Home Detention Curfew and Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods (Amendment) Order 2024

Debate between Lord Garnier and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly intervene, if I may. In doing so, declare my interest: until about 1 pm this afternoon, I was a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. I largely agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I agree with them because I have made that very same speech probably about 20 times in the last 10 years—nobody listens, it does not matter. The short point I want to make is this: who monitors the monitors? One of the problems that we have noticed over the last several years, when looking at the use of tags, is that far too often the monitoring organisation falls down. One expects ingenious people on tags to try to get out of the restrictions imposed by them, but one does not expect the monitor to fall down in its duties. Can the Minister please assure us that rigid steps are being taken to make sure that the monitors are monitored, and that if they fail, there is some form of contractual sanction?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. I agreed with all the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on the importance of victims, but one point that is worth emphasising is that it is a discretionary matter for the governor as to whether a home detention curfew is granted. My understanding is that 40% of applicants for home detention curfews fail that application. That is distinct from SDS40, where there is a mandatory reduction from 50% to 40%; whether a home detention curfew is granted is a discretionary matter. The noble Baroness was broadly supportive of the measures in this SI, and I thank her for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised a number of interesting points. The one I found most interesting was about extending tagging on perpetrators beyond the HDC period and maybe beyond the licence period— I do not know exactly what he is suggesting. As he will know, a sentencing review is under way, and it may be that there is an increased use of technology. I will make sure that the noble Lord’s point is fed back to the Ministers who are enabling David Gauke and his team to do that review.

A couple of days ago, I met the Estonian Justice Minister, and a couple of weeks ago, I was in Poland. It was interesting to talk to the Justice Ministers in both those countries about how they are extending their use of technology in a number of ways—there are a lot of possibilities there. I would not be at all surprised if this is looked at further as part of the sentencing review.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, went on to talk about the capacity of the prison estate and the need to have spare capacity so that the system can essentially be managed properly for the benefit of the prisoners. This means that they can complete their courses and be relatively near to home, so that family ties are not broken. All the noble Lord’s points on that are absolutely right. What he said is very ambitious, but I hope the Government are matching his ambition in the sequencing of the steps we are taking to try to have a prison system that reduces reoffending—that should be, and is, the primary objective of any prison system.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raised, on who monitors the monitors. My noble friend Lord Timpson is monitoring the monitors, and he is having absolutely regular meetings with Serco to reassure himself that the technology is working properly and that the further technology that we will need will be available. This is a real issue, and the noble Lord is right to raise it. It is very much alive in my noble friend’s head, if I can put it like that.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, asked whether we would return to the old regime in due course. The answer to that is that we will keep the current proposed changes under review. One difficulty that we have had is that the situation is changing so quickly that it has proven difficult to do a proper review in a stable regime. The previous Government did not do a review of the previous regime when it went from four and a half to six months, and the current changes from six to 12 months need a suitable amount of time to bed in, to make sure that a proper assessment is done so that the Government can take a view about future steps. I hope that that puts the noble Lord’s mind at rest—the Government will constantly keep these matters under review.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Debate between Lord Garnier and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree with that point, but it is a complex question and we want to look at it in the round.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest, in that I have been practising at the defamation Bar since the mid-1970s. Much has been said in this House and in Committee about the need for SLAPP laws. I invite the Minister to look, if he can, at the letter I wrote to his predecessor, my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, on this very subject just before the election; if he cannot look at it, I will send him a copy. Will he also undertake to put this matter before the Law Commission, so that we can generate rather more light than heat?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I am happy to look at the letter and to consider whether the matter should go before the Law Commission.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Garnier and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, in all that he has said, and I say with greater confidence, albeit with some reticence, if that is not a contradiction, that I disagree with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with whom I am a fellow member of chambers. I think it is fair to say that the Back Benches of the Conservative Party in this House are now more greatly adorned by the promotion, I would say, of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, to these Benches, and I look forward to his contributions from his Back-Bench seat. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, correctly described my noble friend, but he and I need to be very careful because we now have yet another competitor for a car park space in Brick Court.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too would like to thank the Minister for his careful introduction to the Motions before us today. I would also like to thank all those who worked to improve this Bill during its progress through both Houses, and I single out my honourable friend the Member for Hammersmith, Andy Slaughter, and Alex Cunningham, the Member for Stockton North. I would also like to thank noble, and noble and learned, Lords from the Cross Benches who have taken an active interest, particularly in the judicial review parts of this Bill, which has led to the substantial improvements which we have just heard about.

There has been a spirit of consensus on parts of this Bill, particularly those concentrating on court procedures. I thank the noble and learned Lord’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for numerous discussions about court procedures and how they might be monitored and improved. That is not a point of contention we are considering today.

I start with Motion A and the amendment to it, Motion A1, from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on Clause 1 of the Bill. Yesterday the Government accepted the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, which would do away with the presumption that quashing orders would be prospective. As my honourable friend said yesterday, this

“extracts the worst of the sting in clause 1”. —[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/22; col. 604.]

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on this achievement. It is in the spirit of recognising this compromise and move by the Government that, while we are sympathetic to Motion A1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, we would not support it if it were pressed by the noble Lord.

In Motion B, on Clause 2 of the Bill, the Government propose that the House do not insist on its Amendment 5, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The amendment would have retained Cart reviews in the High Court and Court of Session in limited circumstances. I understand the noble and learned Lord will not be revisiting this issue, and we will not oppose the Government’s Motion. For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that we see no purpose in Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill. It would be our preference to remove these clauses from the Bill in their entirety, but we recognise the votes yesterday and we will not be opposing the Government’s Motion.

I now turn to the Government’s Motion C and my amendment to it, Motion C1. The original amendment in my name ensured that bereaved people, such as family members, would be entitled to publicly funded legal representation in inquests where public bodies, such as the police or a hospital trust, are legally represented. The original amendment in this House was won with a handsome majority. The purpose of the amendment was to achieve an equality of arms at inquests between bereaved people and state bodies. This is an issue not just of access to justice, but of fairness. How can it be right that state bodies have unlimited access to public funds for the best legal teams and experts, while families are often forced to pay large sums towards legal costs, or risk representing themselves or resorting to crowd- funding? This fundamental point was acknowledged and agreed with yesterday by Sir Bob Neill, chairman of the Justice Select Committee in the other place.

The reason given by the Government for objecting to this amendment was that it would involve a charge on public funds. I acknowledge that point and the amendment now asks for a review. I also acknowledge the point that the noble and learned Lord made—that that is not the sole reason for the objection to the amendment in my name.

Five years have passed since Bishop James Jones delivered his report on the experience of the Hillsborough families. In that report, Bishop Jones made recommendations, which included publicly funded legal representation for bereaved families. In May 2021, the Justice Committee recommended that for all inquests where public authorities are legally represented, non-means-tested legal aid or other public funding for legal representation should be available for people who have been bereaved. This is a long-standing issue which, to be fair to the Government, as we have heard today, they acknowledge there is more work to be done on.

I have had a number of meetings with the Minister and his colleague Mr Cartlidge. Unfortunately, we have not reached an agreement on this matter, although I thank them for the efforts that have been made. I want to run through the arguments they advanced during our meetings. First, as the noble and learned Lord has said, there is a means test review under way. The Government’s argument is that by highlighting one particular group—namely, bereaved families—it would raise expectations for that group and that may not be fair to that group while the review is under way.