Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015
Lord Faulks Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the draft regulations and order laid before the House on 8, 11 and 17 December 2014 be approved.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 29 January
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Fines on Summary Conviction) Regulations 2015
Lord Faulks Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Fines on Summary Conviction) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations before us today are needed to accompany the commencement of Section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, or LASPO as it is commonly called. Section 85 has not yet been commenced. It provides for all fines and maximum fines in the magistrates’ courts of £5,000 or more to become unlimited. This includes the level 5 maximum on the standard scale of fines and all exceptional summary maxima for environmental and health and safety offences, which can be as high as £50,000. It means that magistrates will be able to impose, if they so choose, a higher fine than they previously could.
I should make it clear that the way in which magistrates calculate the appropriate fine to be imposed in each individual case will not change. Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter solely for our independent courts. Parliament sets the maximum penalty for an offence and the courts sentence within that maximum, taking account of all the circumstances of each case. Where the sentence is a fine, the courts are required to take account not only of seriousness, but the known financial means of the offender. How the amount of a fine relates to these factors is covered in some detail by the sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council, which is also independent of government. None of these things will change.
I should also make it clear that dangerous criminals will always belong in prison, and there are others who will need to be made subject to community penalties. However, it is important that magistrates, who sentence the majority of offenders who come through our courts, have the power to hand down the appropriate fine with the severity they see fit for the most serious cases that come before them. They include summary crimes such as making and selling realistic fake guns, assaulting a police officer, using threatening behaviour and not making a property safe before renting it out.
Other offences that will be liable to unlimited fines in the magistrates’ courts will be harassment without violence, the sale of alcohol to children, and the unauthorised sale of football tickets, an offence introduced to help prevent violence at matches. The Government believe that it is important that magistrates should not be limited in the amount they can fine for serious offences such as these. Where appropriate, the courts will of course continue to be able to impose custodial sentences.
These regulations do not amend the text of every piece of legislation that provides for an offence to be subject to a maximum fine expressed variously as level 5, “the statutory maximum” or “the prescribed sum”, all of which mean £5,000. When Section 85 comes into force all these offences will automatically become fines of an unlimited amount. However, these regulations were needed to amend the text of legislation governing fines expressed as numerical amounts of £5,000 or more. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, may have seen the considerable extent of the draft statutory instrument carrying myriad different offences. There was a considerable amount of work for parliamentary counsel to try to tie up these issues.
As well as removing the £5,000 cap, Section 85 allows the Secretary of State to specify any exceptions in regulations. These exceptions are included in the draft regulations that we are debating today. But not only do they exempt certain offences from the general provision removing the £5,000 cap, they need to make additional provision if Section 85 is to work properly in practice. For example, some penalties are currently expressed as a proportion of £5,000. If we commenced Section 85 without amending such provisions, they would become meaningless as we cannot have legislation specifying a proportion of an unlimited amount, so we need to make changes there too.
These regulations achieve a range of objectives that will allow us to commence the LASPO provision. In total they do the following. First, they disapply the removal of the £5,000 cap in some cases, mainly for customs and excise offences, and substitute alternative figures, generally £20,000. These can be found listed in Schedules 1 and 2.
Secondly, they deal with penalties that were previously expressed as a proportion of level 5. These are generally daily fines. The regulations deal with these by setting an alternative figure for them to be calculated against. So, for example, instead of being expressed as a fifth of level 5 they are changed for the time being to a fifth of £5,000, although the provisions are future-proofed so this amount could rise in line with increases to other fines. These changes can be found listed in Schedule 3.
Thirdly, as I have already mentioned, they make specific provision for fines currently expressed as a numerical amount of £5,000 or more by providing for these to become a fine of any amount. Similar provision is made for powers to create offences subject to such fines. These are listed in Schedule 4.
Fourthly, they deal with certain non-criminal penalty schemes which operate by reference to the amount of a fine on summary conviction. Changes here will make sure these continue to work once Section 85 is in force. These are listed in Schedule 5.
I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that the Government needed to trawl all legislative provisions to check whether changes needed to be made before we could commence Section 85. This was, as is apparent, a significant task, which accounts for the time it has taken to compile the regulations and for their considerable length. I hope that the Committee will consider these regulations, which are necessary in order to commence the provision in LASPO that Parliament has already provided. I appreciate that they are lengthy and complex, but they are essential before we can give magistrates the increased powers that Parliament intended. I therefore commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister has explained to the Grand Committee, the regulations before us today will, when Section 85 of LASPO is enacted, remove the cap on fines imposed in magistrates’ courts on summary conviction. The regulations are to ensure the section works sensibly, and they provide for some exceptions.
I have a couple of points to raise with the Minister, but generally I am happy to offer our support to these regulations. I noted in paragraph 3.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum that an order was laid and then withdrawn in respect of levels 1 to 4 fines and that there are no plans to reintroduce it in the foreseeable future. It would be useful if the Minister could tell the Grand Committee a little bit more about that.
Paragraph 7.7 in the Explanatory Memorandum explains that magistrates are obliged to follow the sentencing guidelines, unless that would be contrary to the interests of justice. I know this is an aside to the regulations today, but I have recollections from my time as a magistrate sitting in Coventry. I used to do a lot of fines on Thursday mornings. We would spend a lot of time with people who had been fined by other magistrates’ courts and could not pay the fine. It was a ridiculous situation with fines often grossly disproportionate to the person’s means. It was not a proper punishment because they could not pay the fines. We all want to see punishments handed out that actually punish offenders on conviction, but they also have to be realistic to have the required effect. Does the department have any plans to ask the Sentencing Council to look at fines and their suitability as punishment in terms of their scope, size et cetera? With that, I am happy to support the regulations before us today.
Lord Faulks
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his observations in relation to these regulations and for his agreement on the part of the Opposition in relation to them. It is true that we were responsible for laying regulations in June 2014 and then withdrawing them. They would originally have uprated the amounts of levels 1 to 4 fines as well as level 5 fines. The Government took the view that further consideration was needed in relation to the appropriate amounts at levels 1 to 4, but the priority was to give magistrates the power to deal with the most serious level 5 offenders, which is why we have taken the most important step first in removing the £5,000 barrier. We are giving further consideration to levels 1 to 4 fines, which cover the less serious offences. We are also giving consideration, by way of a review, to driving offences and penalties, many of which would be within levels 1 to 4, although an offence such as driving without insurance is a level 5 offence. Any proposal to change these fine levels requires agreement from both Houses of Parliament. It does not mean—if that was the inference, and I am not suggesting it was—that we are taking a soft line on levels 1 to 4 offences, it is simply a question of prioritising level 5.
The noble Lord identified the dilemma that faces many sentencing tribunals in finding the right penalty and, in the case of repeat offenders, the unreality sometimes of having to impose fines that reflect both the seriousness of the offence and the sentencing guidelines. The problem is very often that those who commit these offences do not necessarily have the means to pay, the fines become unrealistic, and whether it is appropriate to continue imposing fines at that level becomes questionable.
Of course, the Government do not purport to tell sentencing tribunals what is appropriate in a particular case, and among the matters taken into consideration will be the means of the particular offender, not withstanding the guidelines, which are only guidelines. The courts will sometimes have other options, such as community penalties or even imprisonment, if the imposition of fines that are not being paid is becoming unrealistic. It is a matter for the individual tribunals. The Government respect the independence of the judiciary in this and any other field. I understand the dilemma the noble Lord identifies, but we feel that this change will give magistrates in appropriate cases the power to impose large fines, often on people who are, in fact, in a position to pay them.
The Secretary of State can ask the Sentencing Council to consider amending guidelines on specific matters if necessary, and the council is independent of the Government. Guidelines already cover in detail how fines are set in relation to income, and we like to follow carefully the way the Sentencing Council works and its sentencing guidelines. In fact, I am attending one of its meetings tomorrow, although not on this particular subject. It is important that the Government are at least aware of what it is doing. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with the answers to his questions.
Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015
Lord Faulks Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the Grand Committee do consider the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations before us today create the New Judicial Pension Scheme 2015—NJPS—establishing the pension scheme itself and also providing for its governance structure and the operation of its employer cost cap. The NJPS is a defined benefit scheme which provides a guaranteed pension based on average pay over a judge’s career. Each year, a percentage of a judge’s salary is notionally put aside. On retirement the cash value of all these annually calculated percentage pots is added up and that is the annual pension. To protect the accumulating pension against inflation, each individual’s notional pension is uprated each year. Employee contributions remain the same and there is transitional protection for those closest to retirement. Unlike previous judicial pension schemes this scheme will not have an automatic lump sum and will be registered for tax purposes in line with the practice elsewhere in the public sector.
The Government announced at the time of the emergency Budget in 2010 the establishment of an independent review of the provision of public service pensions. The judiciary was included in the scope of this review. The review by the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission, led by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, made recommendations for reform to public service pensions in order to make them both affordable and sustainable in the long term as well as offering certainty and fairness to public service pension scheme members and taxpayers. The Government’s response adopted many of the review’s recommendations. This included a guarantee that benefits accrued before the date of the change would be protected. It also introduced protections for those within 10 years of retirement.
On 5 February 2013, the Lord Chancellor announced to Parliament the intention to reform judicial pension arrangements in the form of the NJPS under the statutory framework of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. The reforms to judicial pension arrangements will apply to eligible members of the judiciary in Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as those in England and Wales. There are a number of devolved judicial offices in Scotland and Northern Ireland to which these reforms will not apply. The NJPS will be open to eligible fee-paid and salaried judicial office holders. This will be set out in a separate instrument.
The principles of the Public Service Pension Act 2013 have already been approved by this House; these regulations apply those principles, introducing a new pension scheme for the judiciary. The Government believe that the reforms to judicial pensions constitute a fair balance of costs and benefits between judicial pension scheme members and other taxpayers. I therefore commend these draft regulations to the Committee and I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has explained to the Grand Committee, the regulations before us today establish a new and reformed pension scheme for the judiciary. They are one of a number of instruments which are coming before your Lordships’ House on the matter of pensions.
I should say that as a general rule I am always sorry to see the end of final salary pension schemes, but I accept that that has been the trend in recent years, and I fully understand that pension schemes have to be reformed in order to ensure that they are sustainable in the long term. That has involved a change in the distribution of costs between the employer and the members of the scheme, along with a move from final salary schemes to other types of scheme and equalising the normal pension age with the state pension age.
I have only a couple of brief points. On looking at the Explanatory Notes, I see that the Lord Chancellor, after consulting with the judiciary, announced the intention to establish a stand-alone reformed pension scheme open only to the judiciary, although initially he had talked about bringing it into the Civil Service scheme. Can the noble Lord tell us why in the end the other options were not proceeded with, in particular the decision not to include the judiciary within the scope of the reformed Civil Service pension scheme? Further, will there be any additional costs to the taxpayer as a consequence of that decision?
I would appreciate a little more information regarding the tax concerns which have been raised by a number of members of the judiciary here in terms of the sums of money involved and whether that will result in additional costs which will have to be borne by the scheme and/or the taxpayer. Also, looking at the scheme itself, can he tell us a little about the governance arrangements? Will they differ in any material way from the governance of the Civil Service scheme? It would also be helpful to the Grand Committee if the noble Lord could highlight where in particular the scheme differs from the new Civil Service pension scheme? With those points, I am content to support the regulations before the Committee.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his observations. He will know that the judiciary had some concerns about the scheme, one of which turned on the importance of the independence of the judiciary and of attracting appropriate candidates to posts within the judiciary at whatever level. I am sure that Members of the Committee will understand both of those points. A particular concern that was expressed by many in the consultations was about the changes that were to take place to ensure that the judiciary came under the scheme which embraces all other senior civil servants. There was a particular provision which followed the judiciary’s own stand-alone scheme that is set out in paragraph 8.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum. It concerned in particular those whose existing arrangements for their pensions were unregistered so that when they came to accept a judicial appointment, they did so on the basis that their then pensions were unregistered, only to find that as a result of these provisions, the pension in their new post became registered. The result of that was a significant disadvantage to them, and therefore after some consideration, it was thought appropriate for there to be a special arrangement for the judges in that particular position.
The result of the special arrangement was that those who had previously had an unregistered pension could opt out of the government scheme and they would not receive the pension to which they would normally be entitled. However, during the time that they sit as judges, they will receive an increased salary to reflect the fact that their employer—the Government—would be paying a proportion of their income for pensions in the same way that they would in ordinary circumstances, and will be doing for judges in all other cases. This means that although there is an advantage to the individual, it is in fact neutral in terms of the effect on the tax take as a whole. That was the position.
Judges choose representatives to the pension board —I am talking now of governance—and make recommendations to the scheme manager on the question of discretion. The scheme was at the judiciary’s request. There is an increase in costs in the administration of that special scheme. On the scheme generally, the Government’s principle was to develop a scheme that is fair and sustainable for public sector workers and the taxpayer generally and, save for this fairly limited exception, the judicial scheme will bring the judiciary in line, for the first time, in fact, with the reformed Civil Service pension scheme Alpha, while there are some differences, which I have explained. There are also some slight differences in ill health provision, but any benefits to the department will be long term in nature due to the transitional protection provisions which apply to a considerable proportion of the judicial office holders in scope. However, there is a long-term financial benefit to the MoJ in the form of savings from the service award. This is a salary payment to judges upon retirement which compensates them for tax liabilities on their retirement lump sum. The cost to the department of the current annual service award is around £17 million per year. As the new scheme requirements will remove the need for service awards in the long term, this cost will be a saving to the department, and thus to the country in general. There is harmonisation. There are one or two exceptions.
We think judges have satisfactory pension arrangements. In the view of judges, they are not quite as satisfactory as they were before, but in view of the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, which were accepted by the Government, all public servants have had to accept some reductions in their entitlement in view of the overall financial situation, and judges are not considered an exception, but there is some reflection of their particular circumstances in those special arrangements. I hope that that is a satisfactory answer to the noble Lord’s questions.
Legal Services Act 2007 (The Law Society) (Modification of Functions) Order 2015
Lord Faulks Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Services Act 2007 (The Law Society) (Modification of Functions) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords may know, and by way of background, the Law Society of England and Wales is an approved regulator under the 2007 Act. The Solicitors Regulation Authority, the SRA, is the independent regulatory arm of the Law Society, which regulates all forms of solicitors’ practices and alternative business structures—ABSs.
Recognised bodies and ABSs are subject to the same authorisation process by the SRA, which is a one-off authorisation followed by ongoing supervision. In contrast, because of the requirements of the Solicitors Act 1974, sole practitioner solicitors are required to have annual endorsement of their practising certificates. This difference results in regulatory inefficiencies and increased costs for both sole practitioner firms and the SRA. The current differences in regulation also make it more difficult for solicitors to move between one type of practice and another. There are also differences in the way in which the SRA can take regulatory action where difficulty arises with a sole practitioner firm as compared with other firms.
This order therefore removes the requirement in the Solicitors Act 1974 for a solicitor who is a sole practitioner to obtain an annual endorsement on their practising certificate. The order therefore establishes a single method of authorisation and regulation of all solicitors. The effect of the order is to remove the concept of a sole practitioner from both the Solicitors Act 1974 and the Administration of Justice Act 1985 and instead create the concept of a “recognised sole solicitor’s practice”.
Recognised sole solicitors’ practices will be subject to the same type of authorisation and ongoing supervision process as recognised bodies and alternative business structures. This order is therefore a welcome deregulatory measure. It comes before the Committee following a public consultation by the Legal Services Board. No objections were raised during this process. The order was welcomed by the Sole Practitioners Group, which advised that it welcomed efforts to reduce the current burden of regulation of sole practitioners and welcomed the harmonising effect of the order.
In conclusion, the Legal Services Board is satisfied that there will be no lessening of consumer protection as a result of this order which will make it easier for the SRA to regulate solicitors more effectively and proportionately. I commend the order to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I do not intend to detain the Grand Committee for long on any of the orders before us today.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has explained, this order removes the requirement on a solicitor who is a sole practitioner to obtain an annual endorsement on their practising certificate and so establishes a single method of authorisation and regulation for all solicitors. That is welcome and we are very happy to support it from these Benches.
I notice from the impact assessment that there is a small financial saving to solicitors as a consequence of this change. It is not huge and would not be the dominant consideration in making these changes. However, I see the benefits of making the change in the methods of authorisation and regulation.
I note from the impact assessment that the proposal was originally consulted on between December 2010 and March 2011, but nothing was taken forward. Three years later a policy statement was issued, which again attracted support. Here we are at the end of January 2015 with the measure finally being brought into effect. Can the noble Lord shed some light on why four years have passed since this measure was first suggested and subsequently enacted? However, I am content to support the order.
Lord Faulks
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his observations. On his second point, these measures were, as he said, first proposed in 2010. Following a detailed consultation, the SRA stopped work on these proposals as it had to concentrate on various other priorities, including preparing to be designated as the licensing authority for alternative business structures which was, as he will appreciate, a fairly major piece of work. The SRA took up this work again last year in conjunction with my officials, and this order has been brought before the House at the earliest opportunity. The delay was because of other priorities rather than for any sinister reason. As to the noble Lord’s question on cost, this measure will remove some costs and bureaucracy. One hopes that that will be passed on in due course in some way to the client. I am grateful for those observations and I beg to move.
Criminal Justice System: Autism
Lord Faulks Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for securing this debate, and raising the important issue of access to, and support from, the criminal justice system for those with autism spectrum disorders. It is, of course, a spectrum. As has been rightly said, those with higher functioning autism can be particularly difficult to identify. Generally, autism can sometimes be difficult to identify or diagnose.
A lot of information is available about Mr Faruk Ali’s case. However, as a number of noble Lords have indicated, the two police officers were cleared after a trial relating to the incident which took place on 20 February. Both officers remain suspended pending the outcome of a misconduct investigation. In those circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment further. However, I have no difficulty at all in saying that we expect the highest standards of professionalism in all aspects of policing and across the criminal justice system and I am extremely happy to condemn any racist or discriminatory behaviour by any police officer in any circumstances. The decision as to whether to take further action against these officers is a matter for the Independent Police Crime Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service.
I am well aware of the need for all parliamentarians, and especially those who work in public services, to be more conscious of the needs and experiences of people with autism. This issue is particularly important as regards the criminal justice system. It is thought that around 2% of the general population have autism, but I recognise that the figure within the offending population could be much higher as a percentage.
The Government’s autism strategy, which was updated in April 2014, contains specific actions in relation to criminal justice. The Ministry of Justice is a signatory to that strategy. The update contains new obligations for the Ministry—obligations which I am pleased to say we are taking forward. These include the commitment to establish a cross-government group to take forward issues with autism and the criminal justice system. I am pleased to say that although the system encompasses a large number of players, as noble Lords will understand —for instance, the police and prosecutors, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred, as well as courts, prisons and probation—my department is leading on this work and chairing the group.
We also agreed, as part of our commitments in the strategy, to examine and share good practice in prisons towards prisoners with autism. We are also considering whether autism awareness training can be made available to probation staff. We are having conversations with the new independent Probation Institute about this. As part of our strategy, we agreed to make information available to potential bidders for contracts for the new providers of probation services under our transforming rehabilitation programme.
All the strategy objectives have one thing in common: they are helping with our aim to ensure that the criminal justice system can adapt to cope with people with autism, whether they are suspects, victims or witnesses. As a number of noble Lords have said, training is key to this. All staff in the criminal justice system cannot be expected to be subject experts in every disability they may encounter, as my noble friend Lord Addington said, but they should at least be on notice that there might be a problem, which I think was the burden of his remarks. For example, a person whose possibly different perception of social norms may get them into trouble and the chances of someone in the criminal justice system encountering someone with autism is therefore significant.
As part of the autism strategy, the Home Office has committed to ensuring that the College of Policing develops better training for the police in recognising autistic spectrum disorders. I am pleased to update noble Lords on the fact that the college now has a full-time mental health co-ordinator and, arising from that role, it has set in train important streams of work around the development of new authorised professional practice guidance on mental health, including autism. The new guidance should be available to consult in the near future and we hope will go live and be public by autumn 2015.
The guidance for police will be underpinned by the first comprehensive package of training, pitched at different levels of detail and relevance for different ranks and roles of officers across the service. These training packages will be relevant for the promotion process and professional development, right up to the Police National Assessment Centre, which selects senior officers. This training is delivered through a formal training board, including the police national curriculum manager, and has already highlighted the need to understand the extent to which police training should confirm condition-specific awareness.
It has been recognised that these disorders may need to affect a policing response. The work is at an early stage and will develop in 2015, with a view to training products being ready for piloting in 2015 and completed for consumption nationally by the end of the first quarter of 2016.
As to prison officers, NOMS has a Prison Service instruction, a set of binding rules for prisons which covers autism. It includes a specific section to help people understand autism as well as a section on communicating with people who have learning difficulties or related disorders because it is sometimes the case that there is comorbidity, as it were. There may be autism and other difficulties within one person.
Some prisons have developed their own autism strategies and sets of training materials—for example, the excellent work that is being done at Dovegate prison. As I mentioned earlier, my department is very keen to find best practice among local practitioners and to share and promote this more widely.
I am glad to say that within the Ministry itself training is available for staff on autism. I know that a number of charities offer training on interacting with people with autism, written specifically for criminal justice professionals. I hope that this will mean a real improvement in the experiences that autistic people have when they interact with the criminal justice system.
Liaison and diversion schemes, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and others, are key to this. It is, of course, crucial that we are able to identify autism. Twenty- five million pounds has been invested across England to fund mental health professionals in police stations and courts to establish liaison and diversion services. These services identify people when they first come into contact with the youth and adult criminal justice systems and help support the most appropriate outcomes. They are available 24 hours a day and ensure that across the trial areas they will be provided with the same level of care and service.
By identifying someone with a health problem such as autism when they are brought into a police station or involved in court proceedings, liaison and diversion schemes can ensure that an individual is supported through the criminal justice system and into the right mental health or social care service. We have strong anecdotal evidence that they can reduce the overall length of court proceedings—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—through the provision of timely reports to magistrates, limiting the number of court hearings, and probably adjournments, and therefore avoiding periods on remand. They should be passed between authorities and should follow the individual through the criminal justice system to probation or prison services, so that from the first encounter, quite apart from the question of flagging this on a computer—that important point was raised and is being looked into—there is not, as it were, a gap in people’s awareness.
There is a real opportunity here for the liaison and diversion service to help courts do their job. The case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, was a considerable challenge to the court, by the sound of it. It almost sounded like an exam set for a judge in all the most difficult problems a court would have to confront. Even the question of unfitness to plead, I dare say, would have come before the court on that particular occasion. I am sorry that there were delays. Of course, delays can sometimes be encountered in finding the appropriate expert to make the diagnosis or identify the disorder. It can still take too long. I have had briefings from the Department of Health on this issue. It has commissioned the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence to produce guidance which will lead to quicker diagnosis. There is a role for NHS England in looking at people’s experience of diagnosis, and the importance of timely and effective services will be highlighted in a forthcoming statutory guidance on autism for local authorities and the NHS.
The new model—the liaison and diversion model—has already seen more than 10,000 children, young people and adults, come through the service while going through the justice process. The model will be independently evaluated to inform a business case for services to cover all of the English population by 2017-18. As to victims and witnesses—as in the case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, there can be times when both a victim and a defendant may need support—it is very difficult for a court and all those taking part in the criminal justice system to come to the truth and nevertheless respect the rights of all those involved in the process.
The Government are committed to providing support for all types of vulnerable and intimidated victims and have a range of special measures in place to support them in the criminal justice system. Of course, the courts have an inherent right to ensure that someone on the autistic spectrum has appropriate facilities to assist them in their defence, including the use of intermediaries. There is guidance given to judges as to this use of special measures and the access to materials on the private judicial websites. If they are confronted with difficulties they should be aware of the possibility—and indeed they are—of helping those who have difficulties, although, as I said, the information should be conveyed by the liaison and diversion services or through the probation service in any event.
The registered intermediary should help them communicate their evidence. Intermediaries are communication specialists to help vulnerable witnesses provide their best evidence. They are one of the special measures introduced in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act. In 2014, 499 requests for a registered intermediary to help witnesses with disorders such as autism were received. In addition, victims and witnesses can also expect to be able to use communication aids, devices such as books and symbol boards to help them communicate when giving evidence in court.
A new victims’ code implemented in December 2013 sets out the support and services that victims can expect to receive from agencies throughout the criminal justice process. It also sets out that victims in the following three priority categories of crime are entitled to receive enhanced support and information: victims of the most serious crime; intimidated or vulnerable victims; and persistently targeted victims, which can be a particular feature of those who are on the autistic spectrum. The code entitles them to receive this enhanced support including the referral to specialist organisations.
The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have a duty under their code to assess the victims’ needs at an early stage—this is a partial answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—and to refer any eligible victims for enhanced services for pre-trial therapy where appropriate. So every single player in the criminal justice process should be equipped—and should be better equipped—to identify and help those with autism. In addition, of course, victims with disabilities, or a close relative, can nominate a family spokesperson as a single point of contact to receive services under the code.
The conclusion that I invite the House to reach is that there is an increasing appreciation by the Government —increasing joined-up thinking—that the criminal justice system must respond to the challenge of autism. I genuinely think that the Government are taking this seriously and that the access to and experience of the criminal justice system for those who have these disorders should improve in the future.
This is a very sad case, whatever ultimately may be the determination of the facts. If it has done anything, it has perhaps helped stimulate this debate and further reinforced the importance for all those in the criminal justice system to be aware of autism, the challenges that it confronts, and responding appropriately to them.
I thank all noble Lords for their contribution to this useful debate.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Lord Faulks Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 74 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 74C.
“(6) Subsection (7) applies to an order under this section the effect of which is to bring into force the Secretary of State’s power to provide secure colleges for the detention of any or all of the following—
(a) persons who are male and aged under 15;(b) persons who are female. (7) A statutory instrument containing the order may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(8) The reference in subsection (6) to the Secretary of State’s power to provide secure colleges is to the power under section 43(1)(c) of the Prison Act 1952 (as inserted by section 29 of this Act).”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to this Motion, for the benefit of the House I should say that, with the agreement of Her Majesty’s Opposition, it is proposed that Motions B and C be put together and be debated together.
As to Motion A, we have spent a considerable amount of time debating the Government’s plans for secure colleges and our ambition to improve the education and reoffending outcomes of young people in custody. I am pleased that, since the last time we met to debate these provisions, which deal with who should be accommodated in secure colleges, the House of Commons has accepted a government amendment to the Bill to give Parliament a vote on the matter. I therefore beg to move that this House does not insist on its Amendment 74 and agrees with the Commons in its Amendment 74C, and I hope that noble Lords will welcome the Government’s response.
Before I go into the detail of the amendment, I take this opportunity to thank noble Lords for the quality of their scrutiny during the passage of the Bill. There have been many hours of informed and passionate debate on the important and sensitive issue of how young offenders are detained and the support that they receive to become rehabilitated. As well as those who featured prominently in our debates, there were other noble Lords who brought their expertise to bear on the issues, whether in meetings, of which there were a number, or in correspondence, and I acknowledge their contributions also. The co-operation that we have encountered has led us to find a compromise, which I am hopeful and even—dare I say?—confident will satisfy noble Lords.
As the Secretary of State and my other ministerial colleagues have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill, we do not want to prevent girls and under-15s in future being able to benefit from the pioneering approach and enhanced provision that secure colleges will offer. We recognise that these groups are more vulnerable and require tailored support, but as noble Lords will know, girls and younger boys are already safely accommodated together on the same site as older boys in both secure training centres and secure children’s homes, demonstrating that such an approach can work well. Our plans for the pathfinder secure college to open in 2017 have been carefully developed, in consultation with a number of noble Lords, to provide separate and tailored facilities for younger and more vulnerable children, should they be placed there. Of course, their placement will always be as a result of the intervention of the Youth Justice Board.
We recognise, however, that there remains concern about the accommodation of girls and under-14s in secure colleges. While I am confident that secure colleges will be able to meet the needs of these vulnerable groups and achieve improved outcomes for them, I appreciate that noble Lords are, and were, seeking further safeguards and a clearer role for Parliament. When this House last considered amendments made to the Bill in the other place, I made a commitment that, before girls or under-15s were introduced to the first secure college, the Government would lay a report before Parliament setting out the arrangements for accommodating, safeguarding and rehabilitating these groups. Today, I am able to go further and am seeking to amend the Bill to make the commencement of the power to provide secure colleges for the detention of girls and under-15s subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This will give Parliament a clear role in approving the use of secure colleges to detain these groups and will enable that decision to be informed by learning on how secure colleges are operating. The Government will, of course, fulfil the earlier commitment that I made to produce a report, and this will be laid before Parliament ahead of the debates on the commencement of the power in order to provide further detail on the plans and to inform the debate in both Houses.
I hope noble Lords will feel that their concerns have been recognised by the Government and that our response goes some way towards allaying those concerns. I believe that the amendment before the House represents a practical and common-sense solution that provides Parliament with the safeguards it is seeking, while ensuring that the opportunity remains for girls and under-15s to benefit in future from the enhanced provision that secure colleges will deliver. I therefore ask the House to accept this amendment in lieu of its previous amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I am content to agree with Commons Amendment 74C and am most grateful to the Minister not only for the way in which he has presented the Government’s change of heart but for his courtesy in giving me and a number of other noble Lords advance warning, by letter and also in discussion, of what it would contain. I say again how much I, and I am sure many other noble Lords, have appreciated the courtesy and admired the skilled advocacy that he has deployed throughout the passage of this Bill. I do not include the Minister in any criticisms that I make of the secure college proposal, on which he and I may not agree, but which I will continue to oppose as strongly as I am able for as long as it takes. As I have said before, I regard the very idea of building the biggest children’s prison in the western world as a stain on our treasured national reputation for fairness, decency and humanity under the rule of law.
I appreciate that the Minister is under the strict riding instructions from a Lord Chancellor whose jurisprudential credibility has been forensically unpicked by my noble friend Lord Pannick and a Secretary of State for Justice who has wreaked havoc on the ability of the prison and probation services to protect the public. With that track record, noble Lords will appreciate why I pray that that same person never gets his way with his pet plan for the detention of vulnerable and damaged children.
At each stage of the Bill, I have drawn attention to some new development or piece of evidence that adds to the strength of the case against the secure college proposal, and today is no exception. First, last week came the welcome announcement that, thanks mainly to the determined efforts of the Youth Justice Board, there are now fewer than 1,000 children in detention. Does it really make sense to hold one-third of them in one place and plan a repeat with yet more?
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contribution to this short debate, echoing to a considerable degree the concerns that were reflected in previous debates. I do not seek to diminish their value, but I hope that I will be forgiven for not replying in full detail to all the points made, for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. His concern and opposition to the Bill has been thoroughly exposed and well articulated. He knows that the Government do not accept his criticisms but of course respect his expertise in this matter.
I am grateful for the acknowledgment that the Government have listened to the concerns expressed both in and outside the House. Although it has not been made explicit today, in previous debates there has been an acknowledgment that the Government’s proposed reforms, however much some noble Lords think that they are misconceived, stem at least in part—we would say centrally—from our aspirations for educating and rehabilitating young people in custody. With 68% of young people who leave custody going on to reoffend within one year, doing nothing is simply not an option. The secure colleges reflect the Government’s vision for transforming youth custody.
Concerns have been expressed today, as in previous debates, about the geographical issue: effectively, that young people may find themselves a long way from home, which may be contrary to their interests. Noble Lords will aware that the YJB operates an assisted visits scheme in the existing youth custody estate which contributes towards travel and subsistence costs for families and carers visiting a young person in custody. The scheme also covers childcare and modest accommodation costs where required. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, conceded that not all families want to remain in very close contact with the young people, but, where they do, this has enabled and should continue to enable there to be contact.
We also anticipate that the operators of secure colleges will utilise a range of technological solutions that will allow young people to contact their families more easily. These will be supplementary to, not in place of, the proposed entitlement of one visit per week. We expect providers to forward innovative solutions that address the individual needs of young people in secure colleges, including a visits scheme that enables young people to remain in close contact with their families or carers. In designing the secure college pathfinder, we have considered how we could facilitate visits for young people, and the site has numerous flexible areas where the operator could choose to accommodate visits. Details of the visits scheme, including a booking system and any incentives, will be developed with the secure college operator in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, repeated questions that he had asked previously about who would be consulted. The position is that I am not from the Dispatch Box going to commit a future Secretary of State to consult any specific body, but the noble Lord has given the House and any future Secretary of State a useful list of those who might be consulted. I can see that any Government coming before the House seeking approval, through affirmative resolution, would be well advised to consult widely and to provide evidence of that consultation to Parliament.
Apart from the report which I have undertaken on behalf of the Government to provide to Parliament, there will be a report from Ofsted and the Inspectorate of Prisons. However, I bear in mind the advice that the noble Lord has effectively given to any Secretary of State that a number of people could usefully contribute to the consultation—and, no doubt, those who have different views from a putative Government will seek consultation and advice from those bodies and bring before the House their views.
The Government are not guilty of unseemly haste. They have been enthusiastic about continuing to press forward with secure colleges and intend to begin the process of building before the general election. The question that I think lay underneath the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, was whether this was a sensible way to proceed given that a Government not of the current complexion might conceivably not proceed to build secure colleges—indeed, it was said in the House of Commons that the Labour Party, if it was in power, would not do so. The question is what would happen.
Ministry of Justice officials are committed to providing value for money for the taxpayer, which includes ensuring appropriate termination rights in contracts, and the costs attached to terminating a contract, should that happen, would vary depending on when the contract was signed and how far the construction had progressed. The standard termination provision for these types of industry-standard contracts will be included within the commencement agreement. These provisions will represent a reasonable and balanced position for the Ministry of Justice in relation to such contracts and will meet the standards set out in Managing Public Money. The Treasury is considering the pathfinders business case, and this is very much in line with the Government’s process and project timelines. A decision will be made shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, also asked whether the Government would bring forward separate statutory instruments in relation to under-15s—not under-14s; I am sorry that I inadvertently referred to under-14s—or to girls. I anticipated that there might be some questions in that regard. The position is that it is probably unlikely that any Government would decide to bring forward such a proposal at the same time—in which case, there would be two separate statutory instruments. However, if it is was prudent and wise to consider whether there was a proper case for addressing under-15s and girls at the same time, on that assumption I do not think that we would bring in separate statutory instruments because it would be perfectly open for Parliament to view them as a whole. That said, I will bear in mind what the noble Lord said and, while not giving any commitment to that effect, I can see that there could conceivably be different arguments that pertain to those different groups. So I respond in that way—I hope positively, but not giving any commitment on behalf of the Government.
I hope that that is a sufficient response to the debate, and that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will forgive me if I do not go into the merits of the scheme as a whole, having regard to the responses I have given to various debates in the House and the various meetings that we had with him and other concerned Peers. In those circumstances, I ask noble Lords to join me in accepting the government amendment in lieu of their previous Amendment 74.
Lord Faulks
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102B and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 102C to 102M.
“(2B) The court may disregard the requirements in subsection (2A)(a) and (b) if it considers that it is appropriate to do so for reasons of exceptional public interest.
(2C) If the court grants relief or makes an award in reliance on subsection (2B), the court must certify that the condition in subsection (2B) is satisfied.””
“(6B) If the tribunal makes an award in reliance on section 31(2B) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 as applied by subsection (6A), the tribunal must certify that the condition in section 31(2B) as so applied is satisfied.””
Lord Faulks
My Lords, as I indicated, Motion B and Motion C will be debated together for the convenience of the House.
These clauses have been the centre of much highly intelligent debate in this House. I am grateful for the scrutiny and valuable insight that noble Lords have given to the Bill, though I firmly hope that today will mark the end of that process for this particular Bill. Our amendments draw on those debates and the many other discussions that have taken place in less formal settings. The general arguments around these clauses are well rehearsed, and I do not intend to detain your Lordships unnecessarily by going over old ground. Instead, I will focus on the Government’s specific amendments, turning first to Clause 64.
Our ambition for this clause is relatively modest: it is simply to limit the time and resources spent on judicial reviews brought on grounds highly unlikely to make a substantial difference to the outcome for the applicant. However, we accept that there have been and are concerns that, exceptionally, even these types of case could engage crucial issues which should be heard by the courts. That is why we have tabled an amendment that permits the court to grant permission or a remedy where it considers that reasons of exceptional public interest mean that that is appropriate.
I accept that “exceptional public interest” is an unusual formulation, and I will limit myself to two observations on this that, I trust, will give noble Lords the comfort they might require as to how it will operate. First, a high degree of public interest specific to the case is required for the exception to be met. We think that that is a fair compromise in the light of my second observation: we have purposely not defined the term “exceptional public interest”, meaning that the judiciary will apply the term in practice to the facts at hand. For fear of appearing to seek to fetter that discretion, I will forbear from setting out further detail on how the Government would wish to see the term applied in future.
I simply add this: in one regard it could be said that it is always in the public interest for a government body, local authority or anybody amenable to judicial review to follow to the letter the law. One can see the force of that argument.
However, that, in a sense, is what public law is all about. It could also be said that simply saying that something is in the public interest is almost tautologous, when we are dealing with a public law remedy. Hence the requirement that there must be “exceptional public interest”—although, as I have said, we think that is a matter for the judges to decide. It will also be for the judges to decide first whether, on the facts of the case, the “highly likely” threshold has been met, and secondly, in appropriate cases, whether there are reasons of “exceptional public interest” which none the less make it appropriate to grant permission or a remedy.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his customary forensic and formidable critique of the decisions made, and the manner in which they are made, by the Lord Chancellor. As we have heard, the House has secured an amendment to the “highly likely” test. The courts will be able to allow a case to be brought or to grant relief where they deem there is an exceptional public interest, notwithstanding that it would be highly likely that the defect in procedure would not have affected the outcome.
It is, however, somewhat unclear what is meant by “exceptional public interest”. The Richard III case attracted more public interest than any judicial review case that I can recall, and certainly more interest from the Lord Chancellor, who constantly relies on that one case to justify his assault on judicial review. Would such exceptional interest have allowed the court to deal with that case if it had been demonstrated that it would have failed the “highly likely” test? If not, will the Minister give us some examples, given that the courts are now directed that they must strike down a claim unless such exceptional public interest exists? Further, if judicial discretion remains, it would surely have been better not to substitute “must” for “may” in the injunction to apply the test contained in the amendment.
The final government amendment deals with financial information to be supplied by those contributing to the funding of judicial review applications; and again under pressure from this House, and again, no doubt, with the advice of the Minister, the Government have moved, in this case to promising a consultation on the limits beyond which disclosure would be required. That is, of course, welcome, although it is not clear whether Parliament will have an opportunity to debate the outcome of such a consultation before the rule committee makes its decisions. Perhaps the Minister will give me an indication about that.
I have always acknowledged the need to get behind the facade which can be erected via a shell company or other device, such as was used in the Richard III case, partisan supporter of that much maligned monarch though I am, but it is a pity that the Government have not sought to consult on how to do that, rather than come forward with what originally certainly looked like a device which could have a chilling effect on genuine supporters of a claim for review. Nevertheless the change embodied in the amendment, as far as it goes, is welcome.
It has been striking, as this Bill has gone through both Houses, how little support it has attracted from government Back-Benchers in either Chamber, with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Horam. In the last round of ping-pong in the Commons three Conservative lawyers—Geoffrey Cox QC; the former and widely lamented Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, and the former Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Garnier—all voiced stringent criticisms. We are, however, where we are, and thanks to deliberations in this House, and, I suspect, to the wise counsels of the Minister, it is a better place than we might have been. I only hope that after the general election we will have, whoever forms the next Government, a Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice who, if not judicial, will at least be judicious.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his observations about the rule of law and its importance. I find no difficulty in agreeing with his critique of the rule of law, its role and its importance, and judicial review as a part of that.
There is perhaps one area where I would not wholly agree with him, and that is in his submission in relation to “exceptional”. I say submission because, as he will appreciate, those looking for clarification on what “exceptional public interest” may mean, pursuant to the rule in Pepper v Hart, might be interested in what was said in debates. They might have their attention drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, or indeed by some other counsel, to what he himself said in the course of the debate. I do not think that that is quite within Pepper v Hart. He referred, for example, to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said in one particular case. I think that different judges have used the word exceptional to mean different things in different contexts. I see the noble and learned Lord nodding. I simply say that “exceptional public interest” will depend on its context, and we are content to leave it to the judges to decide what it means. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, did his best to tempt me into giving examples—even trailing the Richard III case, which he said was a classic case in which the public were interested. The public can be exceptionally interested in something without it being a matter of exceptional public interest. I trust that judges will be able to make that distinction.
As for the rule committee, it is, as noble Lords will know, separate from the Lord Chancellor, who has been much maligned in the course of this debate. It will decide what is appropriate on the basis, I hope, of a wide consultation on the issues. No doubt it will bear in mind, among other things, observations that have been made during the course of this debate. I am grateful for all the contributions to the many debates that we have had.
Lord Beecham
Will the Minister indicate whether there will be an opportunity for this House, and indeed the other place, to debate the outcome of the consultation before the rule committee makes its mind up?
Lord Faulks
No, I will not give that undertaking. The rule committee will have the basis for consultation and the basis of the debate and it will be subject to the usual parliamentary procedure, meaning that each House will have the option to vote against—so to that extent. That is perhaps an answer.
The debate has been of a very high quality. Indeed, I pay tribute, as other noble Lords have, to the scrutiny that the Bill generally—not just the matters that we are dealing with today—has received from every quarter of the House. There have been different fields of expertise brought to good effect in the course of the consideration of the Bill by your Lordships’ House. There have been a considerable number of amendments to the Bill in many different areas. Today, and in the course of the most recent debates, we have focused on the modification of the reforms of judicial review and in relation to parliamentary oversight of under-15s and girls in secure colleges—and, indeed, on the secure college rules, which will now be subject to an affirmative resolution. However, there have been other important amendments, such as the new offence of revenge pornography; the custody arrangement for 17 year-olds; various provisions to clamp down on dishonest personal injury claims; and extending reporting restrictions to young people, to name but a few.
Transfer of Tribunal Functions (Transport Tribunal) Order 2014
Lord Faulks Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 10 and 27 November 2014 be approved.
Relevant documents: 13th and 16th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 January.
Assisted Dying Bill [HL]
Lord Faulks Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I was rather taken aback by this being such a short debate. I very much welcome the noble Lord’s amendment. We discussed this matter at a little length on the first day of Committee. As he said, applications to the High Court in the circumstances of the Bill, if enacted, could, but not always necessarily, involve complex procedures. The noble Lord is not able to quantify the cost and that is entirely understandable. However, I recognise that for any Government there is then a problem in not knowing that potential cost.
On the first day in Committee, I thought that the Minister was reasonably sympathetic to the point. He referred to the LASPO Act, which has,
“an exceptional cases provision which deals with questions of the Human Rights Act and the convention requirements”.—[Official Report, 7/11/14; col. 1879.]
He said that that was as far as he could then go on the question of legal support. Without entering into any question of financial commitments, which will no doubt haunt both sides of the Committee, I just ask whether he can go a little further and become a little more sympathetic on this issue.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, it is not a question of sympathy. As the noble Lord well understands, it is a question of not committing a future Government as to how they would respond to this position.
It might help if I clarify that the scope of civil legal aid is set out in the LASPO Act 2012. It provides that civil legal services are to be made available subject to satisfying the means and merits and the matter or type of case being within the scope of the civil legal aid scheme. In order to bring a matter within the scope of the civil legal aid scheme, an amendment to Part 1 of Schedule 1 to LASPO would need to be made. The power to make such an amendment by way of affirmative secondary legislation is already set out in LASPO. It would therefore be unnecessary and not usual practice for separate provision to be made in other primary legislation to provide such a power.
That is the position quite apart from the question of exceptional funding, which is concerned, as I said when we were last in Committee, with matters where it could be said that there was a violation of the convention right or, alternatively, a violation—although I do not think it is relevant—of some provision of EU law. That remains an uncertain provision, but it could potentially be relevant, so that is my answer.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification saying, in effect, that there is already power to make sure that this is covered so far as legal aid is concerned under existing legislation. Three points are worth making. First, the key point is that anyone in the situation of considering an assisted death should feel that they would have access to proper legal advice so that the application would not appear to be a burden. Secondly, I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that it is difficult to identify what an individual case might cost and involve. Some cases will involve no opposition, it being completely agreed and clear that this is the right course to take but nevertheless it should still go to the High Court. It would be very helpful to have a lawyer to help the family through that process. Others may involve more. I suspect that most cases would be on the uncontested end of the spectrum, but we have to provide for the other end of the spectrum as well.
I submit that the appropriate course to take would be that this is covered by legal aid. We should also try to build in easy access in hospitals and with doctors so that people know where they can go to get this help. The key thing is that the family should know that if they need legal help they can get it, it can be obtained easily and quickly and if they cannot afford it it will not cost them anything. I agree in principle with the approach that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is taking. I suspect that it will not need an amendment to the Bill.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, this has indeed been a passionate and well informed debate. Your Lordships have shown colossal restraint in the debates we have had so far and have shown great respect for the arguments of the opposing side. I hope that will continue to be the way we approach all the amendments in future. There were a few moments of strain during this debate, perhaps understandably.
At this stage, I should perhaps repeat the position of the Government, which is that we remain neutral. These Benches will have a free vote, should the Committee divide on this or any other amendment, and I shall, of course, endeavour to assist the Committee on any matters of law, without compromising that position.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, whether the Government have considered a rise in suicide rates as a result of this Bill. I should tell the Committee that we have collected no evidence about the effects this Bill could have on suicide rates, were it to be enacted, but nothing about the Bill in any way compromises the cross-department suicide prevention strategy.
We generally use “assisted dying” as a portmanteau term to cover both assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. Ultimately, as many noble Lords have said, it is a matter of tone and message. Your Lordships will decide whether it is appropriate that any of these amendments should be reflected. It is entirely a matter for the Committee.
Lord Faulks
In this context, it is for the Committee to consider the appropriate term. I decline to go any further.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this has been a very impressive debate. I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said about it being in the right tone.
I shall make three points. First, I acknowledge the speech by my noble friend Lord Cashman, which was of immense power and immense pain. He made the incredibly important point that in the circumstances in which he found himself, he was very clear about the distinction between assisted dying and suicide. I understand the difficulty and the pain that must have been involved in making that speech. All Members of Committee appreciate that.
Secondly, there are two separate groups in this group of amendments. One group is those amendments which wish to change various bits of the wording of the Bill to refer more often to the word “suicide”. Not one of those points has been pursued in detail except for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, as regards Clause 4, in which he sought to suggest that the use in the draft Bill of the word “self-administration” was in some way euphemistic. It was not. It was used because a vital brick in the Bill is that the person has to do the last act to himself or herself. They have to do it to make clear that it is not euthanasia. That is why that word is there; it is not in any way intended to be euphemistic.
As regards the other matter, the Title of the Bill—which is the key point in the debate—I have thought very carefully about what the Bill should be called. I am always wary when I think to myself, “What will other people think I mean?”. When I hear noble Lords speculating about what the public may think, I am always rather wary; all we can do is to go by the words.
I have used the phrase “assisted dying” for three reasons. First, it is accurate. The purpose of my Bill as drafted is to:
“Enable competent adults who are terminally ill to be provided at their request with specified assistance to end their own life”.
That is the wording of the Long Title. Nobody in this debate has questioned its accuracy. What is the right way to convey a Long Title in a short title? In my view the right and most accurate way is by using the words “assisted dying”. That is why, after very considerable thought and having discussed it with people—not just people in favour but also lawyers—I wished to convey accurately what the position was.
The second reason is that to call the Bill “the Assisted Suicide Bill” would, as a matter of law, give the wrong impression. The words “assisted suicide” would give the impression that assistance could be given in any category of suicide. The third reason was that touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who said that those engaged in helping people as regards suicide are very antipathetic to the words “committing suicide”. There is a moral opprobrium attached to it. For those three reasons I decided that the right wording was “assisted dying”. I urge the Committee to accept the Title as it is.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
If a patient is not registered, they are not registered. If a patient goes as a temporary resident—as I think the term used to be; I am not sure if it still is—to see a particular doctor, a general practitioner, they are then registered for the period of the temporary residence, which from memory is, or at least used to be, one month, and which may be renewable for the purposes of that treatment.
To deal with the broader aspects of the noble Lord’s question it might be worth making the further point, while I am on my feet, that it is very difficult to imagine that a patient would be in the situation described in the Bill but had not been treated for at least six months by a practitioner, such as the practitioner who was treating their cancer. That is the general experience that people have.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I do not have anything to add on that particular point.
This has been an excellent debate which has gone to the heart of some of the most difficult parts of the Bill. Why is six months the right period? Of course, we have heard plenty of informed opinion about how difficult it is to make a prognosis of any accuracy. In Amendment 21, a period of six weeks is suggested as a better period. It may be that that enables a clearer prognosis to be given, but it seems extremely short for the various practicalities and safeguards to give the Bill any real meaning. Inevitably, six months is something of a compromise; the question is whether it is a satisfactory compromise. It will not, of course, suit everybody.
It is something of an irony that one of the spurs behind this Bill and our debates is the Supreme Court’s decision in Nicklinson, which was concerned with the desire of two men with locked-in syndrome—an almost totally paralysing but not terminal condition—to request assistance to die. The Committee might like to be reminded that the President, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, commenting in the judgment on the Falconer commission and the six-month period, said:
“That would not assist the applicants”.
I am sure that that is not in dispute. He went on:
“Further, I find it a somewhat unsatisfactory suggestion. Quite apart from the notorious difficulty in assessing life expectancy even for the terminally ill, there seems to me to be significantly more justification in assisting people to die if they have the prospect of living for many years a life that they regarded as valueless, miserable and often painful, than if they have only a few months left to live”.
These are very difficult questions and I look forward to hearing the answer from the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am again grateful for a very good debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as ever, that this goes to important issues in the debate. I accept the definition given by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, of these issues, which go to the safeguards.
In looking at the safeguards, it is important to put into context the safeguards in the current draft of the Bill: two doctors, independent of each other, certifying that the patient has a terminal illness which they reasonably expect will end their life within the next six months; the two doctors, independent of each other, certifying that the person has made a voluntary decision, that they have the capacity to make that decision and that it is their firm and settled intention that they wish to take their own life in those circumstances; and that decision is not to be given effect without the consent of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice. Those are the safeguards.
Let us look at the proposals in the light of those existing safeguards. First, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, proposes, in effect, that a person must have as one of the doctors a general practitioner with whom he or she has been registered for the last six months—I understand that registration is a concept that only has relevance to a general practitioner. That proposal, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has pointed out, appears not to deal with people in the following circumstances: somebody who, for example, moves to live near their relatives, then gets ill and is not registered for six months; somebody whose general practice, for example one run by a sole practitioner, packs up; or somebody who, for example, has a general practitioner who has a conscientious objection to the use of the provisions of the Bill.
If Parliament were to pass a Bill giving people the right to an assisted death, I venture to suggest that it would be a very odd conclusion that your ability to access that right would depend on the adventitious circumstance of whether, for example, you had moved one month before to be near your son and daughter, as my own stepmother did. That does not seem a sensible basis. However, a very powerful thread in this—which has been mentioned in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Empey—is the idea of a doctor who does not, as it were, properly consider the merits of an individual case but is, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, available for hire. That is something that I would wish to avoid as much as possible. I venture to suggest that there may be three ways to deal with it.
First, I would expect the medical bodies to produce guidance. That can be given effect to, because a High Court judge would have to be satisfied that an appropriate process had been gone through. In addition to that, I note that, according to Clause 3(7), the independent doctor has to be “suitably qualified” in that he,
“holds such qualification or has such experience in respect of the diagnosis and management of terminal illness as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations”.
I would anticipate that the Secretary of State would be able to make in regulations provisions that make it clear that the independent doctor could not be the sort of doctor that the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Empey, and others referred to. If there are better ways of dealing with the doctor for hire situation, I am very willing to hear and discuss them and bring them forward at the next stage, but I am absolutely clear that the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is suggesting it be dealt with is unworkable and unfair and cuts at the heart of the Bill.
Property Boundaries
Lord Faulks Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this important issue for debate and for the clear way in which he outlined the problem. I am grateful to him also for acknowledging the fact that he, I and Charlie Elphicke, who brought forward a Private Member’s Bill, had a number of meetings in which he helpfully outlined of the nature of the problem as he sees it, and the possible solution presented by the Bill. This has been a useful exercise informing the ministry and my officials.
Property boundary disputes relate to the legal position of a boundary between two properties and the ownership of the relevant land. There are many millions of boundaries between properties in England and Wales. This is not a hyperbola—there are 24 million registered properties. The vast majority are probably never the subject of a dispute. However, as we have correctly heard, where neighbours disagree about the line of the boundary, the disputes can be very difficult indeed to resolve.
We cannot realistically create a world in which neighbours do not from time to time fall out over the precise position of a boundary. There are all sorts of reasons for the disputes, not all to do with a precise evaluation of the boundary itself. What we can aim to do is provide effective ways to resolve the disputes that occur. A first step is to try to identify why they seem to be so difficult to resolve.
It is perhaps regrettable that boundaries are rarely precisely defined in England and Wales, and the standard of property descriptions in conveyances and the matching of plans to the situation on the ground has historically too often been poor. In addition, boundaries may be changed by the application of the principle of adverse possession, to which there has been reference in this debate. Those rules are complicated and the time periods applicable depend on whether the title to the land is registered but, basically, a person can become the owner of land by uncontested continuous use over a lengthy period of years. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, correctly referred to the Latin maxim. If this happens, the line of the legal boundary will change.
The fact that adverse possession involved evaluation of the facts is one of the reasons why the Government respectfully agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said about the difficulty in the otherwise initially attractive solution of having the matter determined effectively by surveyors. An undesirable side effect of this lack of precision is that, unless a certain give and take is observed between neighbours, the resultant boundary disputes are often bitter, protracted and expensive. On occasions, the costs, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, rightly said, can be out of proportion to what is at issue. There are all sorts of reasons for this.
As we have heard, it was concern about the disproportionate cost and bitterness of disputes based on the experience of his constituents and others that prompted Charlie Elphicke to bring forward his Bill. It proposed—if I may condense a 17-clause Bill, which I know has been amended—that disputes relating to the exact location of a boundary between adjoining properties in England and Wales must be referred to an independent adjudicator for final determination at the earliest opportunity, subject only to a right of appeal to the county court. In the light of the concerns raised, the Government decided to carry out an initial scoping study on the issue. The result of the study was published today; it is on the Blackberry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I think the noble Earl has received it, and if the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has not received it, he will do so shortly. We have placed a copy in the Library, but I will briefly summarise its content.
The study took the form of interviews with a small number of key stakeholders and the distribution of a questionnaire to 30 organisations with an interest in land law issues involving boundary disputes. Input was also received during the period of the study from a number of individuals who had themselves been involved in such disputes. The study reflects the views expressed in the responses received on the nature, frequency and causes of boundary disputes, the effectiveness of the resolution methods, the problems that arise and what could be done to address them. It discusses a number of options for legal or procedural change. Incidentally, I accept that it is difficult to calculate quite how many disputes there are because they can vary between a full-blown boundary dispute which reaches the High Court and even beyond, and an initial disagreement which may be relatively easily resolved, and there are very many steps along the way.
Boundary disputes can be mediated by a range of methods, either through the county court or the land registration division of the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, as part of legal proceedings or separately by mediation, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Independent expert determination is also used in a very small number of cases. I noted from the RICS document, which was part of the very helpful Library Note put together for this debate, that there is a RICS Neighbour Disputes Service, which provides access to a specialist panel of expert members with experience of resolving neighbourly boundary disputes. The service can involve expert determination and mediation of a dispute, and therefore there is an alternative to formal litigation if any doubt or uncertainty exists between parties on the correct boundary line. The RICS advises those who might wish to seek a slightly cheaper way to resolve their problems.
The core conclusions reached in the study are that there is merit in the Government carrying out further work to assess the feasibility of improvements as regards a number of aspects of the current system, including the use of mediation and expert determination, the spreading of best practice and the provision of better information, but that more radical reform such as that argued for by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, would not currently be justified. The particular approach the noble Earl advocates is the introduction of a mandatory system for resolving disputes similar to that used under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. That would involve the appointment by parties at as early a stage as possible of an independent expert, normally a surveyor, to determine the position of the boundary. In the event that either party was dissatisfied, it would be open to them to appeal against it to a court.
It will be useful if I explain why the Government do not consider that requiring everyone involved to follow such an approach would be beneficial. First, the determination of the legal position of a boundary in the absence of agreement is normally a matter for a judge, as it determines a person’s legal rights. A surveyor, no matter how expert in technical issues—I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, although my own experience with surveyors is that they very often are extremely expert and supplement the often inadequate understanding that lawyers have of these issues—will not necessarily have the legal expertise to deal with cases that involve more complex legal issues such as adverse possession. Allied to this is the fact that, unlike party wall cases, which are essentially based on a mutual need between the owners of the adjoining properties for work to be done efficiently, boundary disputes are much more likely to produce a “winner” and a “loser”. In addition, as contributors to this debate have acknowledged, boundary disputes can generate considerable bitterness.
The combination of these factors means that in our view the likelihood of appeals being brought against decisions would be high. It would mean that in many cases the suggestion would simply add a further layer to the proceedings, which would add to the costs rather than reduce them. In some cases the early appointment of experts could itself front-load costs where the dispute might have been resolved in other ways, and, perhaps, permit stronger and legally astute parties to steal an advantage over more easygoing neighbours. That does not mean that the Government are in any way complacent about the problems that can arise in boundary disputes, or about the possibility of improving relevant civil procedures more generally.
In the course of this Parliament, we have made considerable efforts to rein in the costs of civil litigation in general so that they are more proportionate, including through a new civil procedure rule to ensure that costs which are disproportionate will not be recoverable, even when they are reasonably or necessarily incurred. We have also introduced new provisions for costs management and costs budgeting. These and other steps should help to reduce the amount of costs so that they do not become disproportionate to the issue.
We believe that rather than restricting the flexibility of the current system and the range of methods that can be used to resolve these disputes, it is preferable for us to explore the feasibility of making further improvements. As I have indicated, there are a number of approaches we wish to examine aimed at developing and encouraging the use of mediation or other methods of alternative dispute resolution, supporting robust and timely case management and improving the quality and availability of guidance and information to increase awareness of the issues and the options available. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for reminding us of what the Land Registry provides by way of assistance to those who wish to have boundaries clarified.
On the question of general boundaries, which was referred to in the debate, I am advised that when land registration was first introduced there was an experiment with general boundaries from 1862 to 1875, when it was abandoned because it caused so many disputes.
On the question of what we can learn from Scotland, of course, it is always useful to learn from other jurisdictions. I am advised that a local deeds registry existed in Yorkshire and Middlesex until the late 20th century. We will consider, among other things, what we can learn from practice in Scotland, and, indeed, from practice in Australia. Our core aim will be to reduce the costs without in any way impeding the proper opportunity for people to dispute boundaries where they must do so. We intend to take forward consideration of how action can best be focused in these areas in the light of the findings of the scoping study in order to reach more definite conclusions on next steps in the year ahead. I thank the noble Earl for his contribution to the debate and all those who have contributed to our enlightenment on this important issue. As I have said, we are by no means complacent about this issue and the debate has been most helpful.
Criminal Bar: Funding
Lord Faulks Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, on bringing forward this debate and on attracting such a very high calibre of speakers, as was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. A great deal of experience and expertise has been brought to bear on what is an extremely important subject. It is important because it goes beyond the interests of the criminal Bar as such and has important ramifications for our country, for our system and for the future. I found very little to disagree with in what was said in the debate.
The criminal advocacy market has changed significantly over recent years. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, whom I congratulate on his recent appointment, acknowledged that we are not going to return to that golden age. The reduction in cases going to trial and the growing number of advocates, including solicitor advocates, have presented particular challenges to the future of the independent criminal Bar in its current form.
I note what was said about the judicial review and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, told us, quite rightly, that it is ongoing. It refers to the contract in relation to solicitors. It is not appropriate for me to comment on that in view of the fact that is it ongoing. If one reads the Jeffrey report, one can see that it is inevitable that there will be—and there is—a degree of tension between the role of solicitors and the role of barristers in providing advocacy services at the Crown Court. That is one of the challenges that have to be faced in the future: how the public can be best served by preserving the roles of both solicitors and criminal advocates. One of the Jeffrey recommendations, which I do not think anyone would find hard to accept, is the improvement in the teaching of advocacy at the solicitor level if solicitors are going to function in the same field as barristers. There is clearly a disparity that ought to be remedied.
The Government have found it necessary to make reforms to the legal aid system. The financial climate and the tackling of the deficit have forced some difficult decisions on the coalition. It has been important to try to ensure quality public services while balancing the books. But it is clear, and I am happy to confirm this, that the Government want to protect the provision of quality advocacy services. We have engaged extensively with the profession. Clearly, some of the engagement not always been as happily reported as it might have been. The current chairman of the Bar has confirmed that the current relationship is a good one and I hope that the engagement will prove profitable in the future.
Certainly, the engagement that took place led to several adaptations to the original proposals, including the changes to the graduated fee scheme and the commission of Sir Bill Jeffrey’s report, to which there has been much reference. He identified in his report a number of structural problems related to the history and development of the criminal Bar. He found that the criminal advocacy market is not working,
“competitively or in such a way as to optimise quality”.
There are all sorts of reasons for this and time does not allow me to engage with all of them. The decrease in the amount of crime is clearly one. There is now a rather unsatisfactory state of affairs whereby fewer younger barristers are joining professions. There is a bulge of those in their 40s and 50s. This has significant long-term risks, I accept, for the profession in terms of, “Where are we going to get senior barristers from? Where are we going to get judges with the relevant experience?”. However, as has been made clear, it is not obviously attractive for young people to go into the criminal Bar at the moment. I note what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said about diverting scholarship funds from the Middle Temple; that seems a highly constructive way in which to encourage people through those difficult years.
The Government recognise that this is a period of great transition. They have endeavoured to listen to the profession, and care was taken in developing proposals that would minimise the effect of the changes on the particularly vulnerable section of the profession—the junior part. The consultation paper Transforming Legal Aid, published in April 2013, included proposals for the graduated fee scheme, which covers most advocacy in the Crown Court, and to reduce fees paid on very high cost cases by 30%. Together, these proposals sought to target the fee reductions at the highest earners; we know that barristers who work on the most complex, longest-running type of cases receive more in fee income than others. Furthermore, the original proposals had the effect of protecting the fee income of the most junior members of the Bar. We amended our proposals, following consultation, and have amended the very high-cost cases scheme while still ensuring that the fees were within planned budgets.
The second consultation, Transforming Legal Aid: Next Steps, published in September 2013, included two options. The first was an adjusted version of the original proposal, and the second was a model based on that put forward by the Bar Council, which was based on the CPS payment scheme. The outcome of that consultation was that the Government decided to implement the CPS-like model. This would still have the benefit of focusing reductions on the higher earners.
Following further engagement with the profession in early 2014, the Government announced the deferral of changes to the advocates graduated fee scheme until summer 2015, to align with the second fee reduction for litigators. This will allow us to take into account the outcomes of the review by Sir Bill Jeffrey, as well as any impact on legal aid spend from falling crime rates, and earlier remuneration changes.
Beyond the review by Sir Bill Jeffrey requested by the Secretary of State, the Lord Chief Justice has asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake a review of the length of criminal proceedings. He has been tasked with suggesting ways to streamline the trial process, identifying ways to reduce to the minimum the number of pre-trial hearings that necessitate advocates attending court. However, the review goes much further and is likely to produce some real gains in terms of the criminal process as a whole. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, committed his Government—should it be his Government after the election—to look again at criminal procedure. I suspect that whichever Government come to power will find the report of Sir Brian Leveson on criminal procedure a valuable basis on which to review this vital part of our system. The report will also impact on the further consideration of the advocates graduate fee scheme.
We have also recognised the need to regularly monitor the criminal legal aid market. That is why the Government have committed to publishing regular data reports on fee payments received by criminal advocates from public sources. The data gathering collated from the CPS and the Legal Aid Agency will help us to meet the need to collate more data on the market and facilitate a better understanding of the way in which the market is operating. I know how irritating it can be for information that is only partially accurate about barristers’ fees to be published, which can give a rather misleading picture of what are relatively modest earnings for most barristers. I have conveyed that to officials, who confirm that, in fact, much of the information is published as a result of freedom of information requests by journalists, who are not, of course, terribly interested in providing a full and accurate picture, including the facts that there are chambers’ expenses and clerks’ fees. The figures may be out of kilter because payment is made over several years. It is important that the Ministry of Justice should be responsible for accurate figures, so that the public appreciates the nature of the payments that are in fact received and gets a real picture of the criminal Bar.
It is undoubtedly true that fees have fallen in real terms. It is the Ministry of Justice’s case that they remain reasonable, although I entirely accept that compared with the other opportunities in the legal profession—at the Bar and elsewhere—they remain extremely modest. In 2013-14, mean fee payments for barristers doing publicly funded legal aid work was £70,200, including VAT and disbursements, and the median was £57,400. In the last financial year, 18% of advocates received less than £10,000, while 25% received more than £100,000. That gives a very rough picture of the range. Those are modest sums.
The Government’s response to Jeffrey is that he identifies a number of challenges for the advocacy market, but he does not in fact put forward any positive suggestions, apart from the education factor, and not all of his recommendations are for the Government to address—they are largely matters for the professional regulators of both the Bar and the solicitors’ profession. The Lord Chancellor has made clear that he is committed to working with the profession in the first half of this year, and I am sure that any future Lord Chancellor will also wish to do so. The cab rank rule referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, is a cardinal principle of the Bar. Of course, it is subject to exceptions, but as a principle it is very important and must be respected in the way that legal services are provided.
We are particularly anxious to ensure that defendants are aware of the choices available to them in representation. That was a factor identified in the Jeffrey report as an unfortunate by-product of the way that cases were assigned to solicitors, and is something that the professional bodies need to look at, because it is in everybody’s interests that individuals have their best opportunity to be represented.
This is a time of unprecedented change in a context of continuing financial pressure. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, did not make any extravagant promises as to the future. It is imperative to reform the system to adapt it to the modern reality of reduced public funds and greater efficiency. The Ministry of Justice welcomes the engagement that we have with the Bar on the issue. We are concerned to maintain those constructive discussions over the coming months. At a time of major financial changes which are being felt by businesses and households across the country, the criminal advocacy profession cannot be immune from the Government’s commitment to get better value. However, while committed to finding savings within the system, we are also committed to maintaining the high standards of the criminal Bar, which, as many noble Lords pointed out, plays a vital part in our society.