Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]

Lord Bishop of Newcastle Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

My Lords, as we have heard, the Bill deals with two broad issues. First, there is the extension of the licence and supervision requirements placed on offenders in the community, which I warmly welcome. Secondly, there is the national commissioning of services to support those requirements, inevitably bringing in private companies—as they are now called, “lead providers”—in 21 large contract areas. I have considerable misgivings about aspects of that development. The Government claim that it is needed in order to finance the supervision arrangements but, in principle, those are two quite separate matters.

I declare an interest: for the past 15 years I have been president of Norcare, a Newcastle-based charity which provides housing and personal support to vulnerable ex-offenders, and to those recovering from drug addiction and substance misuse. Throughout its history, Norcare has developed considerable expertise and has worked closely and constructively with the probation services and the local authorities in the region. We have well established and experienced staff and systems in place, and are already delivering contracts with an element, anyway, of payment by results about them.

I welcome the fact that the Government’s response to the consultation process has taken account of some of the points and issues raised by churches, voluntary bodies and third-sector bodies. The key for the future, for me, will be the importance of preserving and developing those existing partnerships. However, I fear that there are real dangers and difficulties ahead. There is the danger of the fragmentation of services. There are the risks of perverse incentives to providers. There is the question of how best practice is to be shared and developed. There is the question of how good communication between all parts of the system can be established.

The speed of change to an untried national commissioning system is a major concern—not least the use of payment by results, which is a very inexact science indeed. Behind all that there is the greater danger of dissipating the accumulated wisdom and expertise of existing probation teams and services. I worry about the underlying assumption that public is bad and private is good, when there is no evidence of which I know to support it. Fundamentally, if this is a step towards the dismantling of the probation service, that is a tragic mistake which will leave a hole in the criminal justice system, which will one day need to be filled again.

I return to the extension of supervision, both for those released after short sentences and for those serving community-service sentences. I welcome of course the extension of rehabilitation support to those serving short sentences; it would be even better if it began before they are released from prison. To offer structured support to that large group which, as we have heard, is most likely to reoffend will be a major step forward.

However, when the Bill is considered in detail there are bound to be a number of detailed concerns. Some people imprisoned for very short periods may well be drawn into the toils of the criminal justice system, with the threat of breach proceedings hanging over them for a full year after release. The provision forbidding somebody to change residence without permission and the power to impose compulsory attendance at drug appointments are further examples of a creeping culture of control.

The probation service has served our country very well down the years. It has enshrined the key values of vocation, service, care and compassion, with the rehabilitation of the individual at the very heart of it. That can seem a far cry from the kind of contract culture being proposed, and I worry that the needs of the individual and the importance of the local will be lost. I worry when the language is that of the supply chain. Local schemes, working closely with individuals, must not find themselves disempowered or dismissed by the new world we are about to enter.

Of course there can be benefits if the efforts of the voluntary, statutory and these commercial bodies can be combined well to support those released after serving short sentences. However, how are we to avoid the bureaucratic nightmare of expensive contractual structures that could so easily crush local initiatives, deny local experience and dismiss existing expertise? I hope that the Minister can allay some of my fears and reassure me, at least, that service, support, care and compassion will remain at the very heart of any new arrangements.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Bishop of Newcastle Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 134 in the belief that the Government are quite right, in general, on the principles in this part of the Bill but they are wrong not to have made an exception in this case. These are very modest amendments to allow exceptions to be made.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned one reason why exceptions need to be made: DfID. This Government are working hard to follow the amount of aid that this country has committed—and I pay tribute to the Opposition. But it is not only DfID. The FCO realises that soft power is very important, and the Department for Business also realises that companies need to be socially responsible. Corporate responsibility has become a very important standard for this country.

This is recognised across almost all of government, and I urge my noble friend and the Ministry of Justice to join the other departments in making sure that companies listed here that have the potential to cause enormous damage—the extractive industries, in particular, whose work is accelerating at an enormous rate, and also agribusiness as commodity prices go up; there are a number of businesses whose turnover and impact in the world is growing day by day at a rate that was quite unimaginable even a decade ago—that needs to be balanced by better access to justice, not worse. It is for that reason that I support these amendments.

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

My Lords, I too support this amendment, which I think is really important. It is about the impact this Bill will have on access to judicial remedies for victims in host countries who are harmed by the activities of multinationals. Under the existing regime, it is already difficult for these kinds of cases to be brought in the UK. This Bill will change that system to make it virtually impossible for such cases to be brought in the future.

The cases in question are typically brought by poor victims who have had their livelihoods destroyed, their homes despoiled or their health gravely damaged by the UK or a UK-based company. As it stands, the Bill makes it economically unviable for both claimants and law firms to bring such cases due to the high financial risks. Provisions on success fees and insurance premiums mean that even if they were successful, claimants would have to pay such fees and costs out of their own damages.

This fundamental change is inappropriate, surely, because damages awarded would be typically too low to cover the costs involved. Damages in these particular cases are assessed according to developing country standards, whereas legal costs are incurred in the UK. As a result, as others have said, the Bill will create a practical barrier to justice and it is very unlikely that such cases will continue to be brought.

There would be no additional cost to the taxpayer if this amendment were accepted, but the benefits would be hugely significant in enabling poor communities to claim damages where they have been harmed and, just as importantly, in showing companies that they cannot act with impunity. I hope that the Government will reconsider this aspect of the Bill and move towards accepting this amendment.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, my name is not on this amendment but, having listened to the arguments, there seems to be absolutely no good reason why the Minister should not agree to it. It is not going to cost the taxpayer anything extra and it means that companies that have been the cause of this sort of damage should pay the proper price and the proper compensation. I certainly back the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Coussins.