Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2016

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2016.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, the draft regulations extend the range of people who are potentially within the scope of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010. Subject to the prior approval of both Houses of Parliament, the draft regulations are to be made by the Secretary of State under the power in Section 19 of the 2010 Act. Section 19, in its present form, was inserted into the 2010 Act by Section 19 of the Insurance Act 2015. The purpose of the power is to make provision for adding or removing circumstances in which a person is potentially within the scope of the 2010 Act. The present circumstances within that scope are currently set out in Sections 4 to 7 of and paragraph 1A of Schedule 3 to the 2010 Act.

The draft regulations make a series of textual amendments to the 2010 Act, as amended by the Insurance Act 2015. The effect of the amendments in general terms will be to include corporate and other bodies that are subject to certain sectoral insolvency regimes or, within limited exceptions, have been dissolved within the scope of the 2010 Act. The purpose of making these amendments is to correct omissions from the 2010 Act so that it can be brought into force without adversely affecting people who are currently within the scope of the 1930s legislation that is to be replaced by the 2010 Act.

It may be helpful at this point if I explain the principles that underlie the third parties legislation in a little more detail. It has existed since the 1930s and is so called because the claimant is a third party in relation to the contract of insurance. The current legislation is the 1930 Act, which applies to England, Wales and Scotland, and the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1930. The purpose of the 1930 Acts, and indeed of the 2010 Act, is to protect the interests of claimants against insured persons who have a liability to the claimant but who no longer have effective control of their assets, typically because they are insolvent. The basic effect of the third parties legislation is to transfer to a third party to whom the insured has incurred a liability the contractual rights of the insured against the insurer as regards that liability. This means that the proceeds of the insurance policy are paid to the claimant, not to the creditors of the insolvent insured generally.

The 2010 Act is intended to extend and improve the protection conferred by the 1930 Acts. To trigger the application of the 2010 Act, an insured must both incur a liability to a third party against which it is insured and undergo an insolvency or analogous event specified in the 2010 Act. Unfortunately, following the enactment of the 2010 Act it was found, in some respects, to have a narrower scope than the 1930s Acts. This was partly as a result of the terms used in the drafting of the 2010 Act and partly because of developments in insolvency law following the financial crisis in 2008.

Had the 2010 Act been commenced immediately after its enactment, the effect would have been to deny insurance proceeds to claimants and to pass them to be shared out among the insured’s creditors. This would have frustrated the very purpose of the 2010 Act and had the effect of undermining the purpose of compulsory insurance, such as that which employers are required to maintain. The operative provisions of the 2010 Act have therefore not yet been brought into force and will not be so until these defects have been remedied. The remedial process is therefore essential to realising the benefits of the 2010 Act. Part of the remedial process was effected by the amendments to the 2010 Act made by the Insurance Act 2015. The draft regulations will complete the process.

I will now describe the working of the amendments to be effected by those draft regulations. First, they would extend the list of such insolvency or analogous events by adding the sectoral insolvency or administration procedures listed or referred to in the provisions to be inserted in the 2010 Act by Regulation 3 of the draft regulations. These additions cover the possibility of insolvency or administration under special legislative regimes that generally follow, but are distinct from, the Insolvency Act 1986 in a wide range of important business sectors where company failure has the potential to damage public interest or cause market contagion—for example, financial services and postal or energy companies.

Secondly, Regulation 4 of the draft regulations extends the scope of the 2010 Act to dissolved bodies, other than unincorporated partnerships and bodies that are no longer treated as dissolved by reason of subsequent events. The 2010 Act currently applies to dissolutions under Sections 1001, 1002 or 1003 of the Companies Act 2006 but not to other dissolutions, even though dissolution, after which a body will certainly not have effective control over its rights and assets, would appear to be the paradigm case in which a transfer of rights should occur. Regulation 4 therefore broadens the scope of the application of the 2010 Act to these other dissolutions.

The one exception to the proposed coverage of dissolutions generally is the dissolution of unincorporated partnerships. This exception is sensible, as technically a partnership dissolves each time a new partner leaves or is added. This would extend the scope of the legislation too widely, as many such partnerships would be going concerns. In the case of a partnership which is no longer trading, the insured would need to proceed against the individual partners.

The remainder of the draft regulations deal with ancillary matters. Regulations 5 and 6 amend Section 9 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the 2010 Act respectively. Section 9(3) and (7) of the 2010 Act provide that a third-party claimant does not have to satisfy a condition of the insurance policy regarding provision of information or assistance to the insurer by the insured if it cannot be fulfilled because the insured has died or is a body corporate which has been dissolved. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the 2010 Act gives a claimant the right to request information from officers, employees, insolvency practitioners or official receivers of a defunct body corporate, other than when the dissolved body has been restored or ordered to be restored to the register of companies. The draft regulations extend these two provisions to all dissolutions, other than those of unincorporated partnerships, irrespective of whether subsequent events result in the body in question being treated as if it is no longer dissolved or as if it had never been dissolved.

The reason for the wider application of these provisions as against the provisions relating to dissolved bodies inserted into the 2010 Act by Regulation 4 is that most such situations reversing a dissolution—for example, restoration to the register of companies—are temporary and unlikely to result in there being a person who is responsible and able, on behalf of the body in question, to assist the claimant by being able to fulfil the condition or to supply the information in relation to the liability.

Before I conclude, I should like to express my department’s thanks to all those who have contributed to the preparation of the draft regulations. It is not a simple matter, as I suspect noble Lords will concede. Insolvency law is fast moving and complicated. The Insolvency Service, the Accountant in Bankruptcy in Scotland and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland have all made significant contributions to what has been a very difficult technical exercise. I am very grateful to them. I am also very grateful to the Commercial and Common Law Team at the Law Commission, which for most of the period in question was led by David Hertzell and Tammy Goriely, without whose expert knowledge and legal skills the draft regulations could not easily have been prepared. Finally, in a more general sense, I thank the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission for their continuing support for the reform of third parties legislation generally. I hope that in the not too distant future we shall be able to make that reform a reality.

In conclusion, the reforms to be introduced by the 2010 Act are supported by insurers and claimants alike. They apply to insurance of all kinds and will be particularly beneficial in cases of long-tail industrial diseases, such as mesothelioma. The approval of the draft regulations by your Lordships’ House will be widely welcomed and will be a key step on the way to the commencement of the 2010 Act.

I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to state when the Act will be brought fully into force, as the draft regulations remain subject to your Lordships’ approval and to approval in the other place. Nevertheless, I can say that, subject to allowing all parties affected no less than three months from the making of the regulations in which to prepare for commencement, the Government’s intention is to bring the 2010 Act, as amended by the 2015 Act and by what will then be the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2016, into force as soon as reasonably practicable. I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and also for bringing this set of regulations forward for our consideration and for the House’s approval in due course. It is an extremely important area which I think anybody practising in the common-law field values very much. I have only one question and that is to ask for reassurance in relation to part of Regulation 3, which deals with the relevant bodies in insolvency or administration under sectoral legislation. This is an extremely sophisticated area of law and I join in the Minister’s congratulations to all those who have played a part in putting all this together.

A feature of the list of enactments set out in Schedule A1 is that all except the last deal with areas of regulation which are common to the United Kingdom, with the special provisions made in the case of Northern Ireland which are set out in the schedule. Aviation, energy, financial services, postal services and railways apply equally to Scotland as they do to England and Wales. But the question of water and sewerage has occurred to me, because Scotland, I believe, has its own legislation relating to sewers and water: there is the Water (Scotland) Act, the date of which escapes me, and I believe that there is a sewerage Act for Scotland as well.

I fear that without detailed research, which is beyond my resources at the moment, I am not sure whether the Scottish legislation provides for administration under a legislative scheme. I am fairly confident that the Water Industry Act 1991, referred to here, does not extend to Scotland. It may well be that those who have been looking at this in detail have reassured themselves that there is no need for a mention of the Scottish legislation, perhaps because it does not actually provide for this kind of administration. If that is right, of course I understand why there is no mention of those statutes, but it might be as well to be absolutely sure that there is not a gap here that ought to be plugged before the regulations are brought into force.

That aside, I regard this as a very fine piece of fine-tuning which I am sure will be greatly welcomed in order to avoid any further gaps in the valuable legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

I do not claim that any of the points I have made so far are very important, but I would be grateful if the Minister would deal with them. I end by welcoming this statutory instrument and by thanking the noble Lord and his team for presenting it so clearly to the Grand Committee this afternoon.

[Lord Faulks]

I am very grateful for those observations and for the support for the regulations which was expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. As I am sure many in the Committee well remember from what became the 2010 Act, the noble Lord has been involved in this for some time and is familiar with this complex area of law.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, with his customary forensic skill, identified the absence of a specific reference to water and sewerage in Scotland. The question is whether the Scottish legislation needs to be mentioned. The UK Government have consulted the Scottish Government and the Accountant in Bankruptcy about the water legislation, and are content that no special mention is necessary. I am none the less extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having mentioned it. This is such a complex area that it is not impossible to omit something, although I glad that in this instance it had been specifically considered.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, made a number of comments, and I very much echo what he said in tribute to those who work in this area in the Ministry of Justice, and the extreme skill and dedication that they have to it. I am grateful for this comments in that respect. As to his specific questions, the use of the word “general” was not, as I understand it, in any sense supposed to imply that while they generally approved of it, they did not approve of specific aspects of it. As he may remember, the 2010 Act represents a compromise between insurers and claimants, designed by the Law Commission after extensive consultation.

The changes made in the Insurance Act 2015, and to be made in these draft regulations, are supported both by the ABI and APIL, as the noble Lord said. Both have expressed the clear view that they would like these regulations to be brought into force as soon as possible—there is no reservation about it. Therefore, the use of “general” in the Explanatory Notes is supposed to convey that. I accept that there could conceivably be considered to be some ambiguity, but I assure noble Lords that there is not.

I can confirm that the charitable sector, along with all stakeholders, is content with the change in the law which this will bring into effect.

Finally, the noble Lord asked about the impact assessment and, in particular, paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum. The point made in paragraph 10.4 is that the costs are,

“not easy to quantify … The Ministry … expects that when 2010 Act, as amended by the Insurance Act 2015 and the Regulations is commenced, it will generate a small net benefit to business”—

mainly insurers and claimants because of the ease with which the process should now be able to be undertaken—

“but that any aggregate impacts will be significantly less than £1 million per annum”.

The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to explain that,

“the circumstances added by the Regulations will probably only account for a fraction of this. However, we do not know how often these circumstances will apply; how many people will be affected”.

However, it seems that it comes well within the range of those regulations that do not require a specific impact assessment.

Our submission is that these regulations are very much to be welcomed. I am grateful for all the hard work that has gone into providing their final realisation during what has been quite a long process to get here. They will extend the scope of the 2010 Act to include the specific sectoral insolvency and administration regimes and most dissolved bodies, and the benefits of the 2010 Act will now be delivered without exposing some claimants who are protected by third-party legislation to a worse situation than they currently are in because of the omissions in the original Act. In those circumstances, I commend the draft regulations to the House.

Motion agreed.

Civil Proceedings, Family Proceedings and Upper Tribunal Fees (Amendment) Order 2016

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

To move that the draft Order laid before the House on 17 December 2015 be approved.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to introduce enhanced fees for certain types of civil and family proceedings. Specifically, the order will increase the fee to issue a possession claim in the county court to £355 from £280 and there will be a 10% fee discount for possession claims made online. It will also increase the fees for a general application made in civil proceedings to £100 for an application made by consent or without notice and to £255 for a contested application. These changes will also apply to general applications made in judicial review proceedings heard in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal.

There are, however, general applications relating to certain proceedings for which, given the particular sensitivities involved, we feel that it would be inappropriate to charge a fee above cost. These are applications in insolvency proceedings, applications in relation to an injunction for protection from harassment, and applications for payment to be made out of funds held in court. The order will also make small changes to the fees charged for copy documents in immigration judicial review proceedings heard in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal. Finally, the order increases the fee to make an application for a divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership. This will be increased to £550.

Where users are charged a fee to access public services, it is normally the case that the fee should be set at a level to cover the full cost of delivering those services. For many years the civil and family courts have operated on that basis. Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides the Lord Chancellor with a power to prescribe fees above cost on the basis that these fees are used to finance an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals. This power was used for the first time in March last year to increase the fees for money claims.

Noble Lords will be aware of the difficult economic situation that we face. The Government were elected to continue our work to fix the economy, and that is indeed what we are doing. It is clearly right that we continue to look for opportunities to reduce public spending. That includes the courts and tribunals and those who use them. In the current financial climate, it is right that we look again at the balance between what users pay towards the overall cost of the Courts and Tribunals Service as compared with the financial burden that falls on the taxpayer. All of the increases in the draft order have been subject to consultation, and our decision to take them forward has been announced in subsequent published government responses.

Why are the Government taking this action and why is it necessary? The reason we are introducing these fee increases is to make sure that the courts and tribunals are funded in the long term. The courts and tribunals fulfil a vital function in our society. They make sure that access to justice is available to those who need it. Access to justice is critical to the maintenance of an effective and functioning democracy, helping to maintain social order, underpinning an effective economy, and upholding the rule of law. It is crucial that these principles are preserved so that people who need it have ready access to the courts and tribunals.

Equally, a strong economy is a prerequisite for effective and affordable public services. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government inherited a growing budget deficit, increasing public sector debt, and an economy in recession. We made economic recovery our first priority, and this has required some difficult decisions to be made. The action we have taken is working and the recovery is now well under way, but further reductions in spending are essential if we are to eliminate the deficit.

We have secured more than £700 million-worth of funding to invest in our courts and tribunals, and we have been working closely with the senior judiciary to develop a plan for investing this in reforming the courts and tribunals so that they can deliver swifter, fairer justice for everyone in England and Wales at a lower cost.

There is, however, only so much that can be done through cost-efficiency measures alone. If we are to secure the sustainable funding of the courts and tribunals, we must also look to those who use the system to contribute more, where they can afford to do so. We consulted on all these proposals and have carefully considered all the responses that were received. The consultations produced some very strong views, particularly on the proposed increase to the fee for a divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership. We have listened to what people had to say and have decided to limit the increase in this fee to £550—from £410—rather than £750, as originally proposed.

The measures set out in this order, we estimate, will generate around £60 million per annum in additional income, with every £1 collected spent on providing an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals. We recognise that fee increases are not popular, but they are necessary if we want to deliver our promise to fix the economy while protecting access to justice. It is in those circumstances that I therefore commend this draft order to the House, and I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, this is the second time that the Lord Chancellor has exercised his power under Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to prescribe enhanced fees—court fees, that is, that exceed the cost to the Courts and Tribunals Service of doing that for which the fee is charged. This power was first used last year in relation to the fees for bringing court proceedings to recover sums of money. On 4 March last year—a year ago—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, moved a regret Motion, on which I spoke. Frankly, much of what I said then applies with equal—indeed, even greater—force today. I pointed out that there has long been objection even to the basic principle of full cost recovery. The justice system exists for the benefit of society as a whole and really courts should no more be required to be self-financing than, say, the police service.

Of course, orders for enhanced fees go altogether further than mere cost recovery. In a real sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, explained, they amount to selling justice—on the face of it contrary to Magna Carta, although now of course regrettably sanctioned by Section 180 of that Christmas tree of an Act we passed two years ago, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act. As I pointed out in last year’s debate, that Act stretches to 186 clauses and 11 schedules, occupying 232 pages of the Queen’s Printer’s copy. Small wonder that by Clause 180 we had grown a little lax or careless in our scrutiny of that Bill.

Today I want to focus briefly on the increased fees now to be exacted for a decree of divorce or nullity, an increase of about a third from £410 to £550. In the Government’s January 2015 response to part 2 of the consultation on the so-called reform of court fees, it was recorded at page 40 that the senior judiciary, who were, naturally enough, a statutory consultee in the process,

“noted that the current divorce fee was above cost”.

The recent 20th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee confirmed this, noting at page 4 that the Ministry of Justice’s own estimate of the average cost of dealing with an uncontested divorce application is only £270—this new enhanced fee being therefore just over double that.

Of course, that earlier consultation related specifically to the then-proposed increase of the fee to £750—a proposal later abandoned. However, the objection remains essentially as to the original proposal, summarised in the case of the higher judiciary at paragraph 8.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum to this order. The objection was that,

“it will be a disincentive for divorce and in particular, women that are victims of domestic violence”.

Essentially, that echoed earlier objections that an increased divorce fee,

“could lead to parties being trapped in unhappy or violent marriages”,

and could prevent people from marrying or remarrying and being therefore,

“without the protection the law affords to married couples”.

At the conclusion of last year’s debate, noting that the Motion was one of only regret and not a fatal Motion, I expressed the hope that at least it would persuade the Government that enough is enough and really there must be no more use of this enhanced fee power. Alas, the Government have now chosen to go still further down this sorry road. This order is to be not merely regretted; it is to be deplored.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, this debate has been short but not lacking in power nor indeed in criticism of the Government. It feels almost nostalgic to hear in this Session of Parliament criticisms of the Government generally in their handling of the economy and of the Ministry of Justice and the Secretary of State. We are on familiar ground. It even included, from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, the customary disavowal of anything being wrong with the economy at the time of the election in 2010.

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Lord misrepresents me. I did not say that there was nothing wrong with the economy. I said that it was recovering—and it was.

[Lord Faulks]

I stand corrected, though the recovery seemed to be rather in the eye of the beholder. In any event, the approach of the noble Lord appears to be that these changes are not justified in economic terms and that they will or might have the tendency to cause hardship.

Of course, I readily accept—as I did in opening this debate—that fee increases are never likely to be popular. On the question of divorce, there was an acceptance, if not an enthusiastic one, by the noble Lord that we had listened to representations, concluded that the original proposal was too high and reduced the sum that needs to be paid in order to obtain a divorce. Reference was made by the noble Lord to what judges said in the course of giving evidence—distinguished judges, I fully acknowledge.

Prison Reform

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the total number of prisoners on their plans for prison reform.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, we do not need to reduce the prison population in order to reform our prisons. We will always provide sufficient prison capacity for those committed by the courts and aim to manage the prison population in a way that gives taxpayers value for money. Prisons must be places where offenders can transform their lives. We are therefore modernising the estate and will give prison staff greater freedom to innovate. Only through better rehabilitation will we reduce reoffending and cut crime.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, at least three recent reports by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons have demonstrated how difficult it is to achieve the Government’s worthy objectives of rehabilitation when there is a very large prison population and a much reduced staff managing it. Is it not time that, alongside the rehabilitation policy, Ministers began to look at why we imprison a larger proportion of our population than any other western European country, thus committing huge amounts of taxpayers’ money to a system which does not sufficiently reduce reoffending?

[Lord Faulks]

The Government are always anxious to find out why we imprison so many people. Of course, imprisoning is done by judges, not by government. We believe that the way to reduce the prison population is to tackle reoffending. Fifty per cent of adult prisoners are reconvicted within one year and 60% in less than 12 months. We aim to get to grips with that reoffending, and that will reduce the prison population.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, does not that answer indicate precisely why the Government have a problem? If those are the reoffending figures, why is that happening? Is it not true that there are simply insufficient staff in our prisons to escort prisoners to, for example, needed mental health appointments, to the classes for which they are booked or indeed to the exercise and other facilities that would enable them to go along the path towards rehabilitation? How will that rehabilitation take place?

[Lord Faulks]

In the last year we have recruited 2,250 new prison officers—a net increase of 440—and we are continuing to recruit at that rate. We have given prison officers all that they have asked for in terms of the recommended rate of pay. We very much applaud prison officers in the very difficult task that they have to perform, and I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in offering their condolences to the family and friends of Adrian Ismay, a prison officer from Belfast, who unfortunately died today.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I read in the Times recently that the Secretary of State is going to put family at the heart of prison reforms. Can the Minister expand on those plans and the progress that has been made there?

[Lord Faulks]

My noble friend is quite right to focus on the importance of family. According to research by my department, families are the single most important factor in helping prisoners to resettle on release. A number of prisons have developed visitor centres and are doing their best to make the contact between families and prisoners as pleasant as possible. This is important because, first, the families are, after all, not doing a prison sentence and, secondly, it encourages prisoners to remember that their roots in the community and in their family are the key to not reoffending.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has recognised that we cannot hope to tackle prison overcrowding without improving rehabilitation and thereby reducing reoffending. But is it not the fact that we cannot hope to improve rehabilitation without reducing prison numbers? Can the Minister tell us how the Government will break this vicious circle?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble and learned Lord, with all his experience of the system, will appreciate that we have a duty, and therefore have to have the ability, to house all who are sent to prison by judges. What we are endeavouring to do is to identify the causes of reoffending. Once we have done that, we hope that that will reduce the numbers. If judges feel it is appropriate to sentence offenders to particular sentences, it is not for the Government to reduce those sentences simply to make the figures balance.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords, the Minister will know that in the nine years since the publication of my report, the reason that the number of women in prison has decreased is because of the establishment of a network of community women’s centres, which have been used by the courts to help those women turn their lives around. Under the new community rehabilitation contract regime introduced by the coalition Government one women’s centre, Alana House in Reading, has been closed because its CRC, MTC Novo, has refused to fund it. Other women’s centres do not even know what their funding is going to be after 1 April. Does the Minister agree that the inevitable result of this will be an increase in the women’s prison population?

[Lord Faulks]

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s contribution to reducing the population of women prisoners and her concern for them. Of course, she will be pleased that their number is lower than it has been for a decade. We hope that we can reproduce the best practice found in Holloway—albeit it is closing—and in the women’s centres in making sure that the arrangements in prison are those best suited for women and their rehabilitation.

[Lord Woolf]

My Lords, is it not right that the inflation in sentences—they are longer than they have ever been—is caused by action taken by Governments, and not by judges, to impose fixed sentences? These sentences form rocks that the rest of sentencing has to accommodate. If that were not the case, sentences would be shorter, because judges are prevented from imposing the sentences that they otherwise would by the fixed-sentencing policies of the Government of a particular time.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful for the contribution made by the noble and learned Lord. Of course, this Government and the coalition Government before them were very much against fixed sentences. It was the coalition Government who repealed, for example, provision in relation to indeterminate sentences for public protection. In the eight criminal justice Acts that were passed by the Labour Government, extraordinary inflexibility was given to judges in passing sentences—that is one of the results in terms of the prison population. We are endeavouring to give as many resources as we can to the Parole Board to make sure that those prisoners will be released when it is safe to do so.

Sexual Offences: False Accusations

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to review the law concerning those making false accusations in relation to sexual offences.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, there are no plans to review the law in this area. It is a very serious matter to make a false allegation relating to a sexual offence and there are strong sanctions against those who do.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, should we not now consider the reform of the law which allows someone like this man, Nick, who, hiding behind a wall of anonymity, makes allegations of a sexual nature against reputable public figures such as Lord Bramall, the late Lord Brittan and the late Mr Edward Heath, the former Prime Minister, and others, with not a shred of forensic or corroborative evidence whatever? It is simply unjust. Is it not now time that the whole issue of anonymity for the accused, and in particular the defence of the falsely accused, was put back on the national agenda and considered here in Parliament?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that this is a very delicate issue. Parliament in 1976 decided that there should be anonymity both for complainant and for defendant. Parliament then abolished that in 1988. In 2010, the coalition Government considered the matter and decided, in balancing the various public interests, not to take further action. The noble Lord refers to a well-known case, and of course legitimate criticisms can be made about the handling of that matter, although we must allow the police some operational freedom. But I can say that Sir Richard Henriques, a retired High Court judge, is looking into the matter, an IPCC complaint has been made, and in due course the Government will respond to any recommendations or publications on that matter. But one must remember how difficult it is to make these allegations, and while I entirely accept what he says about those people in high places, of course no one is above the law.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, to follow on from my noble friend and enlarge on his point about whether the accusation is ultimately proved true or false, and referring back to the 1988 decision, would it not be far more equitable if either both parties had anonymity or neither did?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

I accept that there is a superficial attraction about that symmetry. But I suggest that one of the important things that the public policy demands is that making a complaint should not be discouraged. It is no easy thing to make a complaint about, for example, rape or sexual offences. The possibility not only that you will be cross-examined and traduced in court but will have your name emblazoned on newspapers or other means of communication is a considerable inhibition in making that complaint. That is one of the difficult factors that Parliament took into account when deciding to retain anonymity.

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)]

My Lords, I have stated elsewhere the reasons for my conviction that Sir Edward Heath was not a child abuser. The allegations that have been published in the media to that effect have no shred of credible corroboration. Wiltshire Police are conducting an investigation, which is forecast to last for 12 months or more and which involves interviewing an extensive range of Sir Edward’s friends, colleagues, staff and former crew members and searching through 4,500 boxes of his archives. I have suggested to the chief constable of Wiltshire Police that there can be no conclusive or satisfactory outcome to this investigation. Even if, as seems likely, the police find that there is insufficient evidence to have justified a prosecution, the cloud of suspicion which has been hanging over Sir Edward’s memory would not be definitively dispelled. In the unlikely event of a finding that there is sufficient evidence, that evidence could not be tested in a court of law because Sir Edward is dead and cannot be prosecuted. It seems as if Wiltshire Police are arrogating to themselves the role not only of investigator but also of prosecutor, judge and jury in this matter. Does the Minister not agree that the investigation is a travesty of justice and a prodigious waste of police time and resources?

[Lord Faulks]

I am sure that there will be a lot of sympathy around the House and elsewhere for what the noble Lord says. Of course, we must not interfere with police operational independence. However, the points that he eloquently makes about proportionality in view of the death of Sir Edward and the likelihood of any significant evidence one way or another being unearthed at this stage are valuable, and I take them on board.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, there are sound public policy reasons for keeping the anonymity of a complainant throughout the trial and beyond, but are there not also sound public policy reasons for giving the trial judge the discretion, after an acquittal, to consider whether the identity of the complainant should be released if he is satisfied that it is a false accusation and not tainted by mental illness?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord makes an important point. But of course, he will know only too well that someone who has had a false complaint made against them is vulnerable to prosecution for perjury, perverting the course of justice or wasting police time, and that an individual has the right to sue for malicious prosecution or defamation. So remedies do exist.

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, absolutely right in what he said? Is it not quite clear that the present system of protecting the innocent from having their names plastered all over the media has broken down? Does justice not require that the Government take a fresh look at this whole issue and not just leave it to the police?

[Lord Faulks]

At the moment, as my noble friend will appreciate, this is a matter for the police, who consider that only in exceptional circumstances will it be appropriate to name suspects. Sometimes it is true that naming a suspect provokes people to come forward who they have kept quiet about allegations for fear that they will not be believed when they accuse prominent members of the so-called establishment. However, I accept my noble friend’s point. Clearly it is a matter to which any Government will give anxious consideration in weighing up these very difficult, conflicting issues.

Prisons: Violence

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle the incidence of deaths, serious assaults and incidents of self-harm in prison.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government recognise the seriousness of this problem and are taking action to respond. We are trialling the use of body-worn video cameras, the Psychoactive Substances Act will introduce new offences to control supply and possession and we have reviewed the process for supporting prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm. We recognise that our prison system needs reform, and there is much more to do to ensure that prisons are places of decency, hope and rehabilitation.

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

My Lords, 2015 saw a record number of deaths in custody, a 20% increase in assaults and a 25% increase in self-harm incidents. Those increases were over record figures the previous year. The Justice Secretary appears committed, rightly, to prison reform, but has he been promised the resources to address the causes of these dreadful figures—squalid conditions, overcrowding, understaffing and prisoners locked for far too long in their cells?

[Lord Faulks]

The causes of violence are multifactorial. They include of course the increased use of psychoactive substances, to which the Government are responding positively. It is a ceaseless challenge to try to prevent them coming into prison, but we have a new offence, and we are taking steps to make it very difficult for these substances to be thrown over walls or secreted in parts of the body. It is generally a significant challenge. We are also looking at a two-year violence reduction project, to help us better understand the causes and characteristics of violence and to strengthen our handling of it. There is also the use of body-worn cameras. Ultimately, the best way to reduce violence may be to give, as the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have suggested, much more power to prison governors to give them the tools necessary to reform the way their prisons are run and to help rehabilitate offenders.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, we are all deeply concerned about the number of deaths in prison, but I wish in particular to raise the issue of the increasing number of trans people who are taking their own lives in prison. Are there special provisions for dealing with the LGBT community, in particular the trans community? If so, will the Minister publish them so we can ensure that they are fit for purpose?

[Lord Faulks]

There is a prison service instruction in relation to the care and management of transsexual offenders, which is being reviewed. People with particular experience of these issues are involved in the review, including Peter Dawson of the Prison Reform Trust and Jay Stewart of Gendered Intelligence respectively. We are concerned of course to tackle this very delicate issue, so that those who are on the journey, very often to change gender, are properly looked after and their considerations taken into account, so that prison can be adapted in a way that most suits their requirements.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, in the light of the welcome announcement last autumn that a number of the old, unsuitable prisons were going to be replaced with purpose-built ones, will the Minister assure the House that the specifications for those new-builds will take very careful account of mental health issues, consulting with the charities that are dealing with this particular area and producing excellent educational, medical and spiritual facilities, so that we can minimise the level of mental health problems and maximise rehabilitation?

[Lord Faulks]

The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. He will have been reassured by what the Prime Minister said in his speech on 8 February—namely, that the design of these new prisons should be particularly directed towards helping mental health treatment. If necessary, that should allow individual governors to have appropriate control, with co-commissioning with NHS England to ensure that the significant numbers of inmates in prisons with mental health problems are adequately treated.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, following the right reverend Prelate’s question, can my noble friend tell us what percentage of prisoners have been diagnosed with mental illness problems, and is prison the best place to treat them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

The NICE estimate is that 90% of prisoners have at least one psychiatric disorder. Of course, the precise nature of a psychiatric disorder will vary. With many of them, prison may not be the correct place to treat them—although there may be other factors that make it appropriate for them to be there. NHS England has developed national specifications for health and justice services in English prisons and all prisons have clear commissioning models that focus on outcomes specific to custodial settings. All judges who sentence offenders will, or should, have adequate information to allow them to sentence appropriately. It then becomes a matter for the prison estate as to how best they are housed.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister may be aware that there are about 82,000 men in our prisons and over 3,000 women. Those women are responsible for about 50% of the self-harm in prison. Furthermore, since my report published nine years ago this week, the number of women who took their own lives in English prisons last year was a record. Two have taken their lives this year already, in the first two months. What factors does he think underline the deterioration in the safety of women in our prisons?

[Lord Faulks]

On the positive side, the female prison population is now under 4,000—the lowest it has ever been. In the speech I referred to earlier, the Prime Minister made a particular point of the importance of finding alternative ways of dealing with women offenders, preferably avoiding sending them to prison altogether, which has been very much the trend with sentencing. Of course, there will be an irreducible number who have to be sent to prison. Although the noble Baroness is quite right that any suicide in prison is a matter of complete regret, and self-harm is equally concerning, we are in the process of modernising the prison estate to ensure that there are the best regimes and that women are held in environments that better meet their gender-specific needs.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister must have read the report in 2015 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons—a devastating report that talks about violence and poor conditions in our prisons. The most disturbing aspect of the report and the allegation made by the then Chief Inspector, Nick Hardwick was that the Secretary of State tried to influence his report. Will the Minister make sure that that sort of thing does not happen in future? Public confidence will be eroded if independent reports by prison inspectors are interfered with by Ministers.

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord is right to suggest that the report by Mr Hardwick was unfavourable in a number of respects. The Government will learn lessons from what he said. It is important that we should take on board an objective analysis of that. It is perhaps an indication of the Secretary of State’s willingness to embrace criticism that he has appointed Mr Hardwick to have continued involvement in the criminal justice system, by his appointment as chair of the Parole Board. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that that is a real sign of somebody getting to grips with a critical friend of the system.

European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a historic debate. The House has well and truly put its stamp on this very important issue. Many have spoken with personal experience. Sometimes there has been an acknowledgement that there is a visceral element to the reaction that many people have to this issue, as there will be throughout the country. So many points have been made that I hope noble Lords will not be too disappointed if I confine my remarks to rather few of the issues raised during the debate.

Unfortunately, being a late arrival to the debate, I was unable to be here during the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Gilbert of Panteg. My late inclusion was because of the acute discomfort that my noble friend Lady Anelay was in. I salute her tenacity throughout the whole business of the European Union Referendum Bill and her dedication to bringing matters to the House’s attention. But I have it on the highest authority that he made an excellent maiden speech, and we very much welcome him to the House and look forward to his future contributions.

My task in winding up this debate has been made easier by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made many of the points that I might have made in winding up, and rather better than I would have done. I can deal with the date quite briefly, in view of the widespread acceptance of the SI. The Prime Minister has announced his intention to hold the referendum on 23 June, and my noble friend Lady Anelay explained why the Government believe that that date strikes the right balance between giving enough time for a proper debate and not making voters wait too long to have their say. There will be four months from the announcement of the date until polling day, six weeks for campaigners to apply to be designated, and a 10-week regulated referendum period. We believe that that is ample time. Traditionally, general elections have only six weeks’ notice; this referendum will have had much more. The intention to hold a referendum before the end of 2017 was announced in the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech of 2013; it was affirmed at the election last year and reaffirmed by the passing of the referendum Act in December. No one can claim that they were not given sufficient notice.

Most importantly, the Electoral Commission has confirmed that it is content with the Government’s proposals and that, in its view, arrangements for a well-run referendum are “well advanced” and that the date does not pose a “significant risk”. It was only the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who suggested a different date; he suggested that the Government should wait until after the Tory Party conference, an invitation that the Government have no difficulty in refusing. The approval of the procedure has been echoed by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; both have considered the instrument and both are content with the proposals.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The noble Lord has suggested that the Electoral Commission is content—maybe it is—but has it offered a view on the character, integrity and neutrality of the various so-called information documents that the Government have been pouring forth? It might be that it would consider that those documents are not in fact as neutral as they ought to be.

[Lord Faulks]

I am unaware of any view having been expressed about those documents but, since the noble Lord asks about those documents, which have been variously described as “propaganda”, they are the Government’s attempt to make their case and to make it clearly—The Best of Both Worlds, as the Government see it. We look forward to those who wish to leave the European Union putting forward their views in writing so that they can be scrutinised and dismissed as propaganda if they must be. But rather, I would suggest, a proper analysis of views on one side and another should be undertaken.

I turn to the deal—the EU renegotiation. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Ridley that this is a question of a relationship not with Europe but with the EU. There have been a range of opinions. The special status that the renegotiation has delivered means that Britain can, as the pamphlet suggests, have the best of both worlds. We will be in the parts of Europe that work for us, influence the decisions that affect our economy and help to keep our people safe. We will be in the driving seat of the world’s biggest single market, but we will be out of the parts of Europe that do not work for us—the euro, the eurozone bailouts and the passport-free, no-borders Schengen area—and we will be permanently and legally protected from being drawn into ever-closer union.

The deal has achieved agreements in each of the four areas that were set out by the Prime Minister in his letter to Council President Tusk in November last year. On sovereignty, the deal ensures that the UK is out of ever-closer union, will never be part of a superstate, and has achieved new powers to block unwanted European laws. On competitiveness, the deal secures new commitments from the EU to cut red tape, complete the single market and sign new trade deals. On economic governance, we have made sure we will never join the euro, that British taxpayers will never be required to bail out the eurozone and that British businesses cannot be discriminated against for not being in the eurozone. On welfare and migration, we have made sure that new arrivals from the EU will not be able to get access to full benefits for four years and that child benefit will no longer be sent home at UK rates.

The noble Lord, Lord Green, suggested that this might not reduce the flow of EU migrants. The new relationship means that EU migrants can no longer claim full benefits for some time, and this ends what has been characterised as something-for-nothing welfare arrangements. The Government are not making a forecast of numbers, but we know that around 40% of EU migrants are supported by the benefits system, so reducing this artificial draw will, the Government believe, help us control and reduce immigration from Europe.

The legal nature of this deal has been called into doubt by some, but let me be clear: this deal is legally binding for all EU member states and the decision of the heads of state or government has now been registered with the United Nations as an international treaty. The conclusions of the February European Council as well as the text of the deal itself clearly set out the legally binding nature of the deal, and the European Court of Justice has held that decisions of this sort must be taken into consideration as being an instrument for the interpretation of the EU treaties.

Council President Tusk was clear that:

“The 28 Heads of State or Government unanimously agreed and adopted a legally binding and irreversible settlement for the United Kingdom in the EU. The decision concerning a new settlement is in conformity with the Treaties and cannot be annulled by the European Court of Justice.”

The legal opinions of both the Council Legal Service and Sir Alan Dashwood QC further confirm the legally binding nature of the deal. All those documents are footnoted in the document described as propaganda by those who oppose this process.

My noble friend Lord Astor asked whether the European Parliament could veto elements of the deal after a remain vote. Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament, has said that he absolutely rejects the notion that MEPs have a veto and has given a guarantee that the European Parliament will, immediately after the referendum to stay in Europe, legislate on the proposal of the Commission. Manfred Weber, the leader of the centre-right EPP, the biggest block in the European Parliament, has said that with strong backing from EU member states and parliamentary leaders a UK package,

“could go through very quickly after the referendum. One or two or three months is possible”.

So we are confident that we can get the changes we need written into EU law.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

Perhaps the Conservatives might join this group. It might be more expeditious.

[Lord Faulks]

I am sure they will be grateful for that suggestion.

The position is that this is a legally binding agreement. Of course all countries have evinced a clear agreement to be bound by the terms. The European Court of Justice cannot be bound by the agreement itself—it is a final court determining the validity of an agreement—but it is not realistic to expect that it will in any way go against what is a clear agreement in international law entered into by all members of the European Union.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Will my noble friend explain why the Lord Chancellor takes a different view from him?

[Lord Faulks]

In an interview which I saw, the Lord Chancellor suggested that the European Court of Justice—or the CJEU, as it now prefers to be called—is the supreme court in Europe and is above all European institutions in interpreting the law. That is entirely a correct statement of the position. If he suggested—and I am not sure whether he did or did not because it seemed to me that he and the Prime Minister might have been talking about rather different things—that the treaty was not binding on the European Court of Justice, he was right to the extent that it is open to the European Court of Justice to decide that its jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the treaties only. It is highly unlikely that they would do so—highly unlikely because there is a clear agreement evinced by the 28 countries, the members of the European Union. No self-respecting court that had any say for its own reputation would do violence to that agreement.

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

Is it not the case, however, that although all courts these days are unpredictable, the European Court of Justice is more unpredictable than most? Unless and until a case came before the European Court of Justice, we simply do not know what their decision will be.

[Lord Faulks]

Some courts are more predictable than others, but the confident assertion from all legal advisers whose opinion I have read is that, for example, were there to be an argument to the effect that our changes to migration arrangements were somehow contrary to the principle of free movement, there is no way that the European Court would say, “Well, the treaty has freedom of movement, but all the member states have agreed to the contrary that there should be this arrangement for the United Kingdom”. I simply cannot believe that it is arguable that there would be any other conclusion than that there was honouring of the agreement.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, could the Minister confirm what I believe to be the case, and stated when I addressed the House earlier: that in the cases of Denmark and Ireland, where postdated commitments were entered into for treaty change, which took quite a few years to fulfil, there was no evidence and no case in which the European Court of Justice sought to tamper with those agreements? That is rather more important than endless speculation about what it might do.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is quite right. Those are substantial precedents and a clear indication of what might happen—as he quite rightly said, in invoking the Latin maxim pacta sunt servanda.

[Lord Spicer]

Can my noble friend think of an example where the European Court has intervened and where it has not done so in favour of an integrationist centralist Europe, according to the acquis communautaire?

[Lord Faulks]

With great respect to my noble friend, I am not sure that going over the entire jurisprudence of the European court would help, either at this time of night or at all, in terms of answering this fundamental question. We, the Government, submit that the answer is clear: this is a binding agreement.

May I also advance the argument that we are better off in the EU? The Government believe that the UK will be better off. The Government’s long-term economic plan is delivering economic security for families and businesses, underpinned by sound public finances. We plan to do this by investing in the UK’s future, addressing the productivity challenge and rebalancing the economy towards trade and investment. With turbulence in the global economy, membership of the EU supports this plan by giving British business access to the free-trade single market, and dozens of trade deals across the world.

Through our EU membership, we already have trading agreements with more than 50 countries. Concluding all the trade deals currently under way could ultimately be worth more than £20 billion a year to the United Kingdom GDP. Once these deals are completed, around three-quarters of UK exports to non-EU countries would be covered by an EU-negotiated free-trade agreement. Of course, we could make other deals—whether we could make them on better terms must be seriously in doubt. This Government’s deal keeps the EU moving firmly in the right direction and hard-wires competitiveness.

Would we be safer in the EU? The Government believe that we would. Our EU membership allows the UK to work closely with other countries to fight cross-border crime and terrorism, giving us strength in numbers in a dangerous world. Our new settlement reiterates that the responsibility for national security rests solely with national Governments and that EU institutions will fully respect the national security interests of member states.

The Government believe that the UK will be stronger in the EU because we can play a leading role in one of the world’s largest organisations from within, helping to make the big decisions that affect us. Membership of the EU, like our membership of NATO and the UN, amplifies the UK’s power and influence on the world stage. At a time when we are, as many noble Lords have pointed out, faced with an increasing range of serious threats, co-operation at an international level is more important than ever.

This is a significant package of measures, delivering changes that are substantial, legally binding and irreversible in the sense that they can be changed only if all 28 member states agree. Of course it will not solve all the problems with the EU. In that sense, it should be seen as an important step on the road to EU reform —a point made by my noble friend Lord Howell, in his thoughtful speech—rather than the destination.

As to leaving the EU, noble Lords will be aware of the discussion elsewhere about a vote to leave being a means of securing further concessions in the renegotiation process, ahead of a second vote. That appears to have been briefly the view of the Mayor of London and is still the view of Mr Dominic Cummings.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, asked if there was any contingency planning for Brexit. The Civil Service is working full-time to support the Government’s position, and the Government’s view is that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed EU. I want to be very clear on behalf of the Government: a vote to leave is exactly that—a vote to leave. The Government cannot ignore the democratic decision that will be made on 23 June; there is no option on the ballot paper to have a second renegotiation or to hold a second referendum. The Prime Minister has been explicit that a vote to leave would trigger Article 50 of the treaty. It would begin the process of a British exit from the EU.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

On the point that the Minister has just made, it is not a matter for the Prime Minister to decide whether Article 50 is invoked in the event of a referendum for leaving; it is a matter for Cabinet. The Cabinet will have to have before it papers setting out all the various options, and it will be for Cabinet to decide which of those options it wants to pick up.

[Lord Faulks]

Whatever the process, it is clear that Article 50 will have to be adopted. The EU treaties, which the UK is signed up to, set out a legal process for EU member states to leave. My noble friend Lord Lawson suggests that we can simply ignore that process by repealing domestic legislation in the form of the European Communities Act, which is the piece of legislation that incorporated the treaty into our domestic law, but if we simply did that and ignored the UK’s international obligations, we would be violating the rule of law. It would hardly be a good way to begin a negotiation with 27 other member states to get a good deal for Britain by breaking international law.

The public would expect that if we were to leave, we would do so, as we have traditionally done, in accordance with the law and following the terms of the treaties. A vote to leave would start the clock on a two-year period to negotiate the arrangements for the UK’s exit. I should also be clear about what would happen if that deal to leave was not done within two years. Our current access to the single market would cease immediately after two years and our current trade agreements with 53 countries around the world would lapse.

The Government have made our position clear: the UK’s national interest—the interests of every individual, family, business, community and nation within our United Kingdom—will be best served by our country remaining part of a reformed EU. There was almost total agreement across the House today that we should let the British people have their say on 23 June. Clearly, then, there is no reason to wait. Let us give each side time to make their case, then let us put the question to the British people. Let us settle this issue for a generation, and let us vote to remain.

There is a Motion to approve the statutory instrument before the whole House. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Insurance Industry: Whiplash

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to meet representatives of the insurance industry to discuss their treatment of claims for whiplash injuries.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, meetings have been held with representatives’ groups from both claimant and insurer sectors at both ministerial and official level to discuss the reforms announced in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement. Ministers and officials are continuing to engage with interested stakeholders as work on the detail of the Government’s whiplash reform programme develops.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

When my noble friend next meets representatives of the industry, will he ask them to explain cases such as that of Mr John Elvin of Watford? Mr Elvin was involved in a negligible traffic incident where there was no apparent damage to either vehicle. At the first opportunity, he notified his insurers—esure—that he was subject to what he believed was going to be a false whiplash and damage claim. Despite a series of requests, esure has given no indication that it has investigated this case in any way. Is this not an example of the reason why the industry is known in this country as “the whiplash capital of the world”? It is the consumer who ultimately pays for this cavalier attitude.

[Lord Faulks]

My noble friend is quite right to draw the House’s attention to the very major problem of the significant increase in the number of claims and our large number of claims in comparison with other European countries. One of the reasons that insurers give for settling these claims is that it costs them too much to fight the case. Of course, if our plans to raise the small claims limit to £5,000 come into effect, this will no longer continue to be a valid reason for not contesting claims. Anyone who is notified of what sounds suspiciously like a fraud should not do anything to encourage it. If individuals are invited to take part in such an endeavour, they are potentially committing a criminal offence.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the court costs. Have the coalition’s policies of banning referral fees produced any results? Has the number of frauds gone down? Are there any statistics on that as yet, following the Insurance Act 2015?

[Lord Faulks]

The Government are attacking this problem on a number of different fronts. Referral fees is one; the LASPO reforms is another; and there is the MedCo portal, which means that all whiplash injuries must go via a neutral evaluation with limited costs. All are contributing to a decrease in the number of whiplash claims, but there are still too many, and we still feel that there is fraud at the root of all this.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, of course no one would defend fraudulent claims, whether for whiplash or other injuries. However, the raising of the small claims limit to £5,000 will represent a further reduction of access to justice to people and even businesses of modest means with valid claims. Given that the Government claim the insurance industry—in which motor insurers alone receive £15 billion a year in premiums—will save £1 billion from the increased limit, having already saved £7 billion in the last four years, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that any further savings from their latest surrender to the industry’s interests will be substantially passed on to policyholders? Or is this to compensate the industry for the insurance tax levy increase, which it will no doubt in any case pass on to policyholders?

[Lord Faulks]

There is no question of the Government surrendering to the insurance industry, as the noble Lord puts it. The insurers already announced that they will reduce the premiums to insurance companies by £50. We will watch insurance companies very carefully to see whether they translate their promises into action. Of course, as all noble Lords will know, insurance is a highly competitive world. All of us will have been irritated by the invitations to compare the market. Ultimately, the market should prevail.

[Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)]

My Lords, the whiplash phenomenon is thought to occur usually when a vehicle is struck heavily from behind, with the result that the passenger or driver in the vehicle that is hit has a sharp flexion of the neck followed by a sharp hyperextension. If it happens that the individual in question already has disc degeneration in the neck, there is no doubt at all that this may on occasions result in actual damage to the spinal cord with significant physical results. However, in the great majority of so-called whiplash cases, no organic abnormality can be detected. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that some of the claims for whiplash injuries are spurious. Having said that, is it not time yet again for the Government and the medical profession experts in this field to come together to see if they can promulgate some objective means of assessing the significance of these claims?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord, with his experience as a neurologist, highlights the complicated nature of this injury and the fact that it is not usually detectable on scans. He also made the point about pre-existing degenerative injury. The effort to achieve some sort of consensus among medical experts has been helped by the MedCo portal. It is remarkable how many of the reports now have a more favourable prognosis than used to be the case before it was introduced.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I declare my interests as set out in the register. Will my noble friend the Minister accept that there is serious concern not only in this House but also in the insurance industry at the way in which we have allowed a situation where 80% of all personal injury claims are said to be whiplash claims? Will he find some way of stopping these cold calls? One of my colleagues just had a cold call from a claims management company calling itself the “Department of Compensation”. Will my noble friend please get across to everyone that these people are potentially committing a very serious criminal offence?

[Lord Faulks]

My noble friend is, of course, absolutely right. The Government are determined to stamp down on this. Legislation is already in place, primarily enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Government have recently consulted on bringing forward secondary legislation to require all direct marketing callers to provide their calling line identification. Individuals can have a Telephone Preference Service installed on their telephones and we are also exploring the possibility of call-blocking devices for vulnerable consumers.

When somebody rings me, as they do from time to time, inviting me to take part in a fraud, I endeavour to extract details from them without revealing the position I hold. Unfortunately, my voice appears to cause them only to put down the phone.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the rate of whiplash claims in Britain is 20 times as high as it is in France? Have we something to learn from our friends across the channel?

[Lord Faulks]

It is surprising that that comparison should take place at this particular time in the political weather. The noble Lord is quite right. Some 9%, or 225,000, of bodily injuries in France were whiplash, but 76%, or 375,000, in the United Kingdom were.

Armed Services: War Crimes

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks)]

My Lords, international humanitarian law and domestic criminal law are the bodies of law to determine whether British troops have committed war crimes. Our Armed Forces are among the best in the world and operate to the highest standards of discipline. The forthcoming Bill of Rights will protect their ability to do their jobs without being subject to persistent human rights claims.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that British troops should only be sued for violation of human rights if they have already been convicted of crimes contrary to the laws of armed conflict?

[Lord Faulks]

All our troops should, of course, be subject to the law: none is above it. However, the question of the Human Rights Act raises rather different matters. There has been a number of claims based on alleged contraventions of the convention and, thus, the Human Rights Act. These have caused considerable —and sometimes unjustified—difficulties for soldiers and the Armed Forces. This is why our forthcoming Bill of Rights will attempt to deal with these persistent human rights claims.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, long-retired members of our military who fought for us in Northern Ireland are open to arrest, bail and investigation for events that happened up to 40 years ago. Is it true that members of the retired military community who believe there is no even-handedness between the treatment of the terrorists who are trying to kill us and the military who are protecting us are raising with the PSNI a raft of incidents—some 40 so far—where members of the IRA and splinter-IRA have killed or maimed uniformed people? How are these cases being taken forward?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord makes a good point. I am unable to answer his specific query, but the Prime Minister has tasked the National Security Council to produce a comprehensive plan to stamp out this industry of claims, which is causing precisely the sort of difficulties which the noble Lord has highlighted.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, will the Government introduce any form of Crown immunity for operations overseas?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble and gallant Lord asks an entirely pertinent question. The Prime Minister has asked the Defence and Justice Secretaries to prepare a legislative package to redress the balance. That is clearly one of the matters under consideration, as is derogation from the Human Rights Act. There are a number of other matters which I would rather not go into detail about now, but I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that all these matters will be carefully considered.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)]

Is not the Minister in some difficulty in his replies? So long as we remain bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and subject to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court, if the Minister and his colleagues introduce a new-fangled Bill of Rights that in any way is incompatible with the convention, it would be futile because the Strasbourg court—if not our own courts—will rule on that incompatibility. Is it not better, therefore, to answer this Question by indicating that for the sake of our soldiers, sailors and airmen, as well as others, we need the proper law to be both a human rights law and international humanitarian law?

[Lord Faulks]

I am sure that the noble Lord will not have forgotten the margin of appreciation. Provided our British Bill of Rights respects the European convention but tailors it to suit the particular challenges that the military faces, it is likely that Strasbourg will respect our interpretation. Of course, we will continue to protect human rights under any regime that exists, and also to respect our international humanitarian law obligations.

[Lord Vinson (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the French, much earlier on, exempted their armed forces from prosecution under the Human Rights Act, so we would be following an excellent precedent?

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to my noble friend. We are aware of that and it is a matter that shall be taken into consideration.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister was unable to answer the specific point raised by my noble friend Lord West of Spithead in relation to Ireland. Would he be kind enough to write to him on that?

[Lord Faulks]

I am happy to do that when I have the relevant information to hand.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, given that there can be no blanket, technical explanation for these circumstances, is the Minister prepared to give an undertaking that where a soldier, sailor or airman acts in palpable good faith, there will be a presumption by the Government to stand with him and behind him in his defence against any action that might be taken against him?

[Lord Faulks]

The Government always stand behind our soldiers but to give a blanket undertaking like that would be exceeding my authority. With regard to battlefield immunity, which the noble Lord may be referring to, combat immunity remains part of the common law, although its contours are rather unclear at the moment, particularly in light of the Smith v Ministry of Defence case about the interrelationship of the Human Rights Act and that immunity. These are matters on which the Prime Minister and the Government are profoundly exercised.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (LD)]

Will the Minister allow, under the current military law, for some information to be given to the families of the military police who were killed in Karmat Ali, and which they have so far not received. I was in that city the day after the deaths and all the information is readily available. When will the ministry allow it to be released to the families concerned?

[Lord Faulks]

I will take that request back to the Ministry of Justice and try to have some inquiries made.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, when can we look forward to the draft Bill of Rights and will its timing be affected by the EU referendum?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, we are in the hands of the Prime Minister, who has a number of elections to consider —local elections, elections of the devolved assemblies, and the small matter of the European referendum. Noble Lords may have to wait a little longer, but it will of course be well worth waiting for.

Criminal Cases Review Commission (Information) Bill

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Friday 26th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to those of others who have applauded the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for bringing the Bill forward and for his very lucid exposition of the reasons behind it and the history of legislation which gives rise to the need for this significant change. He has made my task much easier, and I hope I will not repeat too much of what he has so helpfully said about the circumstances in which we in this House consider the Bill.

The Bill inserts a new section into the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, which will mean that the Criminal Cases Review Commission will be able to obtain a court order requiring a private individual or a private organisation to disclose a document or other material in their possession. The court will only be able to make an order if it thinks the document or other material may assist the commission in the exercise of its functions—that of course is, of itself, a restriction which courts will bear very much in mind.

Once the court order has been made, as has been indicated, failure to disclose the documents will be punishable as contempt of court. The Government feel that it is likely that these powers will be needed rarely. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said about how rarely this power has been used in Scotland, where it has existed for some time, and how relatively rarely it is anticipated it will be needed in future in this country. Of course it has rightly been pointed out that the existence of the power itself will very much act as an encouragement and an incentive for private bodies to provide the information without a court order. Nevertheless, there will be circumstances in which organisations may feel it necessary for their position to be covered by a court order, notwithstanding that they do not oppose it. They will then not be vulnerable to any criticism or legal action. So there will be occasions on which this happens.

Examples have helpfully been given of particular bodies which may be required by the provisions to give up material. Reference was made to the Forensic Science Service, an example of the increasing privatisation of certain public bodies. A key part of the commission’s work involves re-examination and retesting of material obtained at crime scenes. Much of that material is initially tested and held by private companies.

The restriction of what the Criminal Cases Review Commission can do was rightly emphasised. It will refer matters to the Court of Appeal only where there is a real possibility that a conviction will not be upheld. Several noble Lords made the point that it is a tribute to our justice system that those occasions are relatively rare, but of course the commission performs a crucial function—often, as was pointed out, assisted by journalists carrying out investigative processes. It is something of an irony, to which I shall come in a moment, that those very journalists will be anxious to protect their sources if any order is made asking them to, as it were, disgorge material which they hold.

The Justice Select Committee investigated the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and we are very fortunate to have its former chairman, in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, with us. As he rightly said, he has had a profitable few weeks in terms of responses to various recommendations of his Committee. He asked me why we were not implementing one of the recommendations: to give the CCRC powers to sanction public bodies—rather than private ones—that do not provide information. We recognise the burden that delay and non-compliance places on the CCRC; we are considering whether any further steps can be taken to improve the situation.

The noble Lord also asked about his committee’s recommendation to give the CCRC more money. As he acknowledged, there is a shortage of money generally. The CCRC is managed within the same spending review process as the rest of the Ministry of Justice. It is right to applaud the performance of the CCRC. For example, it closed 947 cases in 2010-11, a figure which rose to 1,632 in 2014-15 without an increase in resources. I congratulate the CCRC on its work. Of course, it is very difficult to generalise about how much work will be involved in a particular investigation.

However, the committee’s main recommendation has been well and truly taken forward by this Private Member’s Bill. An anxiety was expressed by several noble Lords—quite correctly—about questions of confidentiality. Of course, the individual or private company from whom material is requested will be able to put their case to the court if they believe that the documents or other material need to remain confidential and should not be disclosed. That, of itself, is a safeguard.

The question of legal professional privilege was raised. This matter was helpfully referred to by the report of the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House. It considered the application of the Human Rights Act, among other things, to the difficult process that judges will have to undertake in this context—as they do in many others—of weighing up the potential conflict between different rights under the Act. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, referred to the fact that the Ministry of Justice note did not specifically refer to Article 10. Of course, as a public body, the court would be obliged in any event to take into account all the articles of the convention incorporated into the Human Rights Act, so the fact that it was not expressly considered would in no way prevent someone raising the point if the matter were ventilated in a court hearing.

I entirely accept what my noble friend Lord Black said about the importance of preserving journalists’ sources. The Government and, I am sure, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will have that well in mind, and so should a court. Of course, the restrictions on the way that documents or material are disclosed should safeguard those sources adequately. The CCRC itself has heavy obligations in its duty towards such material. So far, it has an absolutely unblemished record in this regard, so I hope that provides some consolation. It is a matter that a court should have very much in mind.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made the point that, in general terms, legal and professional privilege is inviolate. In fact, of course, it is subject to exceptions in any event, referred to, helpfully, in the Constitution Committee’s report on the so-called iniquity principle. It states at paragraph 8 that,

“consultations or communications between a lawyer and his client that are in furtherance of crime or fraud are not protected by”,

legal professional privilege. So it is a rule subject in any event to exceptions, but it is an important rule, and I am sure the courts will be slow to override it unless the circumstances justify doing so. Of course, both journalists and lawyers will know that the possibility of a material injustice being allowed to continue will be a heavy matter to weigh in the balance when deciding whether it is appropriate to make such an order.

The Bill will extend to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland, as has been said, has a separate Criminal Cases Review Commission, which I think it is fair to say has been a success. The Bill will put in place similar arrangements for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We feel that it will make an important contribution to ensuring that the justice system meets public expectations, and we welcome it.

I should not conclude before referring to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne about Sergeant Blackman, which he has helpfully raised on his behalf in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions. Of course, the CCRC is an independent body, and it is not appropriate for the Government to interfere in what it does. However, I undertake on the Government’s behalf to ask it whether there are any developments in that regard. It will certainly read this debate and will have well in mind the anxiety on the part of Sergeant Blackman’s family that it investigate this matter as expeditiously as possible—as is consistent with fairness to both Sergeant Blackman and the bodies responsible for bringing him to court.

The Government welcome the Bill. We feel that it will very much improve a matter which needs improvement.

Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill [HL]

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Friday 29th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on introducing this Bill and bringing this important debate to the House. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions today. The debate reflects a long-standing commitment on the part of the noble Lord, and indeed there are many noble Lords who have considerable interest and experience in these matters.

In order to avoid any unnecessary suspense, I should say that the Government have no plans to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12. I know this will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia—but I hope he will at least be consoled by the fact that he will not have to embrace me, as was suggested by my noble friend Lord Cormack.

Although at the moment we are not able to accept that there should be a change, we none the less share the concern of the noble Lord, as indeed do all noble Lords who spoke, about the proper way to deal with young offenders. The Government believe that children aged 10 and above are, for the most part, able to differentiate between bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing and should therefore be held accountable for their actions. Where a young person commits an offence, it is important they understand that it is a serious matter. The public must also have confidence in the youth justice system and know that offending will be dealt with effectively.

The Jamie Bulger case casts a shadow over all our considerations in this area. That case was, I am glad to say, very unusual. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, referred to the principle of doli incapax. There was a rebuttable presumption in 1993, at the time of the hearing, which was then removed in 1998. The court in that case specifically considered doli incapax and decided that both boys clearly knew that what they had done was wrong, and so the presumption was rebutted.

A number of points were made during the debate about whether or not the full panoply of a trial at the Old Bailey was really appropriate for boys of this age. I entirely understand that point. We have to bear in mind that this was an issue of national concern and, of course, an absolute tragedy for those connected to Jamie Bulger. It is difficult for a country somehow to balance the fact that we are dealing with very young people with, at the same time, acknowledging the seriousness of something of that sort.

Unusually, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bach—in two years, it is very rare that we have agreed on anything, at least across the Dispatch Box—that the Government do have a duty to respond to what the public want. With very great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—who is now on the Woolsack: a somewhat different position from when she made the point—they are not simply responding to the Daily Mail, although the Daily Mail clearly has a capacity to influence policy in a number of respects.

The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, made the point that European countries do not share our view about the age of responsibility. Of course, other countries and different states in the United States vary. It is a matter for each country to make its own judgment. It is not simply a question of our following what others say.

It is important to note that serious crimes committed by children are mercifully rare and we do not want to see 10 and 11 year-olds prosecuted for minor offences. Indeed, most such offending will be diverted away from the formal criminal justice system. We have recently invested a significant amount, £3 million over two years, in restorative justice conference facilitator training for youth offending team staff—I know my noble friend Lord Cormack is an enthusiast for restorative justice—and referral order lay panel members to encourage support for and promote greater use of restorative justice conferencing. However, it is important that, where appropriate, serious offences can be prosecuted and the public protected.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who has great knowledge of and concern for the welfare of young people, particularly those who make up much of the prison population—possibly as a result of the care system or the origin of their lives, which cause them to be in the care system—made a point about the expense this caused and asked me to give the costs of the full criminal process compared to more informal disposals. That is a factor but the real costs lie in where someone is sent for punishment. The average price per year in a secure children’s home is £204,000; in a secure training centre it is £163,000; and in an under-18 young offender institution it is £75,000. These are very large sums of money. Fortunately, we do not send nearly as many young people to any of those disposals as we used to. It is very much a punishment of last resort.

Returning to the question of 10 and 11 year-olds, between 2004 and 2014, the number of 10 and 11 year-olds who received a custodial sentence was 12. Maintaining the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 10 does not, however, lead to the prosecution of a large number of 10 and 11 year-olds. In 2014, only 136 10 and 11 year-olds were proceeded against at court compared to 6,860 12 to 14 year-olds, and 65 of those 10 and 11 year-olds were given community sentences. The others were found not guilty, fined or given a conditional or unconditional discharge. Many crimes committed by those aged 10 or over will not result in a prosecution at all.

We are keen to ensure that, whenever possible, children are not prosecuted as research shows that this can be counterproductive, as many noble Lords have said. The principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent young people offending. We need to keep our focus on that.

Legislation specifically requires courts to have regard to the welfare of under 18s. Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provides that every court, in dealing with a child or young person who is brought before it, shall have regard to their welfare. This is reinforced by detailed guidance contained in the sentencing guideline Overarching Principles—Sentencing Youths.

Having the age of criminal responsibility set at 10 years allows flexibility to deal with young offenders. If particular needs are identified in a youth offending team’s assessment of a child or young person, the multiagency youth offending team, which includes representatives from health, housing, children’s services and education, can refer the child on to other statutory services, such as children’s services departments and child and adolescent mental health services, for further investigation and support. That support can include addressing attendance and attitude to school, referral to speech and language therapy and, where appropriate, referring parents to parenting courses. A youth caution can also be given for any offence where the young offender admits an offence and there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, but it is not in the public interest to prosecute.

Youth cautions usefully aim at a proportionate and effective resolution to offending and support the principal statutory aim of the youth justice system of preventing offending by children and young people. Youth conditional cautions require young people to take responsibility for their actions, including by agreeing to conditions that require them to put things right or seek help for their behaviour. The conditions that can be attached must include one or more of the objectives of rehabilitation, reparation and punishment. The rehabilitative conditions may include attending one or more of a range of interventions available to the youth offending team for addressing offending behaviour. Reparation can include apologising, repairing or otherwise making good any damage caused, provided that this is acceptable to the victim. Punitive conditions may include attendance at a specified place to undertake an agreed activity. I should however emphasise that in any case where the police or the CPS are considering offering a youth conditional caution or a second or subsequent youth caution, the case must be referred to the local YOT to provide a check on the appropriateness of the disposal and the interventions that should go alongside. This will all be well known to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as chair of the Youth Justice Board.

When a young person aged 10 to 17 pleads guilty to an imprisonable offence, is convicted for the first time and does not warrant an absolute discharge, conditional discharge, hospital order or a custodial sentence, the court must give a referral order. A referral order is based on restorative justice principles and may be between three and 12 months in length. The offender is referred to a youth offender panel made up of trained community volunteers and a member of the youth offending team.

There is a great deal more I could tell the House about, but it is important to stress that in these and other interventions, custody of any sort is always very much the last resort. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, emphasised, very often the destination, as it were, is one that is reached in the interests of the child whether it comes by welfare provision or via the criminal justice system. Custody is available, admittedly at great expense, for 10 and 11 year-olds only if they commit a grave or serious crime, normally one where an adult would be liable to a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment or more. A child would only be placed in a secure children’s home with a strong focus on addressing their and their family’s needs as well as the offending behaviour.

Reference was made to the report being produced by Charlie Taylor, who I know is doing an extremely thorough job, as was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. He is a former head teacher and an expert in child behaviour. His interim report is due to be published shortly and the final report will follow in the summer. We believe that, partly as a result of the legislation which has been introduced and other steps, this has all contributed to a significant fall in the number of under-18s being dealt with in the criminal justice system. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, asked about the numbers. The legislative changes are not the only factor, and one clear contributory factor was doing away with the police target introduced under the last Labour Government for offences brought to justice, but which was very sensibly dropped by that Government in 2008. Since youth offending peaked in 2007, proven offences have fallen by 78% and there are 64% fewer young people in custody. At the end of November only 991 under-18s were being held in the youth secure estate. However, we are not complacent. We recognise that there is scope to make the youth justice system better and to improve the experience of young people who the courts consider need to be detained. We will be better informed after Charlie Taylor reports.

In conclusion, the Government believe strongly that the current age of criminal responsibility is appropriate to hold young people to account for their actions if they commit an offence and reflects what is required of our system. We are of course most anxious to ensure public confidence in the youth justice system, and that communities know that young people’s offending will be addressed to counter the negative effects on victims and the community. We must, above all, however, ensure that young people are rehabilitated and educated if we want them to cease their criminal activities.

By bringing back his Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, focuses our attention on what we do about young offenders. He reminds us of the causes that often precede their arrival in the criminal court system. He and other noble Lords have emphasised that we must look at the problems that young offenders pose for society, as the right reverend Prelate did, in terms of our responsibility as a society, and we must react to that appropriately. In doing so, he does us and the House a great service. While we do not support the Bill, we very much support many of the expressions of concern for youths and the justice system that we have heard today. This has been a valuable debate and I congratulate the noble Lord and others on bringing these matters to our attention.