would require the validity of that recall—the “appropriateness” of that recall, to use the word in the amendment—to be considered by the Parole Board and treated as a nullity if the board then considers that the recall decision was not appropriate. Although the Government understand the thinking behind the amendment, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation found, in both 2020 and much more recently in 2023, that in practice HMPPS recall decisions are very largely appropriate.

At present, the Parole Board does not have any power to adjudicate on the appropriateness of the recall; its task is to decide on the issue of public protection and whether the offender is safe to release. For that purpose, the Parole Board will typically have much wider and more detailed information than was available to the individual probation officer faced with the recall decision. Amendment 153 would, however, turn the Parole Board process into an appeal from the recall decision and require the Parole Board, in effect, to second-guess what it would have done had it been the probation officer with the information then available to the probation officer.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I should like to better understand this part of the argument. When the noble and learned Lord said he is satisfied that in most cases recall is appropriate, did he mean recall in general or recall in IPP cases in particular? Secondly, when he was discussing the difference between decisions on executive recall on the one hand and dangerousness and public protection on the other, did he not think that there was a relationship between the two? When one is considering dangerousness, one might have a rather different view of what is required in relation to public protection if one or more recalls were inappropriate because they were for non-criminal, minor conduct that at no point presented a danger to the public?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. As to whether I was speaking of IPP specifically, I cannot off the top of my head recall whether the 2020 work was specifically in relation to IPP, but certainly the 2023 work, which is the most recent and the most valuable and which I highly recommend everyone to read, was specifically in relation to IPP when the Government were considering what to do following the JSC report when concern was expressed that recalls might be being made inappropriately. That inspector’s report took a sample of recalls, studied them very carefully; it was thought that a small number were questionable but that the vast majority were appropriate on the basis of the information that the probation officer had at the time.

Up to a point, the circumstances of the recall are part of a general picture of the dangerousness of the offender—I accept that. But the real point is that, when the Parole Board comes to consider public protection, it will have much more information, very often much more up-to-date and fuller, than the information that was before the probation officer at the time, who might well have to take a decision in an emergency on very limited information, but because of the risk, as they see it, to public protection. So it is very difficult, in the Government’s view, to give the Parole Board power to go all the way back and say, “This was inappropriate”. However, having said that, I would like to come back to the question of recall when we get to Amendments 154 and 168, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It is a question of executive re-release on recall, which might be another way of approaching that problem. So that is the Government’s position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister telling us that it is inconceivable that the Government would want to increase the licence period?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I do not know that one would use the word “inconceivable”. The Government do not see any prospect of that happening at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this too has been a wide-ranging debate and more wide-ranging than that on the first group. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken because there are a number of amendments in this group, all of which push in the right direction. They are helping the Government to do what they say that they want to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, moved Amendment 154, which is consequential on Amendment 168. That addresses what he called a lacuna and creates a power that mirrors the powers that the Secretary of State has to release prisoners serving a fixed-term licence. This is a very practical way of proceeding, and we support his amendment. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, in her characteristic way, asked why, if the Executive have the authority to recall, they cannot be given the authority to release—a very succinct way of summing up the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in his Amendment 161, is effectively reversing the burden of proof for IPP prisoners. He described it as a nudge to the Parole Board and discussed how significant that nudge would be, but it is a welcome nudge, none the less. It has the historic credentials of being supported originally by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. It is a welcome amendment.

We then had the very interesting intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, reflecting on the 2012 LASPO Act and that the provision was already in that Act and had just not been enacted by the Government. I remember the 2012 Act and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, taking it through the House as part of the coalition Government. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to those points because it would be very difficult not to acknowledge the power of the arguments that have been put forward by noble Lords on Amendment 161.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, spoke to Amendments 159 and 160. He made interesting points about the independent scrutiny panel and other ways of pushing this in the same direction. We would support those amendments as well.

Perhaps the most moving speech was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, when she read the email from the man who eventually killed himself. That amendment was about aftercare. As she said, we have damaged these people and we owe it to them to give them the extra support.

It was in that spirit that my noble friend Lady Blower, on her Amendment 164, spoke powerfully in favour of independent mentors, a pilot scheme and extra support in various ways. She was very powerfully supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hamwee. This seems to be a very practical way of supporting people. We have heard that the level of recall is increasing. This should be a mechanism of getting recall down, with people who are coming out of custody less likely to be recalled if they are properly supported.

This has been a wide-ranging debate. There have been a lot of practical suggestions and amendments. We want to encourage all of them, to get out of this Bill a package of measures to protect the public as appropriate and to move away from this sentencing regime, which has been so unfortunate for the last decade.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, the Government agree entirely that our joint objective is to arrive at a package of measures that sufficiently protects the public while dealing with the problems of this existing sentencing regime. That is our overall objective.

My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier invited us to be bold. I suggest that the Government are already being bold in reducing the licence period to three years in circumstances where even the JSC recommended five years. We have already gone further than that very distinguished committee suggested. I do not think that anyone could accuse the present Lord Chancellor of a lack of determination or hard work. To continue the analogy used by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier of us plodding through treacle, we are really trying to find sensible answers to very difficult questions.

In addition, on the general point of hope and certainty and the very tragic case of Matthew, who committed suicide after he had been in the community for 10 years, as I said earlier these government amendments deal with that point. The “three plus two years” have an automatic determination that gives hope and certainty. That is a very large step forward. It is not a total answer to the problem, but I invite noble Lords to take account of the substantial progress that we are making.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

I pay tribute to my noble and learned friend and his colleagues in the department, including the present Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, who I suspect would privately agree with everyone who has spoken so far on these amendments. As the Government are to be congratulated on the very bold and significant steps that they have taken, as the Minister quite rightly says, and as, to my amazement, we have not had any widespread public reaction to it or even any awareness of it, is there a chance that he could sneak one or two further changes through in the concluding stages of this Bill? I am sorry to talk in such Dog and Duck terms, but that is the political judgment that we all are seeking to make. Everybody wants to get rid of the worst evils of the old IPP sentence.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham for inviting us to foregather at the Dog and Duck and consider what more can be done. I venture to suggest—hint is too weak a word—that there are things that we can still do. We may not be able to go as far as some of the amendments; in a moment, I will explain why the Government do not yet feel able—to my great personal regret—to accept the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Moylan. I will come to that in a moment. Let us look at what we think might be done and might be achievable.

I will take first Amendments 154 and 168, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. We have touched on the problem of recalls. We have noted that the Government are trying to reduce the delays in the Parole Board in dealing with recalls, which is one of the major problems. These amendments propose that the Secretary of State should have the power of executive re-release, which applies to fixed, determinate sentences. That is a power which in that context—forgive the jargon —is now referred to as a risk-assessed recall review, which is, in effect, a process for executive re-release. While the Secretary of State must have overriding regard to the need for public protection, the Government can see force in the amendments proposed by the noble Lord.

As I said earlier, those amendments might achieve by a different route the result of the amendments earlier proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, in order to deal with the problem of inappropriate or other circumstances in which it would be right to exercise an executive power to re-release. If I may say it between ourselves—all this feels within the family, as it were, but of course we are talking to the entire outside world—a particular problem that arises from time to time is where the offender in the community is arrested for a new offence; he is then recalled and the police do not prosecute. What happens then? That is a classic practical problem that the power of an executive re-release might address; I make no promises or commitments, but the Government wish to engage further on this aspect as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and supported by other noble Lords, and will give further consideration to it prior to Report. That is that.

Amendment 158, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in relation to prisoners imprisoned under the so-called “two strikes” legislation under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, is a bit more complicated. As I understand it, although that legislation was abolished in 2005, similar legislation was reintroduced in 2012 and is now to be found in Section 283 of the Sentencing Act 2020, which provides for a life sentence for a second listed offence, the listed offences in question being set out in Schedule 15 to that Act. In terms of sentences of prisoners who are under some sort of two-strike legislation, we are dealing not just with the old 2005 cohort but with others as well. How we deal with those prisoners and in particular what would justify differential treatment of the various kinds of life prisoners we have seems to the Government an important and large question. The Government’s present view is that this problem is somewhat outside the scope of the Bill. That is not to say that we should not continue to consider it. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, should be congratulated on raising the issue and putting it further on the radar, and there would be no objection to continuing a dialogue on it, but in the context of the present Bill, it may be too far to go to deal with anything other than IPP. We will have to see, but, at the moment, the Government are not persuaded that that could come within the scope of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Unlike other prisoners, they may have been up before the Parole Board many times, but this is long after their tariff has ended and the sentence originally given was handed out to them. That is quite a distinction from other prisoners. The suggestion that they are a particularly difficult group to manage because they keep going before the Parole Board slightly misses why they have become a difficult or different group. The main thing is that they would have been released if they were any other group of prisoners, yet they have to go to the Parole Board to say that they are safe and risk-free maybe five or six years after their tariff has ended. That is why people see the burden of proof being in the direction it is in. They also have to fulfil a range of courses and so on, which people are not convinced will even indicate that they are safe anyway, but we will get on to that. To the suggestion that we do not understand why anyone is raising this, it is because the set of circumstances for these prisoners is very different. That is why we are all here talking about it.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely understand the point that the noble Baroness is making, which effectively encapsulates the problem that we are up against: how do we protect the safety of the public on the one hand and, on the other, deal with the outstanding problem? I think the Government’s point is that to make it easier to release those prisoners who are potentially most likely to cause harm is counterintuitive and unacceptable from the point of view of public safety.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I did not suggest that they were more likely to cause harm. The argument is whether we accept that they are deemed dangerous and therefore cannot be let out through the Parole Board, because what deems them dangerous is a set of hoops that they have to go through and that do not necessarily indicate that they are dangerous. That is one of the difficulties with this. It is doublethink and double-talk.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, as I have tried to say, the whole purpose of the action plan is to create a framework in which this cohort, properly managed, could progress to safe release, with sentence plans, psychological support, support from psychology services and other support towards a safe release. That is a better route than tinkering with the release test. I will not say it is exactly a legal quibble, but it is a bit of a legalism to be fiddling with the release test.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

The problem is that the Parole Board is made up of real-life men and women with a very heavy responsibility. There is an underlying fear about the consequences of ever releasing somebody who then goes on to commit some terrible crime. The reality is that they contemplate the appalling reaction that they would get in the media, the public inquiry that would condemn them and the destruction of their reputation if they ever moved to let out somebody who did something terrible. Ministers share the same reserve when it comes to undoing this.

The proposal to alter the burden of proof was designed to give a little encouragement, a little more courage and a little help to people in getting over that fear of the recriminations if they ever made a mistake. It would be an explanation that the Parole Board could give if it had let somebody out. Then, it could detain only those where it was satisfied that it could see that there was a risk from the person being released. That would make a great change to the numbers being released. At this stage, in the interests of justice, the risk to the public is one that we should contemplate as not as severe as everybody fears.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I see the force of the points being made by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke. I respectfully suggest that the fear of the media is not the driving force in the case of this Lord Chancellor or, if I may say so, his Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State currently at the Dispatch Box. We are looking at the real question of public safety.

If I may ask it rhetorically, who speaks for Pauline Quinn? Admittedly, that was not an IPP case. Pauline Quinn was aged 73, was disabled and could not protect herself. She was brutally murdered by a convicted killer released on licence. I respectfully suggest that these risks are very difficult for any responsible Government to take, irrespective of what the media might say.

This raises another point. At the moment the Government are not convinced that this would make a significant difference, because the Parole Board, even under the revised test suggested by my noble friend Lord Moylan, would still have to be satisfied on the issue of the protection of the public. It is perfectly likely that one is simply raising false hopes. It does not change the process that the Parole Board has to go through to look at these very difficult individuals, who are very much at risk of harm and very difficult to manage in the community.

If you read the 2023 report from the Chief Inspector of Probation, you see how difficult it is to manage these individuals—those who have already been released, not the unreleased cohort. This is a very difficult area. At the moment the Government are not persuaded rightly or wrongly that it is a correct approach to make it easier to release dangerous people. That is the Government’s position, and I have explained it as best I can.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I want to ask the noble and learned Lord about the word “proportionate”. Is there an objection to that word? It is key, because it enables you, in judging safety, to take into account the responsibility of the state for what we have done to these people.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Government’s position, frankly, is that the word “proportionate” causes more difficulties than it solves. It suggests that the test should be some sort of balance between the risk that this prisoner may present to the public and some sort of fairness or other consideration of the particular interests of that prisoner. The whole thrust of the Bill—it is not just the clauses that we are dealing with at the moment but Clauses 41 and 42—is to say that the public protection test is a public protection test: that is the only criterion. So the Government do not, I am afraid, accept that “proportionate” is a useful or necessary addition to this clause.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

Should I wind up on this group?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I just need to finish. Noble Lords come at me from all directions, which is perfectly fine, but I need to finish the group.

I turn next to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, with the idea of mentors. I can see the point she is making, the strength of the argument and all those things, but it might be that this amendment overlooks what we have at the moment: the probation officer manager in the prison, who is responsible for that prisoner; the key worker in the prison, who is also responsible for that prisoner; and the community offender manager, who will look after that prisoner in the community. In addition, we already have in the prison all kinds of other support services, including the chaplains mentioned a moment ago by the right reverend Prelate.

The Government are hesitating about the wisdom of introducing yet another person into this already comprehensive structure—or what the Government believe is a comprehensive structure—by way of a statutory provision for mentors. That is not to say that there could not be better organisation of voluntary agencies or, despite what I have said, some other route to consider whether there are ways of strengthening the support of prisoners on some non-statutory basis. However, in view of the present arrangements for the prison offender manager, the key worker and the community offender manager via the Probation Service, the Government are not yet persuaded that mentors would be a proper statutory route to go down. I am sorry I could not get closer to what the noble Baroness is driving at. I very much thank her for her suggestions. I am sure that her intervention puts the question on the radar and advances the debate, but that is the Government’s position.

Amendments 165 and 166, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, are directed at clarifying entitlements to aftercare and related issues. It is perfectly true that Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 provides that those who are entitled to that support should receive it, and the protection of mental health through the action plan is part of the action plan. There are further measures in that regard through the progression panels and the use of the psychology services.

People in prison are entitled to exactly the same range of health service care arrangements as people in the community, and there is a national partnership agreement with health and social care in England. I hope I am not seen as doing less than justice to these amendments, but the bottom line on this is that, through the action plan and other measures, there are wide-ranging efforts to support mental health aftercare and the mental health of prisoners. The Government are not yet persuaded that a statutory amendment to the Mental Health Act is required to advance that cause. On this, as in other contexts on this Bill, the Government are, of course, still in listening mode but, at the moment at least, we are unpersuaded that this is a proper way forward.

I hope that I have dealt, if not necessarily to noble Lords’ satisfaction, as best I can with the points made. I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this constructive, powerful and moving debate, on all sides. Some heartfelt comments have been made. I could not begin to summarise them without detracting from their force. I thank all your Lordships for this.

I have written down some positive points, including some phrases shared by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, all on the same side. One was “unity of purpose”. That is encouraging. I think I even heard the Minister say “within this family”, which is a lovely phrase to use in debating something as emotive as this.

We have a unique opportunity. These occasions to make a difference for this cohort of prisoners, who have been treated so unfairly, do not come up very often. I urge the Minister to keep an open mind on everything that has been said and on these amendments, all of which would improve the position of IPP prisoners. I am very grateful to him, and encouraged by his reaction to my amendments. I urge him to have that same openness of spirit and to be bold for the sake of this group of prisoners, who have been treated so unfairly over the years. That injustice is continuing. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Criminal Jurors

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government recognise the crucial importance of the role of jurors in delivering justice and the need to secure their well-being. The Government have no current plans to introduce a juror appreciation day, but we continue to commend the hard work of jury panels throughout the year and to explore ways of supporting those who are undertaking this very important civic duty.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I am obviously disappointed by my noble and learned friend’s Answer. Other jurisdictions, such as Canada, have introduced such a week—not just a day. There is an increase in jurors speaking out after serving on some of our most notorious trials about the effect that jury service had on them, such as making them unwell. Can my noble and learned friend agree to have a call for evidence to understand what the extent of this issue is? Then there could be analysis of whether it is the type or length of case, or the way in which evidence is presented nowadays, with much more footage, rather than photographs, that is causing these issues that we can then assess.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I would like first, if I may, to thank my noble friend for raising this issue and for organising a recent stakeholder conference. The Government are aware of the question that she rightly raises, but are not, at present, planning for a call for evidence as such. We already have regular jury satisfaction surveys, which generally express high levels of jury satisfaction and a willingness to serve again. We do know that a minority of jurors suffer stress, and we are exploring options that we intend to test in the Crown Courts later this year and to issue further guidance to courts on the circumstances in which ad hoc support can be arranged.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, well with this campaign. Does the Minister, from his own vast experience, think that judges could take more responsibility, particularly in cases that have obviously affected the mental health of jurors, and also where judges can push against the law’s delay, which Shakespeare talked about 400 years ago and is still very much a factor in our legal system?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, speaking from the experience of a sometime, extreme lowly, recorder of the Crown Court, the first thing that one is taught as a criminal judge is to ensure the well-being of the jury. I am sure that all judges go out of their way to ensure that the jury is properly looked after—as do the court ushers and the jury bailiffs—and they are, generally speaking, warmly thanked for their participation. There will be occasions when further support is needed, and the Government are, as I said, planning trials and tests, later this year, to explore the options.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I ask a question as an even more lowly recorder than my noble and learned friend the Minister—albeit that he and I have not carried out that role for some many years. Can I suggest to him that there is a practical way in which juries can be better appreciated, despite the good work of the court staff and so forth? Their accommodation is, frankly, hopeless. They sit for long periods, having to concentrate, on uncomfortable benches. They retire to pretty low-grade rooms, and those who are in the jury-in-waiting are accommodated in fairly poor-quality accommodation. Could my noble and learned friend see if the department can improve the jury accommodation, not just in the modern courts—they are a bit better—but in some of the older and more dilapidated courts?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to report to the House that the present Lord Chancellor secured a major financial injection from the Treasury, specifically to improve the court estate—which, in some areas, has been a problem, as my noble and learned friend has rightly pointed out. I am sure that at least some of that money will, rightly, go on improving accommodation for the jury.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I was a juror about 35 years ago at the Old Bailey. It was a multiple rape case, and I can still remember the details and the name of the perpetrator. I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her pursuance of this issue. The Minister talked about ad hoc support for jurors. Can he be more specific about what his department is proposing to offer jurors?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I think that this will be the subject of the test and trials later this year that I have just mentioned, but I shall give an example. Following the recent Letby trial and the tragic events at the Countess of Chester Hospital, the jurors in that case were offered support by a charity in Manchester called Victim Support, and I thank that charity for its offering in that respect. It was, specifically, a counselling service for those jurors. My understanding is that every member of the jury was offered it, but that the take-up was very low.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, there has been a massive increase in financial crime. What are the Government doing to make sure that jurors—and, indeed, judges—have the required skills to deal with such cases?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, in financial crime, the ultimate question is, normally, whether the defendants have acted honestly or not. Experience suggests—and my own experience suggests—that jurors are perfectly capable of determining whether someone has acted honestly or not, despite the financial complexity of some of these trials.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, we are all extremely grateful for the task that jurors perform extremely conscientiously, but there is a very significant backlog in the Crown Courts at the moment of people awaiting trial by jury. Have the Government considered the possibility of allowing a defendant to elect to be tried either by a judge—or by a judge and two magistrates—if he or she wants to do so? Further to what the noble Lord, Lord Watts, asked, is it not the case that, as long ago as about 50 years ago, Lord Roskill recommended the possibility of trial by judge alone in difficult and complex financial cases? Is that a matter that the Government are thinking about further?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

To the last part of that question, as I have just said, the Government are extremely reluctant to qualify in any way the right of all citizens to be tried by a peer group of 12 good and true, whatever their background or walk of life, so the answer to the Roskill suggestion is no. As to the possibility of the option of being tried by a jury, a judge alone or a judge and two assessors, for example, that is not in contemplation by this Government for the same reason.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord opposite raised the question of accommodation for jurors in circumstances in which they operate within the courts. What consideration is being given to the position of witnesses, some of whom may be traumatised by what they are being required to do, or traumatised by other witnesses in the case? Is there sufficient being done to ensure that they have somewhere quiet, safe and secure where they feel they can wait to be called in evidence?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very good point. Witnesses obviously form an essential part of the system. I can tell your Lordships that the witness support service has made great strides in recent years in making sure that witnesses are properly looked after and briefed as to what to expect. It is a completely different situation from what it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Employment of People with Criminal Convictions

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage businesses to employ people with criminal convictions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to say that the rate of prison leavers in employment six months after release almost doubled in the two years to March 2023, from 14% to over 30%. New Futures Network, the Prison Service’s specialist employment team, runs quarterly recruitment drives. These national campaigns have seen more than 200 employers and partners working with HMPPS to deliver more than 230 events in prison. Several other measures support the Government’s drive to get former prisoners into work.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I know—because I told him about it this morning—that the Minister is aware of the ban the box campaign to do away with the criminal convictions tick box on job application forms so that applicants can be assessed on their skills before their past mistakes. We know that work after prison dramatically reduces reoffending rates and helps to create a safer society. It helps companies to access a rich talent pool, yet three-quarters of them discriminate against applicants with convictions, excluding millions of jobseekers from the market. I thank the Minister for agreeing to look into this campaign, led by the charity Business in the Community, to see how the Government might support it.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, as your Lordships know, under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 the Government have been progressively reducing the need to disclose previous convictions, particularly in relation to community sentences and sentences of under four years, and now even some non-violent sentences of over four years can be regarded as spent. As the noble Baroness has said, the ban the box campaign run by Business in the Community, which comprises more than 150 employers covering over 1 million roles, asks employers to delay the point at which applicants are asked to tick a box on and give details about any criminal convictions so that they can expose their skills at interview before any disclosure of convictions is made, if such disclosure is still required.

The Government are very pleased to commend the work of Business in the Community, which has now led the ban the box campaign for several years. In 2021 it passed the milestone of covering more than 1 million roles, and as long ago as 2016 the Government signed up to it for the Civil Service. The noble Baroness rightly identifies that this is a very important initiative. Increasing rates of employment on release from prison is very important, and the Government will continue to support the initiative.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I was going to ask about ban the box as well. The Minister has given a full answer. However, can he say something about the practices of the Ministry of Justice? When it contracts with numerous companies and NGOs, does it require them to practice ban the box themselves?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I will have to come back to the noble Lord on that question, as I am not in a position to answer it straightaway.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. An impressive 10% of Timpson’s workforce are ex-offenders. Its chief executive said on the radio just a few days ago that they are among his best employees, no doubt because they are highly motivated to succeed. In addition to the Government encouraging businesses to employ more ex-offenders, which I strongly support as a key to rehabilitation, are government departments doing anything to recruit more ex-offenders?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government do recruit ex-offenders and have signed up to various programmes to do so. That is a matter for individual departments, but it is certainly part of the Government’s programme to pursue that avenue.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, with the reoffending rate remaining stubbornly high, what work is being done to prepare offenders to perform properly in the job market when they leave prison?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I can give your Lordships a variety of examples. I was talking to a prisoner from HMP Winchester the other day; he was very pleased and said, “It’s been great. I’ve completed the IT course and for the first time in my life I can do a Word document and an Excel spreadsheet”.

Your Lordships may have seen the report in the press this morning about HMP Liverpool, which has been completely transformed. The brewery Marston’s has a mock-up of a pub, where prisoners can train to work in hospitality. In HMP Swansea you will find the mock-up of an HGV with which you can qualify for your HGV licence. In HMP Humber you can do the same thing with a forklift truck. There is a great deal going on in our prisons, and we should be very proud of our Prison Service for pursuing those initiatives.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, from these Benches I add our own sadness at the death of Lord Cormack. His contributions to this House and to the Church will be sorely missed.

As has been said, there has been a serious decline in rehabilitation and release planning services in recent years. Prisoners need to be engaged with purposeful work; there needs to be planning ahead of their release—including release on temporary licence—to secure employment, if we are to prevent reoffending. What steps are the Government taking to increase release on temporary licence?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are very keen to allow prisoners release on temporary licence wherever that is possible. I emphasise the work that has gone into preparing prisoners for employment; there is now an employment lead in every one of our 93 prisons, and an employment hub where prisoners can access vacancies, make applications, et cetera. Every prisoner has an ID, a bank account and accommodation arranged when they are being released. There is an employment advisory board in every prison, and these measures are taking effect.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I will be quick. I will just say that I will miss Lord Cormack very much.

There is a section of prisoners—the IPP prisoners, who are imprisoned for public protection—who are constantly being called back to prison, and their mental health is very much under threat; they are a very vulnerable population. Are prisons looking to rehabilitate those prisoners in particular, by preparing them for work?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, there is a specific action plan in place for IPP prisoners. The question of whether they are being prepared for work is a little premature because they first have to be prepared for release. We are going to discuss this matter in great detail in the debates on the Victims and Prisoners Bill, and I look forward to further discussions with the noble Baroness.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, for eight years I have had the privilege of sitting on this Bench next to Lord Cormack, often annoying him by asking him procedural questions; of course, he knew every answer. Yehi zichro baruch—may his memory be a blessing.

I refer the House to my interests in the register: I am an adviser to Legacie Developments, a small construction company in Liverpool run by John Morley, which last week celebrated the 50th ex-prisoner it has employed. Does the Minister welcome this? How can we expand this sort of operation?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Government are very keen to expand all opportunities for the re-employment of prisoners. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to a range of employers—Timpson, Marston’s, Greene King, Greggs, Wagamama, Marks & Spencer and many others—of which, as a nation, we should be proud.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I find myself in a difficult situation, because in the previous group I had said that we should not have a sterile debate about whether we should have all the victims’ code on a statutory basis, and I challenged the Minister to look at individual provisions that should be on a statutory basis. I understand that that is not the tenor of the debate that we have been having in this group. However, Amendment 108, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, in the previous debate, looked at a specific element—namely, to do with the relevant local commissioning of bodies for specialist support for children who are victims, and whether that should be on a statutory basis, so as to put it on a similar basis to that for domestic abuse victims. I do not think that the Minister answered that amendment. While on the one hand I acknowledge the point that having an all-or-nothing approach may not be the best use of our time, on the other, it would be helpful if the Minister addressed the specific proposals in the amendments in the previous group.

Having said that, we are at a relatively early point in Committee, and there will be opportunities to bring these matters back. As my noble friend said, she has a further group of amendments looking at the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. Having explained my position to the Minister, I look forward to his response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others, who have spoken in this part of the debate. To take up at once the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the Government’s position is that there are no specific amendments, including Amendment 108, which could or should be promoted into the Bill—they should all be dealt with in the code, in the right place. The difficulty of putting specific matters in the Bill, among other difficulties, is that you make a policy choice, irrespective of the available resources and the available situation in different areas, and so forth, as to which—

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I was just going to finish my sentence, but of course I give way to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am sorry for being premature. I totally see the Minister’s point about the challenge of taking particular parts of the victims’ code and putting them in the Bill. That is why some of us are offering the suggestion that the whole victims’ code should be in statute. I hope that that would assist the Minister, because he would then not be picking and choosing particular aspects of the code, as the whole code of victims’ rights in this country would be in primary legislation, subject to amendment and so on. That would make victims’ rights a little bit closer to the appropriate rights of suspects, defendants and convicted criminals.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention and clarification. Perhaps I could explain why the Government do not think that this is a positive way to go.

The first point is that the present code is still a statutory code. It is grounded in statute, authorised by statute, has been subject to negative resolution in Parliament and therefore has a legal status. The Government’s position is that putting the code in a schedule to the Bill does not materially increase its legal enforceability, or indeed its legal status. Therefore, there does not seem to the Government to be a compelling reason to do it in either case. The Government would consider the present code to be subject to judicial review. There could be a legal challenge; in fact, the legislation on the face of it accepts that the code is admissible in legal proceedings, and so forth. So we already have a statutory code, and we are dealing with quite a fine point—whether putting in a schedule really has any material effect. The Government’s position is that, certainly legally, it has no effect—but in practice there is a very significant downside.

The downside is that what you have on the statute is no longer user-friendly and no longer contains the information that victims want when they reach for the code and want to know what to do, where to go, what the telephone number is and what the website is that they need to consult. You cannot put that in the statute, and I invite noble Lords to compare the code as currently reproduced in the amendment we are discussing with the code as published. The latter sets out 12 rights very clearly, has boxes that explain various things, tells you where to go, elaborates on the rights, et cetera, all in very user-friendly language. Either you abandon that—in which case, you abandon the signposting and everything we were discussing in the previous group—or you have two documents. And that, in the Government’s view, is not very satisfactory. Although we all have touching faith in the interest of the general public to read long schedules in the statutes that we pass, that is not actually the way to raise awareness. You raise awareness through other means.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene. I have been listening and have found the arguments very persuasive. If the Government are saying it does not make any difference to put it into the statute itself—and yet I know from briefings I have received that there is a very strong push from bodies on the ground saying we do need the code in the statute—why can we not have the statute and then a user-friendly version of it? That does not seem to me such a terrible thing.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Government’s view is, first, that there is no need to go down this route at all, because the present structure of the code under the existing legislation creates statutory duties, obligations and rights that can be enforced by one route or another. If you burden the statute with this, the Government’s position is that it has no real effect, either in law or in any other way, but does have the complication that you must have—as I think the noble Baroness is conceding —at least two documents. That, again, overburdens the system, and the document that is trying to be user-friendly and communicative may turn out to be more difficult to draft, if you are always stuck with the framework of what is in the statute. So it gets us nowhere and simply complicates life.

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

I am sorry, I am not a legal person, so I am just trying to join the dots, if you will bear with me. I think what is really insulting to victims is that it is like a two-tier level—one is a code and one is a law. What we want is to make sure that that persuasive guidance is in law, because it is about accountability and while it is in the code—with the words “should” or “must” or “do”—there is no accountability. So I am confused by the Minister saying it makes no difference if it is put in law and that it is easy language. It is nothing to do with that. It is important for victims to know that they have legal rights—not to take away from the offenders’ rights, but to start a level playing field—so I am a bit confused about my noble and learned friend’s response, as it does not make sense to me, and I am not a lawyer.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her intervention. Let me have another go at explaining it. The code is not in itself a statute. Once you go down the route of having a code and not a statute, you effectively have a framework that is still a legal framework—it is still legal guidance that gives people rights. The code says that you have 12 rights and lists them: this is what the authorities have to do and this is what you do if those rights are not observed. It is a legal framework; we are talking about degrees of legal right, but these are legal rights. If you wanted to, you could go to court and say that you have not had them.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

No, you could not.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Well, that is not the Government’s advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

Before the noble and learned Lord gets up—I know that is the inverse of the usual statement—perhaps it might be helpful if I cited something from the code and then asked a question. The second right states:

“You have the right to have the details of the crime recorded by the police without unjustified delay after the incident”.


We know that there are a lot of delays, but let us put that to one side. Where does it say in legislation that governs the actions of the police—whether that is primary legislation, secondary legislation, codes of practice or statutory guidance—that they have to do this? The problem is that we cannot find any of the rights in the victims’ code reflected in the statutory duties of the agencies listed in it. Please tell me I am wrong; I would be delighted to be wrong.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

If I may say so, sometimes one is in the middle of the flow of one’s argument and people jump up and down when one has not quite finished explaining the overall framework. The essential problem here is not the code itself, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, kindly said—it is not a bad document, I venture to suggest—but a lack of awareness, police not doing their job and nobody knowing quite what should be done if that were to happen. The idea behind the basic framework of this legislation is to force the relevant bodies to take steps to comply with the code. That is why Clause 6 says:

“Each criminal justice body which provides services … must … take … steps”


and “must … keep under review”. Clause 7 provides that they must provide various activities, et cetera, and must collect information, that a local policing body must do this, that and the other and that the various constabularies referred to later must do these things. The idea is that we have a code and a framework, and we must make sure that the bodies responsible for enabling victims’ rights do so.

In the Government’s view, you do not materially increase the likelihood of them doing so by putting the code into a schedule, any more than you increase that likelihood—to deal with another point—by converting a “should” into a “must”. That is another bit of fine tuning. The principles of the code are set out in Clause 2; for example, that you “should provide information”. You could say that you “must provide information”, but that does not really change the enforceability unless you have a whole statutory framework for what the information should be, who should provide it and how it is to be done. That is all in the code at the moment, where it should be.

I do not want to refer again to angels dancing on pins, but I think we are slightly at cross-purposes as to what we mean by things “in law”, “legal enforceability”, or “statutory codes”. That is the Government’s basic position on this.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I do not want to stop the Minister when he is in full flow. I understand how difficult it must be when people leap up because he has a comma in the middle of a sentence.

It seems to me the Minister has already conceded the next group of amendments, which are about compliance and data monitoring. Can he remind us why in Clause 2 it is “should”, not “must”, since he has just cited and relied on other clauses which use “must”? I do not know whether I have elevated myself to the status of an angel with that.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I think the short answer is that the purposes of those later clauses is to impose a statutory duty on the relevant bodies. The purpose of Clause 2(3) is to set out the principles. In terms of these, the Government’s view is that “should” is a more appropriate word than “must”, because the principles are very broadly expressed. Noble Lords might argue that “should” and “must” are almost interchangeable. I think we are again drawing really fine distinctions.

Perhaps I could just deal with two or three other points that arise on this part of the Bill. One is the question of the affirmative procedure as against the negative procedure. If I may say so, at the moment the code is subject to the negative procedure. Noble Lords can pray a resolution against it—of course there is going to be a debate in Parliament. I would respectfully suggest that it is more flexible than our somewhat—on some occasions at least—torrid debates in the Moses Room on affirmative resolutions. Noble Lords cannot change anything, it is very formalistic, and I respectfully suggest that making it an affirmative resolution is not a material improvement.

To keep the whole structure flexible and adaptable—I have used various words beginning with “a”, and I think I could add “adaptable” to this cohort—the Government suggest that it is not a useful move to put the code without the accompanying description in the statute itself; that in itself has no material effect on the Government’s view.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this debate.

I remind noble Lords that Clause 5 makes it clear that failure to comply with the victims’ code, currently and as proposed in the Bill, does not make a person liable to criminal or civil proceedings. The code has no legal teeth.

Let us cut through a bit of the legal waffle. The noble Baroness the Victims’ Commissioner is right: this is a code without enforceability. No victim can enforce their rights in any court in the land, and even the Victims’ Commissioner appointed by the Government of the day cannot enforce the code. That is why the amendments in this group dovetail with later amendments which would give the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and her successors and heirs, some modest powers to issue notices to public authorities, to publish those notices and, in extremis, to take legal action.

With the greatest respect to the Minister, to say that there is no difference between the scheme that is offered in these amendments and the current position is just not accurate as a statement of law. He said that this amendment is unnecessary and unhelpful. I hope that I have dealt with that. He said he did not want to burden the legislation with a schedule. I do not want to burden victims because this Bill is supposed to be about them. I know where the balance of the argument is between a few extra pages in a schedule and this toothless, illusory, broken promise to victims.

As for the arguments about how clunky it looks to have a code in a schedule to legislation, compared with the sparkly thing that could be on the Victims’ Commissioner’s website, we have that all the time. The convention rights—which may not be totally popular with everyone on the Benches opposite—are popular with me and mean a lot to people. They are in a schedule to the Human Rights Act. They are popularised in all sorts of ways to all sorts of people. They know that this is not a code of guidance; it is a Bill of Rights.

As I have said before, parties on both sides of this House have, for many years, talked the talk about victims’ rights—more legislation, longer prison sentences, et cetera—but have not actually delivered a right to see the transcript, to have a separate room at the court, to be treated with dignity. Let us have this debate but let us not pretend that there is no legislative or legal difference between the current and proposed positions.

I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. Because I have so much respect for him as a lawyer and a former senior judge, I urge him and his colleagues to think again about this. It would not cost a penny, but it would mean so much to so many people. Putting this and the subsequent amendments that we will debate on a legislative footing would give the Victims’ Commissioner some judgment and power to give this code teeth.

For the time being—but only for the time being—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said it right when she said that it is time to give the Victims’ Commissioner the statutory place and rights that are appropriate. That is exactly the point of this suite of amendments. They aim to do two things. One is to give the Victims’ Commissioner the right status to be able to get the right information and have the right relationships to make them most effective, but it is also placing duties on other organisations to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. That is what this suite of amendments is about. That means that they are very important. They also reflect the powers that other commissioners have in this space.

We have a group of amendments which give the Victims’ Commissioner a statutory duty to review the operation of the victims’ code, placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult the commissioner when making any changes to the victims’ code or issuing any statutory guidance relating to it. The amendment refers to the duty of the Secretary of State to consider any representations in relation to the drafting of the victims’ code in consultation with the Attorney-General. Again, I thought, “Why do you have to say that?” But, actually, I think we have to.

Amendments 27 and 29 alter the procedure for amending the victims’ code to require formal consultation with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses—I did not think that was necessary either, but if we need to say that, then we do—and affirmative parliamentary procedures.

Amendment 28 refers to

“the duty on the Secretary of State to consult the Attorney General on any revisions”.

Amendment 35 refers to

“the Secretary of State’s duty to issue regulations on the information to be collected by PCCs at a local level”.

Amendment 43 also places a duty on the Secretary of State to

“issue regulations on the timing and format of the information”.

This is about relationships that the Victims’ Commissioner needs to have to do their job effectively—with the Attorney-General, with PCCs, with the agencies with which the commissioner has to work.

My amendment—again, you would not think it would be necessary, but it clearly is—states that there is a specific public authority duty

“to co-operate with the Commissioner in any way that the Commissioner considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the victims’ code”.

If we do not give the Victims’ Commissioner the power to ensure that the code is being complied with, we are not taking victims seriously. If we do not do that, we do not place the right kind of duties on the Secretary of State. We also need to make sure that the way the Victims’ Commissioner works is joined up with all the different agencies that she—it has always been “she” so far—needs to have.

We are very keen on this group of amendments because it does those two things: it gives the Victims’ Commissioner power, and it places a duty on different parts of the state to provide, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, formal parts of criminal justice infrastructure. This a powerful suite of amendments that I hope the Minister will agree to, and certainly will discuss with us as we move forward.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am very grateful, once again, to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments, which is related to the previous group. I am very sorry if the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I have managed to fall out over what is actually a legal discussion. Maybe we can pursue some of the points that were made in the previous group further, so that we understand each other and where those who support those amendments are coming from.

As far as this group of amendments is concerned, I will take first the amendment that would place a specific duty on specified public authorities to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. I do not think anyone is in any doubt—and certainly the Government are not—that the Victims’ Commissioner plays a most important role that requires collaboration across the criminal justice system and the support sector. We recognise that there is other legislation affecting the domestic abuse commissioner which gives them the kind of powers that I think are partly, at least, being sought under this amendment.

I cannot at this moment accept the amendment, as I am sure noble Lords completely understand. But I am very much open to working with the Victims’ Commissioner and the House on whether there is any common ground on this approach, which would help us build up the bricks we are looking to build up to create the building that will enable this whole system to be more effective.

As regards the amendments to require the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner, I first make an extremely nerdy point, just for clarification. Clause 3(3) states:

“In preparing the draft the Secretary of State must consult the Attorney General”.


That is probably a bit confusing at the outset, but what is essentially being said is that the Secretary of State must consult relevant Ministers responsible for the bodies to which the draft is to apply: the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary—both of whom are englobed in the phrase “Secretary of State”—and the Attorney-General, who is responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service and similar justice bodies. It is a sort of ministerial consultation.

As to the question of consulting the Victims’ Commissioner on the code, further amendments to the code and so forth, I cannot imagine any circumstances in which the commissioner would not be consulted on all these matters. We have not set out in the Bill all the stakeholders that should be consulted but I would very much like to continue to work with the Victims’ Commissioner on this issue and how we continue to recognise that vital role. Again, may we take this amendment under advisement and see how far we can go?

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am mindful of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove: because the Victims’ Commissioner is not a statutory consultee, consultations often arrive as the policy is announced. It is a tick-box exercise. The point of making someone a statutory consultee is that they have to be notified as the process starts, not as it ends. If the Minister is going to have a discussion with the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, it would be really helpful to understand how the position outlined by the noble Baroness can be prevented.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that that point deserves full consideration alongside other points.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

We had a good exchange last week about the importance of restorative justice, which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned just now. I think we all agree that of most importance are the use of the word “appropriate”, and making sure that those services are properly resourced and supported to ensure that this happens. We are keen to support these amendments, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments. The Government appreciate the considerable work that goes into preparing amendments and arguments and bringing issues before this House.

By way of a brief reminder, in general terms the Government have a threefold approach to the Bill. The first is to set out general principles of the victims’ code included in Clause 2(3), supplemented by regulations in subsection (4). The second approach is to put the detail and the operational information that victims need in the code, rather than in the Bill. I commend to your Lordships the latest draft version of the code, published in June 2023, which sets out the 12 rights in a particularly user-friendly way. The third approach is to create a system whereby victims are aware of the code, and the relevant criminal justice bodies comply with their obligations under the code. The mechanism for this is set out in Clauses 6 to 10, supplemented by guidance under Clause 11.

I have reiterated that framework because, in the Government’s view, a lot of the debate we have had today is about what should be in the Bill and what should be in the code, in guidance or elsewhere in the framework. There may be no disagreement in principle about the importance of many of the things we are discussing, be it restorative justice or the right to object to a charging decision, but the question we are on now concerns the way the Bill should be drafted. The broad view of the Government on most of the amendments in this group and subsequent groups is that the matter is either already covered in the code or should be covered in the code, rather than being expressly on the face of the Bill. That is the Government’s broad position.

Turning to the amendments, I take first the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, relating to multiple perpetrators and the fact that in some cases if only one perpetrator is charged, the victim may be aggrieved because other perpetrators were not charged. First of all, this is a good example of how it should work; the principle of a right to challenge, from the victim’s point of view, is set out in Clause 2(9). The implementation of that principle in this context is in code right 6, which refers to the victim’s right of review scheme in respect of various police and CPS decisions. The noble Baroness rightly draws attention to an apparent lacuna in the CPS part of the scheme, which currently does not cater for the situation where only one of several perpetrators is charged. The Government are very happy to look again at that issue and to discuss with the relevant agencies how that lacuna should be addressed.

As the Government see it, this is a very good example, rightly drawn to public attention, of a possible gap in the code that should be addressed by making improvements to the code rather than putting the issue directly in the statute. The draft code itself, in its present form, will be subject to further consultation anyway under Clause 3 if and when the Bill is passed. That is essentially the Government’s position on Amendment 13.

I take next the important issue of restorative justice, of which the Government are wholly supportive. Amendment 14, in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and Amendments 16, 17, 22, 32 and 52, in the name of, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, aim to ensure that on the face of the Bill victims should have access to restorative justice—that is the broad thrust of it—and that the Secretary of State should issue guidance about that.

The Government entirely accept that restorative justice is extremely important; again, I salute, if I may, the words of my noble friend Lord Hodgson in raising this issue so eloquently. However, important though it is, the Government do not feel that restorative justice should be elevated above all the other victim services by being specifically included in the Bill. Once you start including specific services in the Bill, either you have a very long list or you have to prioritise certain things. The Government’s view is that the structure should be that the Bill contains short principles, and almost everything else is in the code or guidance. To do otherwise is to introduce rigidity and might have the somewhat perverse effect of concentrating what are admittedly limited resources on some specified kind of support at the expense of other, equally valuable, kinds of support.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I think we are all very sympathetic to the idea that a huge amount could go in the code and the guidance, certainly as far as restorative justice is concerned. But the third part of what the Minister said the purpose of this Bill was is to ensure that the criminal justice system knows what its responsibilities are. Surely some things could go in there, including restorative justice. Will the Minister look particularly carefully at the evidence produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, about how at least 27% of people would have taken up restorative justice if they had been asked? Would he not come to the conclusion, perhaps, that it is only if it is on the face of the Bill that that situation will be remedied?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble and right reverend Lord invites me, I will look again at that evidence and the whole argument. However, in relation to this aspect, noble Lords should be aware that access to all the supporting services and processes in the criminal justice system are already part of the principles under Clause 2(3). In the implementation of those rights, access to justice is already specifically provided for under right 3 in the present draft code, which, among other things, requires the police to provide all the information you need to exercise that right.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the problem with Clause 2(2) is that it is followed by Clause 2(3), which starts by saying, “The victims’ code must” but then in all its sub-paragraphs says simply that things “should” be provided, so it is watered down. I apologise for being pedantic on this point but it goes to the heart of what the Minister is trying to do. I believe he is saying to us that there is enough in the Bill that will support victims in regulation, but the problem is that there is no watertight “must” in the Bill as it stands.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I think we will come to the “must”/“should” point a bit later when we discuss the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. If I may, I will deal with that issue in general, in an umbrella way, in that context.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I want to pick up the point made by the Minister about victim services going into the code rather than into the Bill. I feel I should apologise that although I have three degrees, none of them is in law—I often regret that these days—so perhaps I am wrestling with some technical questions here.

It seems to me that we are not just talking about restorative justice as a victim service. If you have been a victim of a crime, it goes to court, the police investigate and the criminal is punished; all those might be regarded as victim services but they are all in other Acts—they already exist as an absolute legal right that is laid down. What we do not currently have in any Bill is a right to restorative justice that is balanced. We are saying that restorative justice needs to be in there with an equal or at least appropriate level of weight, and it will not have that unless it is in the Bill.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, if I may say so, what one should put in the Bill and in the code are matters of judgment and balance. In relation to restorative justice, which we are on, there have already been extensive discussions in the other place. The Government have said, first, that the code should include the right of victims to receive more information about restorative justice, particularly at the point of sentence, and that the importance of restorative justice services should be included in guidance to police and crime commissioners under Clause 11. I think that partly meets, and maybe substantially meets, the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, that you need to have in writing somewhere an emphasis on supplying restorative justice. The Government’s position on restorative justice is that that is a proper recognition of the importance of restorative justice.

One should also bear in mind in this context that restorative justice does not just happen; it also needs the consent of the offender, and is quite a delicate operation. You need a facilitator, and so forth. It is one of many services, mechanisms and procedures that are available. The Government’s position is that we should not spell out in the Bill all the mechanisms and procedures that are available but we should work hard to ensure that the code itself, the guidance thereunder and the arrangements for awareness that we will be discussing in due course together raise the profile of restorative justice so that it has its proper place in the system among other things. That is the Government’s position. No one is denying the importance of restorative justice. No one is saying it is a waste of time or should not be there; on the contrary, we are saying that its profile should be raised. The only argument is about how we do that, and Government’s position is that we do not do it by an amendment to the Bill itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am quite a localist normally, but is this not the very point? A single point of contact that is not prescribing what is available locally but is “signposting”—to use the right reverend Prelate’s word—should be provided, so that any victim, anywhere, will know where to go. They might not necessarily take the step of taking advantage of it, but it seems to me pretty central to the way services are made known that something such as this should go into the Bill.

I should also say that my noble friend Lady Brinton was trying to email me something, but it has not come through, so she may have another point.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I shall not be attempting to answer the email that has not yet come through until it does, but my general answer to the noble Baroness is that the whole thrust of the Bill is that each criminal justice body must take reasonable steps to promote awareness of the victims’ code among users of those services and other members of the public, et cetera. I cannot conceive how you could discharge that duty of raising awareness without informing people how to access or go to whatever services they need, so it is implicit in the operation that that sort of information will have to be provided. The way in which it is provided and the detail of it is not for the Bill but for the code and the guidance.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I am sorry to delay things, but there is one thing I am not clear about. Restorative justice at the moment is available for the suspect as an alternate to going to court, with the agreement of the victim. If the right is to be given to the victim to insist on restorative justice, is that an addition to a potential court appearance or an alternate? If the Crown Prosecution Service has decided that there will be a prosecution but the victim insists on their right to restorative justice, does that change that decision? I am not quite clear from the amendments, nor the Minister’s response, how that dilemma is resolved. It may be that I have just misunderstood, in which case I apologise, but I do not quite understand how that gets resolved.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I may be as underinformed as anyone but my understanding is that the classic case of restorative justice is that once there has been a prosecution and a conviction, there is a process for some kind of reconciliatory interaction between the victim and the offender—for example, of the kind that my noble friend Lord Hodgson so eloquently described—in a way which enables both parties to process and come to terms with what has happened. It is not typically an alternative to having a prosecution in the first place, as I understand it, although that might arise.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I know there is an unwritten convention that noble Lords should not intervene when they were not able to be here at the beginning of a group, which in this case was last week, but I do not think that convention prevents me asking a question. Is it not really important that people in the prison system are able to understand what they can do for themselves, and for the victim, by engaging with restorative justice? That is one of the reasons I put my name to Amendment 14. The right honourable Stephen Timms in the other place is an excellent example: he has corresponded with, and is arranging to meet, the perpetrator of the attack on him many years ago. That will, I hope, assist them both—the perpetrator in her release and her future—and give some consolation through her coming together with the victim, who in this case was Stephen Timms.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for his question. I would obviously not dream of making any procedural point, as it is a very fair question. I do not think it is clearly envisaged in the Bill or the code, as it stands at the moment, that it should be the perpetrator who is seeking some sort of restorative justice, rather than it being something that the victim is entitled to. The noble Lord’s point is well made and we should think further about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for this group of amendments, to which I have put my name. I echo the point that she has had a sustained campaign on this through a number of Bills and I very much hope that this group of amendments will reinforce her campaign, if I can put it like that, and the Minister will look at it favourably. She gave various examples of shortcomings in the court system where interpretations go wrong and I have had personal experience of every single one of the shortcomings that she highlighted. I suspect that anyone else who has worked in the courts, particularly in our metropolitan cities, will have experienced those shortcomings as well.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds spoke about his work as a linguist and I think I am right in saying that he is a Russian linguist—he is nodding his head a bit. It reminded me of when I understood the difference between interpretation and interpreting. That was when I was working in Ukraine and had a Russian interpreter interpreting for me. She was so fluent that she could talk simultaneously in whatever conversation was happening and, she told me, she also did her shopping list in her head at the same time. That is how fluent she was. There really are some remarkable people who do this work. The other thing I learned through various aspects of my life is that there are specialisms within interpreting and it is very important that you recognise the limits of the interpreters one is dealing with at any particular time.

This brings me on to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. She gave the example of an Albanian gang member who was involved in interpreting in a case of alleged rape. One thing I have become aware of in dealing with domestic abuse, particularly when it is minority groups with minority languages, is that you have to be very cautious about who the interpreter is. The information that comes through the interviews with the lawyers and the like can easily leak out into the wider community of that group and can undermine the woman in whatever legal remedy she is seeking. It is a point that I absolutely recognise.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, talked about the processes themselves and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, talked about value for money. He also spoke about sign language and lip-reading, both of which I have experienced in court. It is quite an exhaustive process and I understand that it is quite expensive when you have to have relays of sign language interpreters when one is dealing with particular cases. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental point underlined in this group of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about access to justice and we need to make sure that the standards are as high as possibly can be obtained.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, “Don’t underestimate good intentions when interpreters are interpreting”. Many times, I have seen them try to help understanding by overexplaining things, which actually undermines one side or another of the case. I understand that this is a difficult, sensitive issue but I very much hope that, when he comes to reply, the Minister will give as much reassurance as he possibly can—both that standards are kept at the highest possible level and that all necessary procedures and protocols are properly reflected—so that the aspirations of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, can be fully met.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for raising this important topic. I join in the general commendation of the way in which she presented her amendments and the way in which noble Lords have subsequently supported them.

In relation to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, I will, if I may, trespass on your Lordships’ indulgence. Let me say that, having had to work for several years in an entirely foreign language and an entirely unfamiliar legal system, I am quite conscious of the difficulty that one has. There comes a point—in my experience, at least—when you get stuck between two stools and you cannot say anything in either language in trying to express yourself. So the subject matter of what we are discussing is well understood.

Perhaps we might start with the common ground. It goes without saying that interpreting—I emphasise that word—and translation services must be of the highest quality and clarity in the criminal justice system, as well as tailored to the victim’s needs. As far as the Ministry of Justice is concerned, interpreting and translation services are provided under contracts where the various standards and requirements are laid down. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, pointed out, those arrangements have been subject to ongoing and extensive review, which I hope will be completed shortly—at least not before long—to ensure that we have the highest quality. Obviously, the general objective is fairly self-evident: in the justice system, you must have a high standard of interpreting and translation. For the CPS, interpreters must be on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters. That is the first area of common ground.

The second area of common ground is that, for those whose first language is not English, the right to understand and be understood is enshrined in the code. It is right 1—the most important right of all—and is set out on page 15 of the present draft of the code, which says that

“providers must communicate in simple and accessible language and all translation or interpretation”—

I take the point that it says “interpretation” but probably should say “interpreting”—

“services must be offered free of charge to the victim”.

So this is recognised as a right. If it is not always achieved, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, feels, that is, in effect, why we are here. The whole structure of the Bill aims to remedy possible defects and create a system in which we can raise standards progressively and consistently across the country, commissioning bodies can learn from each other and we can improve the service available to victims, generally speaking; that is an operational issue rather than an issue of principle. No one is disputing the broad thrust of the comments that have been made.

Here, once again, we come to what is in some ways the philosophical issue behind everything that we have been discussing: to what extent should we introduce matters in the Bill and to what extent should we deal with the operational and detailed aspects in the code or in guidance? On that point, the common ground tends to be a little more limited, if I may say so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, it is heartening to hear a story with a happy ending in one respect, as we are generally dealing with unhappy or less happy outcomes.

This Government are very much in favour of open justice as a general proposition, and we are in the middle of a consultation on it. This debate should—I will make sure that it happens—figure in the evidence presented to that consultation so that we can see where we go. Anecdotally and in terms of the shape of things to come, we are already live-streaming the proceedings of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which I used to have something to do with many years ago. Hopefully, in the years ahead, this problem will diminish if not be resolved through those kinds of technical developments. The twin obstacles are cost and the state of the technology.

It is true that this House, through the—in historical terms—quite expensive use of the Hansard reporters and the more recent introduction of our technology, is able to read and see what is happening. But we are one place. Every day in this country, hundreds of courts are in operation. To stream, record or make immediately available the proceedings of those courts is quite a challenge.

At the moment, a judge’s sentencing remarks are made freely available in cases of murder, manslaughter or causing death on the road. From this spring, as has been mentioned, we will run a further one-year trial of similar arrangements in cases of rape and serious sexual offences. That will, I hope, further inform which way we should go. I am not in a position to give further details on exactly how many courts will be covered by that pilot and on other matters raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. However, I will write to the Committee to fully inform it.

It is less well known, and I do not think it will be an answer to the problem, that a victim can go to a Crown Court building to listen to a tape of the proceedings if that can be suitably arranged. That right is not very well known. It may not be quite in the direction that the technology is going.

To come back to the present situation and our twin obstacles of cost and technology, some of the figures of cost have been mentioned; it is expensive to do it manually. As to the technology, we have made considerable advances in the use of technology during the pandemic. Most courts can operate remote hearings of one sort or another.

Although I hold no ministerial responsibility for criminal justice, in terms of my day job, I was somewhat surprised and worried by some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about witnesses being asked to leave the court and not to listen. I would have thought that in many court buildings these days there would be another room where the victim concerned could watch the proceedings on a screen, for example.

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

Unfortunately, there are no rooms available to do that. I would love that—and I welcome my noble and learned friend the Minister’s warm tone in hoping that there were—but there are not. I went past two rooms in the murder trial that were video-link rooms. There are no rooms in our court buildings for families, witnesses or anyone else to watch privately and be taken care of. That is why it is so important that we try to assist them by giving them these scripts, so they can reflect on the proceedings whenever they want to.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

That would be enormously helpful in many civil and family cases as well, and it simply is not available.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am very grateful for those interventions. I have personally seen this in operation in Manchester, but it may have been that the court had particular availability of rooms that is not generally the case.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

That is where Ministers are taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I recognise the nature of the problem.

The modern versions of AI, or whatever generation of technology we are talking about, have opened up recent possibilities for us. Of course, any Government have every incentive to reduce cost. Why should we spend money on transcription, if it can be done more effectively and cheaply? The view currently taken is that a 99.5% accuracy is required. When we last trialled this in 2022 that level was not achieved, so we have not further proceeded with that development at the moment —but it remains a distinct possibility.

There is a specific situation with the magistrates’ courts whereby we do not even have recordings, let alone transcription. But again, if those courts now have screens that can be adapted in some way, the further development of technology is going to be the answer to the problem. At the moment the Government, although very sympathetic to the point, do not feel that they are in a position to accept a statutory obligation to provide a victim with a free transcript of the trial. We are working through the development with regard to sentencing remarks.

Of course, I will keep this under review and discuss it further with my noble friend Lady Newlove and others. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, makes very sensible points about the nature of some of these transcripts. We are going to have to be very careful in some cases. That is a quite separate issue.

With regret, I do not feel that the Government can accept Amendment 20 in its present form, but I hope I have explained the direction of travel as far as the future is concerned.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who talked about their personal experiences, which was extremely valuable. I will not rehearse what has been said and repeated by others. I think the Minister needs to understand that the opinion of those who have contributed is somewhat different; certainly, the issue is worth discussing. I hope he will be prepared to have a meeting with those of us who are here. For example, we have just had a debate about the importance of being able to find rooms, but many speakers said that it was still too early for a traumatised victim to be able to take in the proceedings.

To give noble Lords my own experience, when I went into the court to hear my stalker being sentence, I was not just near his family; I was next to him—that far away. The result was that I did not hear a word of the sentencing, so thank goodness journalists covered it. I missed the absolute key bit, because all I was thinking about was how close he was to me. Extra rooms would be enormously helpful, and I believe the court system needs to find a way to make sure juries understand that victims should not be penalised if they wish to listen. I do not have an answer to that but, if the Minister agrees to a meeting, perhaps we will have that as one of the topics for discussion.

My final brief point is that in your Lordships’ House we already use Zoom and Teams. I chair a disability committee for the Local Government Association— I am a vice-president of the LGA—and we have deaf and hard-of-hearing people in the group. I use close captioning for every single one of those meetings, and it can be saved. This is not a future technology; it is available. If the Government and the court system do not recognise where these are, we will lose the benefit of what is happening now by not harnessing the technology available to help victims who really need it. I hope the Minister will agree to a meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I am going to give the Minister an opportunity to respond, if he wishes.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Thank you. The Sentencing Council point is an interesting one, which I will reflect on. As for the request from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, of course I am prepared to have another meeting.

Amendment 20 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

It has been a privilege to speak briefly in this debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all speakers in this debate. Like others, I particularly salute Poppy and her story. The whole purpose and point of the Bill is that the system should function as it apparently did in Poppy’s case; I am glad that it did. We should bring everything up to that level. It is part of levelling up. The Government have brought forward quite an extensive framework in which the improvement in the rights of victims, victims’ awareness, accessibility of services and the duties of police and crime commissioners and local agencies are being given a tremendous shove. I think that was the phrase I used at Second Reading. I respectfully do not accept the description by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, that this is “good chaps” stuff. This is serious stuff to deal with a serious problem.

I support the last comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that it is a bit sterile to argue whether this word or that word should or should not be in the Bill—whether it should be “must” or “should”—and get all legalistic about it. We should really be discussing the practicalities, the costs and how we do it. That is more about what we do with the code itself than about having a sterile debate on the statutory framework. Those who are pursuing the interests of victims should not, I respectfully suggest, get hung up on exactly what the statute is saying; they should be thinking about what we should do in practical terms. From the government side, I rather welcome that general suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Let us get down in the weeds on some of this.

On the general question of the treatment of children in the Bill, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that children are already quite extensively referenced in the statutory framework. Clause 11 is about:

“Guidance on code awareness and reviewing compliance”.


Clause 11(2)(b) says that the guidance may include provision about

“the way in which information is collected (and in particular, how information in relation to children or individuals who have protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 is collected)”.

Clause 13 is about the crucial stages of needs assessment and the collaboration of the relevant authorities. Clause 13(4) says:

“When making an assessment under subsection (3), the relevant authorities must have regard to the particular needs of victims who are children or have protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act”.


Lastly, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has just pointed out, a similar phrase appears in Amendment 74 —the proposed new Clause 15. The same phrase is in the existing clause as well. Talking about guidance about specified victim support roles, proposed new Clause 15(5) says:

“Guidance under this section must (where relevant) make provision in relation to victims who are children or have protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act”.


We already have a statutory framework for getting to where I think all your Lordships would want to be.

What, then, is the next stage? In the Government’s view, it is to make sure that we have it right in the code. The code already deals with children on page 7 and provides that they and other victims who have protected characteristics have enhanced rights, so that you have the right to receive information earlier, or better information, in various ways, and those enhanced rights are there in the code.

What the code does not do at the moment is to distinguish clearly between children and other vulnerable or intimidated persons or those who have protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Therefore, the Government are very open to considering how we develop a section in the code that deals specifically with children, and we are working with that aim, with the Children’s Commissioner, to deliver on that commitment to address children’s needs in the code. We started with a round table activity last week, attended by academics, criminal justice bodies and other important stakeholders, including the domestic abuse commissioner. We have to meld the respective roles of the Children’s Commissioner and the domestic abuse commissioner, who I think jointly wrote an article in the national press not very long ago saying that we must do better—indeed, perhaps arguably, we should.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

This is absolutely no criticism of the Minister himself. The Government have often tended to focus on domestic abuse, but child victims are not always victims through domestic abuse. Can the Minister reassure the House that while it is important that the domestic abuse commissioner is involved, the focus will remain on the experience of the child victim, wherever it has happened?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am extremely grateful for that important intervention. As a number of noble Lords pointed out, although from various quarters adults can—sometimes quite vociferously—speak for themselves, children cannot, on the whole. They are the silent ones. We have heroines such as Poppy but on the whole, we are dealing with a cohort that does not have the ability to raise its own profile, for that fairly obvious reason. I am grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for making that point. For myself—I cannot commit the Government—I would say that we need available a part of the code or something that is particularly child friendly, so that at least some children can themselves consult it and understand their rights. So the Government’s door is not at all closed on this point. If I may say so again— I am conscious that sometimes I sound a bit like a broken record—can we please work on the practicalities of the code and on bringing everybody up to the same sort of level, rather than getting hung up on rather dry legal points?

I think I have covered in general terms the spirit, drift and direction of the amendments. I have to make one point on Amendment 100A which it does not at all please me to have to make. The difficulty with that amendment, as the Government see it, is that it relates to cases of suspected abuse. We have in the Bill a definition that turns on the existence of criminal conduct, and if there is criminal conduct, there is a victim. The Government at the moment are reluctant to extend that to suspected criminal conduct. That is a difficulty.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

But that is not quite right, though, is it? I do not believe that the definition of a victim in the Bill requires there to have been even a charge of criminal conduct, let alone a conviction, so I do not quite understand the reasoning that says we are concerned about suspected criminal conduct.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

Any suspected child sexual abuse would be a crime, as covered under Schedule 1. In that context sexual abuse is covered, particularly that of minors.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

We may slightly be dancing angels on a pin. It may well be that if a regulated professional says to an authority, “I suspect there is criminal conduct”, there is enough there to say that there actually is criminal conduct to enable—

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

For clarity, it is important, given that I intervened on the Minister before, to refer the Committee to Clause 1, “Meaning of ‘victim’”, and to subsection (5) in particular, which says that

“It is immaterial … that … no person has reported the offence”


or that

“no person has been charged with or convicted of the offence”.

Therefore, if no person has even reported the offence but a victim is still a victim, I believe—with huge respect to the Minister—that victims of suspected crime are included in the definition of “victim” that is the foundation of His Majesty’s Government’s Bill.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure that we are really in disagreement on this. As I think I pointed out several times on the last occasion, criminal conduct does not depend on whether something has been reported; I had a discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about that before. We are discussing what level of evidence there has to be before somebody has to say that there is criminal conduct. Somebody has to judge whether there is criminal conduct if the thing has not been reported to the police, prosecuted or charged. It may well be that, in the circumstances the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, refers to, the fact of that kind of reference may be enough to establish criminal conduct. However, if it turns out that the suspicion is wrong, there has not been criminal conduct. That is the only point I am making: it is either covered already, or it should not be extended to the situation being envisaged. I do not think I have made myself very clear, but I was struggling to do so.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. As the debate we have just had demonstrates, the problem is that we need more clarity. If it is covered in the Bill—we are not convinced that it is, which is why we tabled the amendment—for children it needs to be made clear in the Bill, because of IICSA’s first recommendation about mandatory reporting, which we hope will come in due course. I understand that the Government have not made a decision on that, but at least it would nod to that recommendation, saying, “If somebody in a regulated profession believes that a child is a victim, and has a suspicion or belief that they have been the victim of CSA, then they are a victim”. It would be clear, and I am not sure that it is clear in Clause 1(5).

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I need to think about this point. The amendment came in a little later than some of the other amendments, so I will take it under advisement. I see the point that is being made.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for my lateness—I got slightly confused about the Northern Ireland Bill and when it was coming.

I will speak to Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell. I follow my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, so there is very little more to be said. The only thing I can say is that ASB is so important. ASB is far more common than we know and far more common than the police will say. It must be taken seriously. I have a friend whose father was the victim of ASB over many years and actually snapped. He attacked the person who was causing it and ended up with a custodial sentence himself. So you can turn victims into perpetrators with this and it needs to be defined in this Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords very sincerely for their most moving and constructive speeches. I will first respond to the invitation of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to conduct these proceedings in as open and consensual way as possible. In the other place, my right honourable friend Minister Argar did precisely that, and I propose to follow exactly the same approach, and to discuss as widely as we can the various difficult issues that are in front of us. That is an essential function of this Chamber.

To a great extent—I think my noble friend Lady Newlove accepted this, up to a point—we have made very considerable progress in support of victims generally over the last few years. But the problems that remain are, in particular, that victims are still often unaware of their rights, that the required services are not provided, or that the relevant authorities are not accountable. So the questions in front of us are not so much points of principle as questions as to how we change the culture of a system to make sure that victims are properly supported, as they should be.

I suggest, in shorthand, that essentially we should seek four things. First, victims should be aware of their rights and entitlements under the code. Secondly, those services should be accessible. Thirdly, those responsible for providing them should be accountable. Finally, the system should be affordable; speaking on behalf of the Government, I am bound to make that point. Essentially, we have four As: awareness, accessibility, accountability and affordability. It is within that framework that I will respond to the various points that have been made, with great conviction and sincerity, about the definition of “victim” in the current draft of the Bill.

We are dealing with five questions all together. One is about carers and those who suffer vicarious harm, which is raised in Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The second is about people who have been victims of a defendant who has subsequently been made the subject of a hospital order as distinct from another criminal sanction. Thirdly, there is the question of anti-social behaviour. Fourthly, there is the question of homicide abroad. Finally, where the criminal conduct has been caused by another family member, there is the question of whether they are still a victim; that is raised in the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I will take those points, and probably in that order.

As regards Amendment 1, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as I read it, the definition of “victim” is not confined in its present form to victims of serious sexual or violent behaviour; it is very broad, extending to all crimes. It refers first to persons who have been subject to witnessing a crime. The Government’s position is that those who have witnessed a crime are already covered fairly explicitly in the definition in Clause 1.

That takes us on to the difficult question of how far you go on the carers of victims and others who have suffered indirectly rather than directly. On that point, the Government’s present thinking is that we should have a system that serves the direct victims primarily, and that we cannot, at this stage at least, extend the definition of a victim too far. If I may say so, there is force in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: if one makes the concept of a victim too wide, one may well finish up with a system that is not as workable as it otherwise would be. There are all kinds of people who are, in one sense, victims but who are not necessarily the direct victims to whom we must give priority. The job of a Government is to make decisions as to how to prioritise services. We are very pressed on resources on all fronts, so I urge your Lordships to take that point into account and to consider that the definition of victim in Clause 1 is already very wide. I will come to certain points made in that connection in a moment. It would not be the right approach, by statute, to extend that already broad definition any further than it is. Broadly speaking, that is the Government’s position on Amendment 1.

On the point about hospital orders in relation to Amendments 8, 12 and 19, the question is whether the victim is a person who has been subject to criminal conduct. A person may well be the perpetrator of criminal conduct but still finish up being ordered by the court to be detained in a secure hospital, rather than serve a criminal sentence. The Government’s position is that many of the victims whose perpetrator has finished up in front of a mental health tribunal are already victims under the Bill. They are covered so long as the conduct is criminal. Your Lordships may have seen the tragic case in Nottingham this week, where the defendant, who was clearly schizophrenic and should never have been on the streets, was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of dismissed responsibility. It was criminal conduct, so those unfortunate families are victims. The point that is rightly made—

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

If the Minister would not mind giving way, I will clarify—I am sure that this is what he meant—that there are many people who are successfully treated for schizophrenia who live in the community. I think that he is referring to an individual who was very ill and who sought the charge of manslaughter yesterday because of diminished responsibility. I would not want the impression to be given in Hansard that people cannot live their lives—quite challenging lives—with schizophrenia in the community.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I entirely accept that point. I have in my own family direct experience of a similar situation. That particular individual had already committed a number of crimes and there was a warrant out for his arrest. That is a very specific case and that is the context in which I made my comment.

On the assumption that, in many of these cases, we have someone who is already a victim under the meaning in the Bill, the problem rightly identified is that the procedures of the mental health tribunal do not, at the moment, quite correspond to the procedures in the main courts, particularly on the right to give a victim statement. The Government’s position is that that is not a satisfactory state of affairs; they are working with the authorities in the mental health tribunal and others to operationalise how we have the same system for mental health tribunals as for the main courts system. I hope to be able to give your Lordships further information that will enable your Lordships to say that this point—which is rightly being made—is being addressed by the Government. As soon as I am in a position to give further information about that, I will. The point of principle that a number of noble Lords have made is accepted; there is no dispute about that.

We then come to the equally difficult question of anti-social behaviour. Again, the first question is whether the victim has been subject to criminal conduct. Strictly speaking, whether or not the police have taken any action is not decisive of the question of whether the conduct is criminal. It may well have crossed the criminal threshold and, if it has, the victim should be entitled to relevant circumstances.

If the conduct has not crossed the criminal threshold, that is a more difficult situation because the scope of the Bill is victims of criminal conduct, and it is quite difficult for the Government, at least at this stage, to contemplate bringing within the scope of this Bill conduct that is not criminal. But a lot of anti-social behaviour is criminal, so how are we going to tackle this? Again, I am not in a position to give your Lordships as much detail as I would wish, but there will shortly be before your Lordships the Criminal Justice Bill currently making its passage through the other place, which will tackle and address a number of legitimate concerns about anti-social behaviour by enhancing the powers available to the police and other local agencies under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely accept the points that my noble friend is making, and I am very happy to have a further meeting to discuss this, the interrelationship between the bits of legislation that we are dealing with, the interrelationship between the various authorities and who exactly is responsible for what.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, to further emphasise that, I think it would be helpful to the Committee to recognise the sheer scale of anti-social behaviour. Some freedom of information requests looking at the period between 2019 and 2021 identified that, believe it or not, there were 3.5 million reports of anti-social behaviour, so it is on a similar scale to stalking on an annualised basis. Those are probably the largest two areas of cases involving victims across England and Wales.

Those statistics were done across 34 out of the 43 police forces. They demonstrate the huge variability across the country, police and crime commissioner by PCC, and police force by police force. That is the problem. Some areas are doing really well with existing resources, without needing extra money. With proper leadership, organisation and training, they are doing a really good job. Kudos to the Government and the Minister for achieving good results in some areas. The challenge for the Government is: what is the problem with taking action to ensure that is replicated efficiently and systematically right across England and Wales? The evidence is clearly that it is not. If the authorities can do it within existing resources, we are not talking about huge amounts of extra money. That is not the issue; the issue is the way they go about what they do.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention and entirely accept the point he makes about the variability across the country. Although this evening we are not on Clause 6 and supplementary Clause 11, for example, or Clause 10, about code awareness and reviewing compliance by criminal justice bodies, one of the main drivers of the Bill is to raise the standard of victim support equally across the country; to publish league tables; to have the data; to put pressure, if you like, by almost shame and stigma on those that are not performing as well as they should so that it is publicly known; and, in extreme cases, to give directions that they need to improve and so forth.

The steps we need to think about are how we make the various parts of the legislation consistent and operational, what role the code plays in anti-social behaviour when it is criminal conduct, as it often will be, and how we operationalise the way in which particular police forces and other agencies offer consistent services across the country. That is my thought on this point.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

On this particular point about anti-social behaviour, Louise Lotz was a friend of mine. The problem was that her local police force did nothing about the earlier stages of anti-social behaviour. One of the things that this amendment is trying to achieve is that police forces just watch the pattern of anti-social behaviour; if they see it going up, their response should also start to change. I wonder whether the Minister will take that into account. I look forward to joining any meeting about that as well.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I certainly take that into account. I again think that we collectively need to understand a little more about what the Criminal Justice Bill progressing through the other place is doing about this, because the problem of anti-social behaviour is that it exists and is not being controlled. That Bill is trying to address that problem. Here we are dealing with the victims, which in some ways is the end result, rather than the fact that it is happening in the first place, so tackling it and what is happening in the first place is probably a very important aspect that we need to understand further. I take all these points, and I think we should take it further collectively as soon as we can.

Then we come to the difficult issue of homicide abroad. I hope that nobody infers that the Government do not have enormous sympathy for those who suffer these very difficult situations, but I respectfully suggest that a crime of homicide committed abroad is in a slightly different category, as far as the victims’ code is concerned, from a crime of homicide committed in this country. Clearly, the various rights under the code —for example, the right to make a victim statement—as well as the nature of the offence, what the criminal processes are and so forth are rather different if we are talking about a crime that has been committed in South America or somewhere outside this country. The responsibility for looking after victims of homicide abroad falls primarily on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which offers support through the homicide service. Noble Lords may well say that it is not adequate support or enough support.

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

I have worked with the Foreign Office on this as well, and every time I have gone there, its first point of call is “We don’t have many resources; there’s not much money; we make the money from passports; it is only a small number of families that come through”. If we keep putting it to the Foreign Office, it will keep batting it the other way. Not only are we talking about families dealing with countries with different languages which are trying to get financial gain and who also have jobs to hold down but we have a Foreign Office that really does not do much for them and they feel lost. I appreciate what the is Minister saying, but I think it is about resource. I am not asking for lots of resources, but I want them to work collaboratively to help those families resolve the issues.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

If there has been a homicide abroad and those families are living here, there is a real danger that the message will be that the Government think that that homicide does not matter as much as a homicide that happened here. The Government might say that they do not have the resources. I pointed out that it is about 80 homicides per year—the numbers are not huge—but those people who are so severely traumatised, retraumatised and carry on being further damaged by the experience often become enormous consumers of resources because of mental health services, because they are unable to work and so on, and eventually they may need benefits. There are all kinds of things that they may need. It is a false economy to look at it in terms of resources to the FCDO. I hope that the Minister will meet me and others to discuss ways that the victims’ code could be asterisked where there are things that may not be as appropriate if the homicide occurred here, but it would say that the lives of British citizens are of equal value wherever they are in the world and that whether it was a terrorist attack, a homicide here or a homicide overseas, those lives are of equal value.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, of course I am prepared to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and any other noble Lords on this point to discuss it further. There is certainly a point about the signposting in the code, what the code should say about all this, whether we should give further additional priority to homicides abroad, and exactly what the role of the Homicide Service is and other related resource issues, as well as where the earlier point I raised about priorities comes in: we cannot do everything. This is an important topic for further discussion, and I do not rule out examining further how far we can go in response to the very legitimate concerns raised.

I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will forgive me for coming to her last, but I think her point was about the definition of a victim where the person is a victim as a result of the criminal conduct of a close family member. The obvious example would be a road incident where somebody who had been driving over the limit or driving dangerously had killed themselves, leaving behind bereaved children. On the wording of the code, those children would be victims. The Government do not think that even in those circumstances should we reduce or limit the concept of a victim. It is conceivable that somebody could be a perpetrator and a victim at the same time, because if you have driven dangerously, had a crash and killed your child, you may both be guilty of criminal conduct and a victim of your own conduct, as it were. That may be a highly theoretical and hypothetical example, but the Government are not proposing any change to Clause 1 in relation to those very tragic kinds of case.

I hope I have dealt with the main amendments proposed in this first group, and I respectfully invite your Lordships not to pursue them at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we add our thanks to the Children’s Commissioner for her very helpful round table and briefing notes. We also thank Hestia. I thank other noble Lords for their amendments, which specify children in the definition of a victim. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Benjamin made strong arguments to include who victims of abuse and criminal exploitation are, as well as those who are victims of modern slavery or human trafficking.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is a salutary reminder that children can be damaged by verbal harm. Intense and repeated verbal abuse is damaging. That is somewhat different from the point the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was trying to make, which was about young people having arguments about matters of principle and offence; that is not what we are talking about.

Some years ago, I lived next door to a family who used the most extraordinary bad language to their toddler, time after time. The example I can just about repeat in your Lordships’ House was his name, which was “Paul, you little bleeder”. It went on, from worse to worse. As he grew up, we heard his own language mirroring that of his parents. One of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is right to propose this is that a child like that needs help and support from other agencies, as do his parents. It can be within a house, or it can be separate, but it is very different from the argument the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was trying to make, and I hope she would accept that.

In a later group, probably next week, we will come to a group with much more detail about the protection required for child victims. All these amendments would ensure that definitions at the start of the Bill recognise that child victims have as many needs as adults. Agencies need to remind themselves that child victims may not always present in the same way as an adult and may not always need the same services as an adult. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, the lessons of Rochdale show that too many agencies do not always see children as victims. There, I am afraid that the police and some other agencies saw them as perpetrators. That is absolutely unacceptable.

I apologise again to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but I am picking up on the arguments she made about the lack of sympathy from officialdom and police. She went on to argue that it is important that people recognise that these children are victims. But this is not about sympathy; it is about getting help and support for these children. Sympathy may be part of it, but these amendments are not put forward to get sympathy for children; it is to change their lives, and to recognise that they are victims and will need specific services thereafter.

I am mindful of Nicky Campbell and others who were abused at the schools he attended and how their experience of not getting support early in their lives has affected them for their entire lives. This is not just an issue about children; it is about how those children grow up and manage their own lives. As I said at the end of the previous group, one can save money in the longer run on services by ensuring that victims—in this case child victims—get support as early as possible.

Finally, I echo the points made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee in Amendment 7 on the child victims of modern slavery or human trafficking. Hestia’s briefing was very helpful in reminding us that everyone in a family unit, especially the children, is affected by modern slavery and human trafficking, the consequences of which have long-standing impacts. So it is becoming clear from all parts of the House again that we need a separate definition of child victims. Their experiences, needs and the services they seek are all different.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this very important debate on how we assist, support, improve, validate and value children who have suffered various kinds of abuse. The question—I respectfully suggest it is a somewhat technical question—is whether we need to amend this Bill, whether we should do it through further sections of the code, and how we should approach the problem.

The Government’s position at the moment is that a child who is a victim of abuse and exploitation which constitutes criminal conduct is already a victim under the Bill. So the large numbers of children, rightly referred to, who have apparently suffered domestic abuse in the past—children who have been through the recent domestic abuse inquiry and so forth—would, in the ordinary meaning of words, I think, have been subject to criminal conduct under Clause 1(1)(a). As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, a child is undoubtedly a person, and the Government’s position is that this is very largely covered.

The phrase “child criminal exploitation” in itself implies someone who has been exploited by criminal conduct—which is already covered. So I hesitate to recommend to your Lordships that we need to further complicate the Bill itself, or the Act as it will eventually become, one hopes, by having further definitions. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lady Sanderson that there probably is some confusion at the moment in some of the guidance out there, and there is probably a great deal of inconsistency in how it is applied by different authorities in different parts of the country. As I said earlier, one of the purposes of the Bill is to ensure a much more even and consistent approach across the country by all relevant agencies.

It is important to clarify two things—and I respectfully suggest we should do this in the code rather than the Bill. The first is that we need, perhaps, to clarify that the phrase “criminal conduct” in the Bill does not imply that there has been a prosecution, let alone a conviction. It is whether, on the facts, this is a person who has suffered from the relevant conduct. Secondly, I suggest to your Lordships—and I cannot officially commit the Government tonight because I do not have the authority to do so—that we need when revising the code to have a detailed section on children, and special reference to the particular problems that have been rightly raised tonight, so that everybody has full guidance on what they are supposed to do with child victims of various kinds. That is probably a more apt way of proceeding than trying to redefine what we are talking about in the Bill. With the greatest respect, I suggest that “child criminal exploitation” is a somewhat difficult concept to define.

I could add that the act of manipulating, deceiving, encouraging, coercing or controlling a child almost certainly amounts to a criminal offence in itself—it does under Part 1 of the Modern Slavery Act, and we have been talking about modern slavery. We also have the wide terms under the Serious Crime Act 2007, in which encouraging or assisting an offence is also an offence. So I respectfully suggest that almost all the examples one can think of are already covered by the definition of “victim” in other Acts. At the moment the Government are not persuaded that we should be tinkering further with this particular definition, but I see the force of the argument that we need to have special mention and explanation as regards children when we come to revise the code and the guidance that accompanies it, and the duties of the various agencies to provide their services.

I suggest that the same broad analysis covers the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in relation to verbal abuse. It is already in Clause (1)(4)(a) that “harm” includes physical, mental, emotional or economic harm. I think that most kinds of verbal abuse are covered—but, again, this is a matter that is more for the way one drafts the code than it is for the Bill itself. That would be, I think, the Government’s position at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I did not quite catch what the Minister said when referring to Clause 1(2)(a). Was he saying that a child who is the child of a victim of modern slavery will fall within

“seen, heard, or otherwise directly experienced”?

I am not sure what “directly experienced” extends to. Is his argument that the child of a victim of this particular crime would fall under Clause 1(2)(a)? I am sorry; the Minister talked about it but I did not quite hear.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I think that is the Government’s position. In most cases the child will experience the effect of criminal conduct, that being the effect on the mother. That is a sufficiently direct nexus, as it were, to bring it within the scope of the clause.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. The gist of the Minister’s summing up is that he believes that all the examples given in this short debate are already covered in the Bill. I think he said that there may be a detailed section in the code covering children; I understand that that was not a firm commitment but, nevertheless, it is a step forward.

The Minister gave a number of examples of why the Government want a more explicit recognition, but I gave a specific example where I argued that the black-letter law on the recognition of children could—and does—affect the accessibility of victims’ services. When local authorities look at how to allocate services, there is potentially a hierarchy there. We think that children should be at the top of that hierarchy, equal to domestic abuse victims; that was the specific example that I gave to the Minister.

Nevertheless, this has been an interesting debate on which I and others will reflect. I agreed with every word of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment. He clearly tabled it to raise awareness—one of the Minister’s four As—and he has effectively achieved that goal. I will be interested to see whether he wishes to take it further. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Non-custodial Sentences: Public Confidence

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the public’s confidence in non-custodial sentences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, it is important that the public have confidence in non-custodial sentences. The Government’s response to the Justice Select Committee’s report, Public Opinion and Understanding of Sentencing, was published last Thursday, 18 January. The Government are currently considering the Justice and Home Affairs Committee’s report of 28 December 2023, Cutting Crime: Better Community Sentences, and further note the Sentencing Council’s current consultation on revised guidelines for the imposition of community and custodial sentences.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. I look forward to the Government’s response to that committee report, given that a 2019 report by the Sentencing Academy suggested that public attitudes to sentencing are, in part, due to a lack of evidence-based information. Our prisons are overcrowded and, overall, what we are doing is not working to break cycles of reoffending and change the lives of offenders, victims and communities. So what more can the Government do to raise evidence-based awareness of the effectiveness of sentences and, perhaps, share outcomes from the female offender strategy and women’s centres to promote public support for an alternative model for both male and female non-violent offenders?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government accept that we can do more to increase public understanding of the working of the criminal justice system. We are committed to open justice: broadcasting judges’ sentencing remarks is a notable step forward; the further availability of transcripts of those remarks is another step that we can take. It is also important to publish sentencing and other information in an accessible form, on GOV.UK and on social media. We should be ambitious to improve the data that we already publish on criminal justice statistics. The Sentencing Council website has extensive information on how sentencing works, and a number of other steps can be taken to improve public knowledge of what is happening.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that public support for non-custodial sentences would be improved considerably if the Government took immediate steps to deal with the workforce gap in the Probation Service? Every probation service in the country is undermanned; there is a shortage of 400 officers in London; and 20% of new probation officers leave the service before they finish qualifying.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord that the key to public confidence in community sentences is rigorous offender management. We are investing £155 million a year in the Probation Service, which is in recovery mode. We have over 4,000 new trainees and even in London there has been a 10% increase in recruitment. The Community Payback programme, which is targeted specifically at community sentences, involves a further £93 million, and an increase in staff and resources for that programme.

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I note my interests in the register. A community sentence that has public and judicial support, particularly for women offenders, is one with a mental health treatment requirement, which is often combined with a drug rehabilitation and alcohol treatment requirement. A national rollout is well under way, but these sentences will be fully successful only if there is increased capacity in each of these services, especially mental health. Will the Minister therefore ensure that there is such capacity across the country to enable the successful completion of these community sentences and to reinforce judicial and public confidence in them?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I entirely accept the value of the various outcomes that the noble Lord just mentioned. We should celebrate success stories, particularly in relation to female offenders—mentioned by the right reverend Prelate a moment ago—and youth offenders. As the noble Lord just indicated, there are far more options for community sentences available now than there used to be. There is tagging, alcohol tagging, alcohol treatment and drug treatment. Quite a range of possibilities are therefore open to the court, combined with the national drug strategy being run by the Department of Health to get people off drugs. I cannot promise to ensure increased capacity, but the Government are certainly working to that end.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, speaking not just from these Benches but as chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee, we found it persuasive that community sentences are followed by much lower rates of reoffending than custody. We know that prisons are “universities of crime”. Should this not be a message that the Government promulgate?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the actual message is, in essence, for the Sentencing Council to transmit. The Government and Parliament set the framework, the Sentencing Council sets the guidelines, and our independent judges impose the sentences. The Sentencing Council’s present guidelines emphasise that community orders can be highly positive, last longer than short custodial sentences and involve important restrictions on day-to-day liberty; and that breaching them can result in significant adverse consequences. We must entirely combat the idea that community sentences are a soft option, and that is the Government’s position.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, the need to weigh public confidence against improving rehabilitation, reducing costs and the need for prison places seems to be ignored when sentencing for serious and violent crime. The trend here is for ever longer custodial sentences. People convicted of murder now spend 60% longer in prison, on average, than in 2001. No balancing act is being attempted, and no rehabilitation. Justice cannot be driven by vengeance, so why are the Government arguing for ever longer sentences?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am not aware that the Government are arguing for ever longer sentences. On the contrary, the sentencing Bill that your Lordships will shortly consider has a presumption to avoid prison sentences in certain circumstances—particularly short sentences. As far as murder is concerned, the statutory sentence is life imprisonment. That is not a matter for the Government. The time one serves as a sentence for murder is a matter for the Sentencing Council guidelines. I think I would accept—as the Justice Committee accepted—that it is true that public opinion in recent years seems to have moved towards heavier sentences for serious crime. But I do not accept that, as my noble friend suggests, that overrides rehabilitation in all circumstances.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, pre-sentence reports are vital to improving the effectiveness of community sentences. They allow courts to tailor sentences, and give sentencers confidence that the interventions they are recommending are not only suitable but available in their area. Worryingly, according to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, the number and quality of pre-sentence reports prepared by the Probation Service has been declining dramatically—thanks in no small part to the disruption caused by the Government’s ill-judged attempt to privatise the Probation Service. Given that good pre-sentence reports and good sentencing decisions go hand in hand, what are the Government doing to reverse this decline?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness on the importance of pre-sentence reports. As I just said, the Government have put a great deal of investment into the Probation Service to, among other things, restore and improve pre-sentence reports. The Sentencing Council consultation—open now and completing in February—indicates that pre-sentence reports should be available in all cases except where the likely outcome is a fine or a conditional discharge. Once again, the Government are addressing the question the noble Baroness raises.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the Bill be read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That this Bill be committed to a Special Public Bill Committee.

Motion agreed.