Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Judd Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My Lords, I welcome every word that has been said to justify this amendment. It is altogether impossible that 41 prisoners serving whole life sentences should be imprisoned in this way. What the noble and learned Lord has said is absolutely essential as far as having a civilised attitude where the criminal law is concerned. People serving whole life sentences will be able to look forward with some hope if the conditions in the amendment are satisfied and the Parole Board accepts the submissions that are made. I thank the noble Lord for raising this vital point.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I was very glad to add my name to this amendment. I have the utmost respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. He always brings to our deliberations his very high standards of legal expertise, but what I like about him, if I am allowed to say so, is that that legal expertise is always tempered with the values of the civilised society and a strong sense of humanitarian concern. Long may he remain with us to bring those to bear.

We do not indulge in vengeance in our penal system. We are about an appropriate punishment for a serious offence, and that must happen because it is absolutely right. But we are also about the challenge of rehabilitation. However dreadful the crime that has been committed and however much we may feel a sense of solidarity and empathy with the victims of crime, the challenge in a civilised society is to try to enable the perpetrator of the crime to see the significance of what they have done, to recognise and accept responsibility for it, and to move on to a positive and creative life. If we do not always strive to try to enable someone who has done a dreadful thing to become a better person and to rejoin society as a better person, I think that we demonstrate a lack of self-confidence in our own civilised values. Of course it is no good sentimentalising this issue. There will be some people where these endeavours make no progress in the end, and there are others where it may just simply be impossible to consider release. But the aspiration should be that the person will be released as a positive, reformed and different member of society, contributing constructively.

I know about this from indirect personal experience, if that is possible. For 10 years, my wife served on the board of a prison exclusively for lifers. In some ways it was an avant-garde prison at that time, but I was always encouraged by the stories she brought back about the exciting and imaginative work being done there. One of her fellow governors was the late Roman Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool, who at that time was the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth. He served with great commitment on that board and we were all great friends. We used to discuss the prison and its works. We would take heart from the encouraging things that were happening and laugh about some of the warm and positive stories that came out of the situation, but I remember that he would always say, “Basically, it is a very sad place”. What my wife talked about is something that I find very difficult to cope with: the prisoner who sees absolutely no light at the end of the tunnel. How does this help the process of rehabilitation? How does this help the process of reconstructing a life? From this standpoint, I believe that the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, not for the first time, can claim to stand for civilisation and humanitarian values in society. We should warmly applaud it.

[The Lord Bishop of Chichester]

My Lords, it will not surprise you that I wholeheartedly support the amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for warning against sentiment. There is a robustness about offering human beings hope that contributes specifically to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of which he spoke. However, this is about much more than simply giving hope to individuals, because a society that does not give hope to individuals is unlikely to have hope for itself in areas in which it feels as a society hopeless. In terms of a civilised society, this is a very humane amendment which is necessary for our societal good as well as for the individuals for whom it is designed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

Some future Government may well bring forward a proposal along those lines. The judgment of the Government at the moment is that on a law that is safely in judges’ hands for determination, and that applies to a specific number of the most serious crimes, the position as it is now is best in retaining public confidence. It is a matter of political judgment, and the political judgment is that to move on this point, at this point, would not retain public confidence in a package in which we are trying to make moves in certain directions and carry colleagues who are not as enthusiastic as this House on some of these matters.

[Lord Judd]

In the last few minutes the Minister has encouraged me, because he has said that at some point it may be appropriate to introduce legislation that meets the arguments that are being put. It is not the first time that I have heard the noble Lord refer to the importance of holding public confidence, and we all understand that point, but it is not a matter of accepting as inevitable the existing state of public opinion. We have to be very careful that we are not, in effect, running scared of the sensationalist media. We really should be not only respecting public opinion and public confidence but helping to shape public confidence by putting forward the positive argument for change. That is essential to successful democracy. If we have become convinced that this is the right thing to do, we have to speak up for it.

[Lord McNally]

I entirely agree. That is why I said in my opening remarks that I am proud that this House has been the platform for penal reformers to argue their case over centuries, but I also say to this House that we have to carry another place and public opinion with us in these matters. One of the things I am most proud of is that this Government, and the Ministry of Justice under this Lord Chancellor, have been willing to try to educate public opinion. Some of the measures in this Bill will, I hope, move that forward, but no matter how much courage is used in expounding these views, if the result is for the public to lose confidence in the criminal justice system, those are Pyrrhic victories indeed.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Judd Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I fully support the intentions of these amendments. I admired the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, but seek clarification from him. I have a question about feasibility and practicality. I am not sure whether it is intended that the requirements in these amendments should extend to magistrates’ courts as well as to the other courts. However, if one considers the circumstances in which the magistrates’ courts were operating last summer, following the riots, when they transacted an extraordinary volume of cases, worked under extreme pressure and sat until late at night, I wonder how realistic it is to lay upon those courts the requirements that these amendments would lay. I had misgivings about the magistrates’ courts working in that fashion but I recognise that what they did at that time was seen by the public as entirely appropriate in a situation of exceptional crisis. Perhaps what I am really saying is that there is no substitute for having enough courts that are sufficiently resourced and a probation service that is well enough resourced, and for the courts to do their work as far as possible screened from the pressures of the media and politics. However, that is a rather fanciful state of affairs to desire.

I therefore simply ask the noble Lord, whose purposes I thoroughly endorse, to explain, if he will, how he envisages these requirements actually working in practice when the courts are under severe pressure.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I must apologise for not having been in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was moving his amendment; however, as I have put my name to the amendment, I hope that with the leave of the House I might make just two observations.

First, it has been said that it is not appropriate to tell the courts what to do because they know what to do. That is a fine sentiment in some ways, and I pay due respect to the sincere professionals who make the courts system work. The issue is whether the court has enough information in front of it to make a proper decision in view of the circumstances and consequences of what it may decide. The amendments are therefore dealing with a rather different point.

I also want to make this observation: of course, when the court has before it someone who is about to be sentenced, I am sure that there is a punishment to be made; but if we are sensible and rational beings, and the courts are working well, it is also essential right from that moment to be thinking about the rehabilitation of the individual so that they can become a positive citizen. That is why the quality and depth of the probation service’s report is crucial; otherwise, we slip into a sort of factory system of justice whereby there is an automatic response to a case. One has to try all the time to look at the individual and at how the sentence can be tailored to enable that citizen not only to be punished but to start the process of rehabilitation and join society as a responsible citizen.

If we are concerned about future crime, there is nothing more absurd and wasteful than not to take fully into account the implications for the dependants, because we may otherwise find that the court, by not having paid sufficient attention to the needs of the dependants, has inadvertently contributed to the next generation of offenders in that family.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, we on the opposition Benches support both amendments and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and his cosignatories on bringing them forward. I have not the slightest doubt that any court presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, would not only know what to do but actually do it. However, that is not necessarily universally the case, and the Justice Select Committee in July 2008 raised concerns about the fact that pre-sentence reports were not requested frequently enough. It also raised doubts about the adequacy of those reports when they were presented; so there is clearly a problem in some courts some of the time, and it is sensible to make provision along the lines of both amendments.

An amendment precisely along the lines of the second amendment was moved in the Commons by Helen Goodman MP. It is surely essential for the courts to give due consideration to the effect of sentencing on dependants, not only from the point of view of those dependants but—given that we are necessarily talking about costs all the time—to avoid the costs that may arise from, for example, having to take children into care or the long-term damage that may be done to families, particularly but not exclusively in the context of mothers being sentenced to imprisonment.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, rightly referred to the fact that there is a high suicide rate among women prisoners. There is also an alarmingly high rate of self-harm. After all, one-third of women prisoners are single mothers; only 9 per cent of children with mothers who are serving custodial sentences are looked after by their father. That is not to say that there may not be other family members who take care of some children in those circumstances, but it is clearly a material factor.

It is of great concern that more than half of women prisoners suffer from severe mental illness, and half have suffered from domestic violence. They are clearly very damaged women. One might feel that children in that family are already vulnerable and exposed to risk. Notwithstanding the experience of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, it is clear that women are not treated in exactly the same way in sentencing, as a higher proportion of first-time offenders among women are sent to prison than men and a higher proportion of women are sentenced for non-violent offences—both significant differences. There is a problem about sentencing of women, and we will be considering that under later amendments. Bearing in mind the higher proportion of those women who have dependent children, the amendment is extremely timely.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, raised an issue about the practicality of the situation and cited the experience of last summer, with courts sentencing people to custodial sentences in the middle of the night. It may be that custodial sentences were required. The question arises whether it was necessary for those sentences to take immediate effect without proper inquiry into the background circumstances. I would argue that that was not necessary, whatever the ultimate sentence may have been.

My noble friend Lady Corston has reported extensively on the position of women prisoners. Her report will no doubt be touched on in conjunction with later amendments. The spirit of that report should surely inform the Government’s attitude to these two amendments, which we heartily commend.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Judd Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hooper]

My Lords, it was drawn to my attention that the changes introduced by the Bill would make it almost impossible for foreign victims of human rights abuses committed by UK companies to access justice in this country. These are indeed sensible amendments that would protect access to justice for, as the noble Baroness has said, a very small number of vulnerable people affected by poor business practices while ensuring that there is no additional cost to the public purse.

Because of my particular interest in Latin America, I am aware of some of the cases quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in setting out the reasons behind the amendment. As has been said, she has made the case so clearly and fully that it is not necessary for me to go on at any length, but I wish to record my support for these amendments. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to them.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I, too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for having spoken so well to her amendment. I remind the House that I have been involved for much of my professional life in the kind of issues that arise in the matter that we are discussing; I am of course a former director of Oxfam. It is difficult to put on record just how concerned the voluntary agencies are, all of which I think are deeply respected in this House, and the anxiety that they have about the consequences of the new proposals.

As I have said before when I have dared to intervene in these highly expert legal arguments, it is important sometimes to spell out the social realities. The noble Baroness did this commendably in her introduction but I would like to fill that out a little more. I make no apology for doing so because we must remember what we are talking about.

In the 1996 case against Cape plc by 7,500 South African asbestos miners who had developed a range of sinister asbestos-related diseases following prolonged exposure to asbestos dust in the workplace, evidence came to light that the company had actively lobbied to conceal the nature and extent of the health risks associated with asbestos exposure and had knowingly exposed thousands of workers to the deadly dust. The courts decided that the case could be tried in England rather than South Africa. The company reached a final settlement with the claimants in 2003 to the amount of £10.5 million.

Take another case: the experience of Monterrico Metals in Peru. In August 2005, 28 people were detained by police, bound and hooded and then held for three days at the Rio Blanco mine in a remote area of northern Peru. They had been protesting against the development of the mine, the principal asset of Monterrico Metals. According to their witness statements, the protestors were held against their will and subjected to physical and psychological torture, including beatings and, in some cases, sexual abuse. The company denies involvement in the police operation but witnesses reported that the mine’s management were co-ordinating the police operations. Five claimants were shot, one lost an eye and another protestor bled to death. This case was finally settled in August 2011, shortly before it was due to come to the English High Court and six years after the incident took place. As part of the out-of-court settlement, the mining company imposed a gagging order on the amount of the compensation payouts, which applies both to the farmers and to the legal firm representing the protestors.

Both these cases were brought on a no-win no-fee basis. Under those arrangements, as we all know, the victims’ lawyers took on a significant burden and risked considerable financial costs if the case was unsuccessful. The Government’s proposals would significantly increase the cost and the risk of taking on cases relating to corporate abuses of human rights abroad, which by their nature are extremely complex and expensive to investigate and pursue. For victims of alleged abuses in the developing world, the cost of insurance premiums would be prohibitive if they could no longer be recovered. Even if they won their case under the proposed regime, the success fee would be taken out of the victims’ damages rather than paid by the defendant company. I could go on in some detail about the implications but the legal arguments have been very well put, and they relate to many of the legal arguments that have been put forward in a domestic context.

I make this plea to the coalition Government. They have held high the flag of their moral commitment to the third world. How, consistently with the stand that they are making, can they allow the new proposals to go forward with all the consequences of injustice, hardship and suffering that would follow?

--- Later in debate ---

The Government believe that our proposals to control legal costs should apply across the board. We are not persuaded that the case has been made for any exemptions—

[Lord Judd]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and I would not question at all his personal sensitivity to the issues that have been raised. Over a lifetime, I have known that he cares deeply about these things. However, can he assure the House that in their considerations the Government have taken fully into account one of the complexities that have arisen since 2009, when the Rome II regulations were introduced? They mean that the damages are related to what normally prevails in the country in which the harm occurred, whereas the costs may well be related to what applies within the United Kingdom. This means that there is a huge obstacle to taking on a case of this kind because of the risks involved and what the bill might be if the costs had to be met by those endeavouring to make the claim.

[Lord McNally]

I am aware of that. As the noble Lord said, that issue was to a certain extent present in the Trafigura case, where 30,000 people each received £1,000 and the lawyer got—or tried to get— £100 million.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Judd Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I support the amendment. As my noble friend argued so well in his introduction, it deals with the central character of the Bill. Inevitably in our deliberations we concentrate a good deal on legal ramifications. However, they are in a sense a means to an end. Surely what matters and what we should really be concerned about is the quality of our society. What is fundamentally wrong with the Bill is that it reduces access to justice and puts the burden on those least able to afford such a reduction.

The Government talk a good deal about their desire for partnership with the voluntary sector. I hope that this is a genuine, creative endeavour and not a cynical one. What is as clear as it could be to any of us who have worked in the voluntary sector is that as a result of the Bill the costs that will land on the budgets of that sector will increase very considerably, and the workload of the sector will inevitably increase. Therefore, before we come to final conclusions on the legislation, it is essential that we understand the ramifications, costs, burdens and adverse impacts that legislation of this kind is likely to have. I am very glad that my noble friends on the Front Bench are making a major stand on this issue. They are right to do so.

I will deal with another small matter and say that I support the utterly practical and sensible amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn. It is absolute madness—I refer to the economic rationale of the Bill—for us to embark on legislation of this kind without a comprehensive, authoritative and extensive review of what the cost to the courts system will be. If as a result of Parts 1 and 2 there will be an increasing number of personal litigants without professional support, over the years the cost of the administration of justice will increase very considerably. We need this information before we can make an informed decision.

The amendments go to the essence of what deeply concerns many of us about the implications of the Bill. I hope that my Front Bench will pursue the issues as vigorously as they have raised them.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. The case for the Bill depends on two factual premises. The first is that the Bill will save large amounts of public money. The second is that it will not cause the damage to access to justice for vulnerable groups that is feared by critics because there will be other means of providing advice and information. Each premise is highly contentious and each depends on assertion rather than evidence. Therefore I find it very surprising that the Government conducted no serious analysis of the facts relating to the impact of the Bill on these two vital matters before bringing the legislation before Parliament. Since the work was not carried out before the Bill was presented, surely it is vital that an independent assessment is carried out before it is implemented and brought into effect.

As I understand it, there will in any event be a substantial period of time between Royal Assent for this Bill and the bringing into effect of its main provisions. The amendment will not in any way commit the Government to accept the contents of the independent report. The report will be information that will be before the House and the other place when a commencement order is brought forward, so I, too, support this amendment. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give a more positive response to the concerns that have been expressed on this amendment, and will be expressed in relation to other amendments that we will be debating today, than he felt able to do on the first day in Committee on this Bill.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Judd Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, in opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in his engaging, candid way, asked us to be reasonable and accept that it was not possible for everyone who sought legal aid to have it. The trouble is, if I may say so to the noble Lord, that those with wealth can always have access. That is the basic contradiction and injustice in the system. We must not lose sight of that in our deliberations. Quite apart from the burden on judges, courts and legal systems as a result of inadequate legal aid, which will be caused by the absence of proper professional legal representations, we have to remember the indirect costs, which have been spelt out for other spheres of government and for the economy as a whole; that is, the costs of stress, mental illness, homelessness and the impact on economic performance by people who are so stressed or, indeed, broken.

My noble friend Lord Howarth was right. We have to remain focused on the people about whom this legislation is concerned. We have to focus on the widow, the single mother, the disabled, the chronically sick, the bereaved, the recently unemployed and the redundant. These people often are devastated, broken and bewildered. It is not just a matter of leaving it to them; they need particular help and assistance in their struggle simply to keep going.

The distinguished Howard League has raised key issues in approaching most of us, I think, about these deliberations. It has raised magistrates’ sentencing powers and has asked whether, if we are really serious about reducing the number of people unnecessarily in prison and ensuring adequate rehabilitation, the issue of committing people to prison should be in the realm of the Crown Court and not the magistrates. It has also raised the issue of curfews and extending them, as proposed, to 16 hours. What impact will that have on rehabilitation? For people who are expected to stay at home even longer, what will the situation really be? Will this assist them in becoming more well adjusted, productive citizens or will it make matters worse? The Howard League has suggested that perhaps there is provocation, in effect, in extending the hours, which makes the system almost certain to fail.

On bail, in 2009, 40 per cent of people remanded in custody did not go on to a custodial sentence. Almost two-thirds of those on remand in prison are accused of non-violent offences. The average waiting time is 12.3 weeks. What are the social and economic consequences of this? What about family disruption? Are we thinking through the implications of some of these measures?

The Howard League rightly concentrates, as have other noble Lords, on the position of women. In dealing with women, we are also dealing with children and families. Do we remember that the average distance of prisons away from home is 55 miles? Very often, that distance is faced by families with virtually no spare means available. Only 5 per cent—a shocking statistic—of the children of women in prison remain in the family home. More than 17,000 children in any year are separated from their mothers as the result of imprisonment. While on average women spend four to six weeks in prison on remand, 60 per cent do not go on to receive a custodial sentence, which is clearly contradictory and counterproductive. But what kind of logic is being advanced in favour of a situation of this kind? As my noble friend Lady Corston put it in her good report, surely we should have a situation in which women who are unlikely to be give a custodial sentence are never remanded to prison.

As a former director of Oxfam, I very much share the concern of my old organisation and other organisations working in the same sphere about the way in which wealthy companies have invested heavily in cheap agricultural land in poor countries. In many cases, the land sold is being used by poor families to grow food. Families are often forcibly evicted with little or no warning or compensation. Research by my old organisation has revealed that residents regularly lose out to local elites and domestic or foreign investors and to local corruption, because they lack the power to claim their rights effectively and to defend and advance their interests. There is concern that the changes in this Bill to the cost regime for civil litigation would make it almost impossible for foreign victims of human rights abuses committed by UK multinational companies to access justice in the United Kingdom.

There is real anxiety lest the abolition of success fees being payable by defendants will mean that claimant firms will not be able to run the risk of taking on cases against multinational companies. The financial risk of losing the case will be great. Even if they are successful, they may not be able to recoup all their expenses. This, of course, will be particularly pertinent when the claimants are from developing countries.

The Bill also proposes that the claimant, rather than the defendant, should pay for the “after the event” insurance premium, again reducing compensation recovered. In recognition of the significant expense and expertise required, clinical negligence cases are to be exempt. Surely human rights cases, which require similar levels of expense and expertise, should therefore be exempt. This will need our careful consideration. I think the example that I have just given brings home that, at an international level as well as within the UK, justice is indeed often the key to full mobilisation of people’s potential rather than simply handouts or grants.

Access to justice is, of course, the hallmark of a decent society. Lack of convincing access is a spur to social fragmentation, alienation, instability, or worse. To talk about all being in it together is provocative when it is patently obvious that, in effect, we are not all equal in the processes of the legal system and when too many people simply cannot get access to justice at all. In our deliberations, we must be vigilant lest overall this Bill aggravates that sad reality.

Youth Crime and Anti-social Behaviour

Lord Judd Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity of speaking immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. It is absolutely no exaggeration to say that in this sphere my admiration for him and his commitment is unlimited, all the more so because he does not speak in theoretical and academic terms. He speaks with the authority of engagement as his record spells out. I hope that I am allowed to say that I sadly wish that I was speaking on the same side as him, rather than opposite him—but if I go down that road, I will have problems with quite a number of people who at present sit opposite. Having said that, I know that it is their choice, and I must respect it even if I think that it is a profound mistake.

We should also place on record real appreciation to the commission. What is important about the commission’s work—and I am struck by it—is that it really has listened to the young. It has not just theorised about the young; it has listened to the young.

I have one nuance that I should like to discuss rather than debate with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. It is a matter of emphasis. He said that we must give primacy to the prevention of crime but then went on to argue very powerfully that we must look to the long-term cost-effective strategy and not to the short-term wasteful strategy. I am not sure that I totally settle for that. What we should give primacy to is the issue of the lives of young people being a good and positive experience. Unless we really have that commitment right, we will always to some extent be sticking fingers in a dam in which there are serious cracks. A debate such as this gives us the opportunity to make the point that we must look at ourselves as a total society—not only in our social commitments and priorities, such as housing, education, social welfare, health and so on but also in our value system. If our value system is one of greed and opportunism, it undermines our credibility when in Parliament we speak about the responsibilities of the young, because they look at us and say, “Hang on a moment, who is telling who what to do?”. We have to face up to that one very honestly.

I totally endorse the argument that it is a wasteful and irresponsible use of public taxpayers’ money to follow policies that are not effective and are failing to provide lasting solutions. I cannot begin to equal the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. However, having been for nine years the president of the YMCA in England, I came across a lot of the work being done in the front line and had the opportunity of speaking with many young people, both those engaged in the work and those with whom they were co-operating.

One has to look at the total range—housing, homelessness, and the absence of any kind of stable family background in whatever form. I am not arguing for a particular form of family. It is sometimes regarded as not very parliamentary or macho to use the word that I am about to use, but I happen to believe that it is central to the issue. There is an absence of real love—tough love, if you like, but real love—in the upbringing of children. When I met some of the young people, I often remarked to myself that it would have been quite remarkable had they not been in trouble. That is a point that I have made before in debate, and I am sure that I shall make it again. That does not mean—and I know that my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has made this point to me before in winding up debates—that the individual responsibility of the young is removed. There are many good, very powerful and moving examples, of young people who against the most awful social odds have made a success of their lives. That is something that we should recognise. But not everyone is the same, and not everyone has the same strength. We really must recognise that we must have an holistic approach that takes the whole range of issues into account.

There is not really much more that I want to say except to say that I endorse the recommendations of the report. I will not necessarily agree with every one of them. The report falls into the trap of being preoccupied with treatment and response as distinct from the social context out of which the problems arise.

I hope that all of us, wherever we are in the House and whatever our own political convictions, will take this report seriously and let it influence our analysis and approach to debate in the future. Of course it is a financial issue. Before we have lectures from those opposite about the financial stringency within which they are operating, let me say that I realise there is financial stringency, which is essential, but this is the very time to get the policies right. You simply cannot afford to go on indulgently with policies that are not working at a time of financial stringency.

We must simply have the courage in Parliament, wherever we are, to stand up to ignorance and opportunism and to the circulation mania of the popular press who pander to this. I sometimes want to get up and say, “You are helping to generate the problem. You are not solving it with your penal, sensationalist approach. You're actually making the situation worse and are undermining the whole cause of social order”. We have to have an analytical, rational, caring approach and I believe that the noble Lord has set the tone in what he said this afternoon.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Judd Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on tabling Amendment 65A, which I support, as it is an imaginative amendment that seeks to discuss the UK Film Council and the British Film Institute and how their continuing respective functions will relate to each other. It quite deliberately uses the term “merger”.

I will speak to the work of the British Film Institute and to my concerns and hopes for this important organisation in the light of the changes that are to be made. Its multifaceted work does not have a primarily commercial imperative. Its work is inherently good for British culture and British society as a whole. Film has become, as in other countries but particularly in Britain throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, part of the lifeblood of the nation, so the BFI is as relevant today as it has been in the past and will be in the future.

Over decades, the BFI has done tremendous work, not least in saving, restoring and rediscovering British films that would otherwise be lost because of the fragility of the film medium. My own father, Terry Trench, worked in the post-war British documentary film industry, mainly as an editor but sometimes as producer or director. His films are among the close to a million titles that the BFI now holds in its national archive. My father was one of a number of still often unsung heroes of the original British documentary film movement, although now there is a much greater interest in this tradition, due in no small measure to the BFI—the success of its DVD compilations such as “Land of Promise” are a testament to this.

Indeed, the BFI is keen to allow work to be as accessible as possible to the public, although, given the copyright issues, this is not always easy. As it happens, the very first film that my father edited was directed by Anthony Asquith. The BFI recently restored Asquith’s early features, including “Underground”, leading directly to something of a critical reappraisal of his work. At present, the BFI is in the process of restoring nine of Hitchcock’s silent films in readiness for a retrospective in 2012, which in the year of the Olympics will garner considerable international interest.

I think on reflection that it could be a good thing if the UK Film Council was merged with the BFI—I choose my words carefully. However, I hope that this will not lead to the current BFI becoming some type of junior partner within this cinematic coalition, as with clear overall leadership its current role could and should be kept intact and necessarily as properly funded as the UK Film Council, which I understand from Ed Vaizey’s announcement on Thursday stands to benefit from a well deserved multimillion-pound injection of financial support, just as the BFI faces an undeserved 15 per cent cut in funding.

Ideally, the BFI would become the guardian of film of the past, the present and the future—the Paul Newman Butch Cassidy role to the UK Film Council’s Robert Redford Sundance Kid, if you will. However, if the overall framework overburdens the BFI and then threatens its current work, the merger will be a disaster, whatever extra funding the UK Film Council in effect receives, as there will be no legacy to aspire to and no heritage to make. In the light of this, I call on the Government to look carefully at the balance of funding and to reappraise those cuts, which are aimed at the heritage of the national film industry.

We are still fighting the same ideological battles as 50 years ago, even though the stages for such battles might have changed. My father worked for the state-funded Crown Film Unit, a much respected quango that was set up to replace the GPO Film Unit, whose work of course included the celebrated “Night Mail”. What then happened in 1952 to the Crown Film Unit, fresh from its recent BAFTA and Oscar-winning triumphs? A newly elected Conservative Government abolished it, the reason cited being financial in a time of austerity. I hope very much that the BFI goes from strength to strength and that the Government will continue to support its important work.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I have a brief observation to make. We heard a very enthusiastic speech from the Prime Minister in recent days about regenerating the imaginative drive of British industry. We are good at the creative arts and we are good at universities. Why do we have this generalised bureaucratic approach to sweeping legislation instead of getting down to the task—the real discipline—of looking specifically at each of these sectors and the things that are happening in them and devising the strongest possible arrangements to support them in maximising their success? Their success is beyond doubt and it is absolute madness to have been through an episode in which the talent that had got together and that was fulfilling the job so convincingly has been undermined, demoralised and fragmented by what has been proposed. How on earth does this relate to what the Prime Minister was talking about at the weekend? I ask the Government, even at this late stage, not just to try to patch up what has happened and try to find some acceptable solution but to look at the whole thing again and ask how they can really ensure that they have the strongest possible and most dynamic arrangements in place to enable the film industry, and indeed the universities, to succeed as they should.

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I was not going to speak in this debate, but two things strike me. Here, I ought to declare my interest in that, in my past life, I was the chairman of a film production and distribution company.

First, my gut feeling about the merger is that it would be much better to have one body speaking to the British film industry and combining all the functions of the two existing organisations. This would reduce overheads, produce greater efficiencies and allow the new body to focus on the important issues for the film industry—in other words, to be one strong voice for the British film industry. Before these amendments came before us today, I asked one or two noble friends who are in the business for their views. I am told that not all but many eminent practitioners think that the Government in this instance have got it just about right.

Secondly, I am not 100 per cent sure why these amendments are being discussed today in our deliberations on the Public Bodies Bill. I did not think that either the UK Film Council or the British Film Institute were public bodies. They are not statutory bodies, so as excellent and as passionate as this debate has been, surely it should have been conducted outside the confines of this Bill.

Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Judd Excerpts

Friday 21st January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, it is a real privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. Her maiden speech will, I think, rate with some of the most respected in the history of the House. We are fortunate to have someone with her experience joining us. Her experience in local government and her experience in the London Assembly, which she now chairs, are highly relevant to our work here and can contribute much. Her business experience also is important. But what I like is the fact that she has chosen this debate for her maiden speech. It speaks of a tradition of liberal humanitarianism which is a very important quality in our democratic political system, one which many of us in other parts of the political structure of this country have always admired and to which we have frequently related. She has represented that well in what she has said today and also in her practical commitment to having effective arrangements and policies in place to further that kind of commitment.

I understand that with her family background she loves theatre, which is the mark of a very civilised person. But I also understand that she likes listening to easy music. I hope that we may provide some theatrical and, if not actually putting it to music, good listening for her in her experience in this House. I wish the noble Baroness well and I think that we shall benefit from her presence.

I am very glad to speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, at this Second Reading. The noble Lord has stuck with perseverance and commitment to this particular legislation, but that is only part of a consistent and admirable general approach to social and penal policy. I should like to repeat what I have just said about the noble Baroness in her maiden speech. I always feel that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is an epitome of liberal humanitarianism at its best being applied practically. That liberal humanitarianism is very special and it is something to which I say without hesitation that over our political lives many of us in my political party have always related as well as admired, and may it be preserved in the political future.

I have always felt that any sane and relevant penal policy must have rehabilitation as its overriding, unqualified principal objective. This matters because it makes economic sense. The noble Baroness spoke about getting people back into the labour market, but it also matters because of the cost of reoffending if we do not get rehabilitation right. It is absolute madness not to have rehabilitation at the centre of our purpose in penal policy.

I was deeply moved by the remarks of the right reverend Prelate in this debate. He spoke not only of the labour market and its place in the economy, he spoke of people and of people mattering. It seems to me that in a civilisation that is worth the title “civilised”, we should be concerned about every individual who faces imprisonment and should be second to none in our determination to see those individuals, wherever possible, becoming full, flourishing members of society. It matters that they should be able to live creatively and positively.

Other people have given personal anecdotes. I should like to refer to two conversations that I have had in this context, which have deeply influenced me since they took place. I may have referred to them previously in deliberations to the House, but I think that they bear repetition. One conversation was with a retired chief constable who very modestly was doing a lot of practical voluntary work in a young offender institution. He told me of a conversation that he had with a young man who was coming up to the time of his release. As they were talking, the young man began to cry. The former chief constable was rather thrown and disturbed by this. He said, “But you are coming up to your release, why are you crying?”. The young man said, “I am crying because the work being done by you and others in this young offender institution is the first time that I have felt in my life that I mattered. It is the first time that I have begun to discover myself and to face the realities of what I could be and of what I have allowed myself to do in the past. I am frightened of what will happen when I come out of this community back into society”. The former chief constable and I pondered that. Going back to what the right reverend Prelate said, it seems to me that every time we see someone in prison we have to ask ourselves how far we are responsible for that sad situation, because it is a sad situation to see someone in prison.

As a society we have a responsibility, and while of course it is not always the case, we have to realise that many people who are incarcerated are themselves victims, and that is why they are there. This applies particularly to those in young offender institutions. They are highly damaged people in terms of their own experience. When I visited prisons and young offender institutions, and heard about someone’s experience and how they had been treated in life, I sometimes thought that it would have been an absolute miracle if they had not ended up in prison.

I also recall how a much-loved colleague, the late Baroness Lestor, a close personal friend and godmother to one of my children, had been to visit the young people involved in the terrible murder of James Bulger in Liverpool. I had never seen Joan—I refer to her affectionately as “Joan”—more disturbed and deeply upset. She said of one, “I came to realise that this young man had never been loved in his life”. That brings home to us all our collective responsibility. The Bill is a practical and important part of getting things right because, as things are on this front, they are clearly not in harmony with the wider purposes we are spelling out.

The other conversation was with a chief superintendent of police who was coming up to his retirement. He said, “You know, Frank, as I reflect on my experience of working with criminals, one thing I have always felt is that when a person is sent down to prison, however much the bravado and bluster on their part, it is a very lonely moment in their life. To get it right as a policeman, I have come to the conclusion that that is the moment when someone should be there and gently take their elbow, saying, ‘Come on Joe or Jill. This is a hell of a mess. How do we begin to sort it out and get it right?’”. If we are going to get penal policy right, we need to realise that it is not just a matter of having the right administration or the right pieces in place in terms of treatment, it is about love and friendship and having relationships because they are crucial to the whole process of rehabilitation. There need to be friends who can walk with people through the experience of imprisonment, into rehabilitation and then back into the full and creative life we hope to see them fulfilling.

Because of my general orientation on this, naturally I am delighted to see the new trend in government policy. Also, if I may put it this way, I am glad to see that my old but mis-seated colleague and friend the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is to reply to the debate. I often reflect on the days when the noble Lord and I worked quite closely together, I as a Minister of State in the Foreign Office and he at No. 10. I am just reminiscing, but I remember how, through a little conspiracy together, we once saved the budget for the BBC Overseas Service. So I am very sad to see him where he is at the moment, but I must not go down that road.

One thing which worries me about the new proposals is that they are so often presented—I think that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, if he will forgive me for saying so, has sometimes done it, although I understand the pressures which make it necessary—as saving money. I have just put forward that argument myself: if you get rehabilitation right, you will save money; you will save the cost of reoffending and the rest. However, we must not let this become a Treasury policy as distinct from a policy about rehabilitation, because rehabilitation will not be a cheap option. We have not yet begun to face up to the real costs of making this enlightened and sensible policy a success. We must have the psychiatric services, the housing advisory services, the medical services, the educational arrangements and other practical arrangements in place, with, I hope, someone walking with the individual through the handling of all these different pressures and arrangements. That will be an expensive process. We cannot just say, “Well, we’re going to run a pilot scheme and we’ve got various voluntary agencies piling in”. Having spent much of my life in the voluntary sector, I know that voluntary agencies may have a very important part to play, but how satisfied are we that all the people involved, however sincere and highly motivated, have the training, experience and professionalism to do the job well? I remember what happened with lunatic asylums. It was thought that it was a terrible thing still to have such institutions and that the people concerned should be rehabilitated in society. The arrangements were not made, and we saw as a result many personal, collective and family tragedies.

Above all, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on another practical manifestation of his lifelong commitment to getting penal policy right.