Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill

Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, I support everything that the most reverend Primate has said. I find it extremely difficult to add anything, just as I found it difficult last time round when we were considering the measure in October. But there is this difference between now and then: on that occasion, the debate had been long expected. It followed a natural sequence of events going back to the discussion of women priests.

Today is different, because I think that none of us can have expected the contents of this Bill now before us. I know that I certainly did not. I cannot remember when it was that I first heard of the idea; all I can remember is that it struck me then as being absolutely right and necessary, and that is still my view.

The Ecclesiastical Committee of course has no function in relation to this Bill, but, from time to time, the subject has come up in general conversation. I never heard any doubts expressed about the desirability of the Bill. The only possible concern that I have ever heard mentioned is that the Bill is discriminatory. That is not the case. I have heard it suggested that the Bill might be resented by the next diocesan bishops in line, who will have to wait. I wish only to add to what the most reverend Primate said in that I know that it will not be resented. We live in Sussex and it so happens that the Bishop of Chichester is next in line after the Bishop of Lincoln, as the most reverend Primate has already mentioned. The Bishop of Chichester is a good friend of ours. Not long ago, he came to stay at home and unfortunately when he left he forgot to take with him his folding bicycle, which he had brought with him. Without his folding bicycle, the business of the Diocese of Chichester comes to a pause. We managed to return his folding bicycle. Even if the Bishop of Chichester had not been a bishop, I can say from my own knowledge of him that he would have been the very last person to feel any sense of a grievance at being, as it were, passed over. As a bishop, he must feel even less aggrieved—I am not sure of the logic of this argument—because he knows that it is for the good of the church.

Lastly, I come to the Bill itself. On the face of it, the Bill is ingenious. I do not wish to discuss its detail— I am not sure whether I could—but I do wish to congratulate most warmly those who have been responsible for drafting it. I know what is involved in drafting a Bill of this kind and it seems to me that they have done a magnificent job. I also want to add a word of congratulation in favour of the usual channels, which is perhaps an unusual thing to do. They have brought the Bill before us on time, and on an all-party basis. What more could one ask of them? It shows what Parliament can do, when it has a mind to do it, in a good cause. There could be no better cause than this, and I give it the warmest possible support.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

1: Clause 2, leave out Clause 2

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, there are many reasons why Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill, but to my mind the main objection is also the simplest: it serves no useful purpose. The mischief at which the clause is aimed is already covered by existing law. The mischief in question, as defined by the Lord Chancellor in the other place, is that volunteers are being deterred from volunteering by fear of being sued for negligence. That is the very same point specifically covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006, passed less than eight years ago.

The whole purpose of that section was to encourage people to undertake what the section calls, “desirable activities”. The whole purpose of Clause 2 of the Bill is to encourage people to act,

“for the benefit of society”.

Those are two ways of saying exactly the same thing. Nobody has yet been able to detect any difference between them. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor said that Clause 2 is not intended to change the existing law, so why do we need another piece of legislation covering exactly the same ground now?

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, accepted that:

“Clause 2 relates to broadly similar territory to that in Section 1 of the Compensation Act”,

but he added that,

“the approach that it takes is different”.—[Official Report, 4/11/2014; col. 1573.]

He did not explain exactly what he meant by the approach being different. When pressed, he said that the 2006 Act had been “ineffective”. However, the only evidence relied on for that assertion—literally the only evidence—was a survey carried out about eight years ago. All it showed was that 47% of a very modest sample, some 300 people at most, said that there was a risk of being sued and that that risk was an issue to be considered. That survey was carried out in 2006-07, before Section 1 of the Compensation Act could possibly have had any effect, so how can it be relied on as showing that Section 1 of the 2006 Act has been ineffective? At the time of that survey, it had not had time to take effect.

A recent report produced by the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the evidence in support of the Government’s case for fresh legislation in this field. It concluded that the only evidence was almost entirely anecdotal. It said that such evidence was not a sound basis for legislation, and that must surely be right. We now have before us a clause for which there is no evidence of any need covering exactly the same ground as Section 1 of the Compensation Act, which was passed less than eight years ago, and covering the ground already covered by the common law. In negligence cases, judges have always had regard to the matters referred to in Clause 2.

If that was not enough to condemn the clause—although I suggest that it is—the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has recently said that this clause, even if it is to form part of the Bill, will have very little, if any, effect. Indeed, that was the Government’s own case. Paragraph 23 of their impact assessment states that any reduction in claims for negligence will not be substantial.

If, as I suggest, these reasons are nothing like enough to justify the inclusion of this clause, one is driven to ask: what is the real reason the Lord Chancellor is bringing forward this unnecessary clause for our approval? There can be no doubt about the answer to that question, because the Lord Chancellor himself said it over and over again in the other place. The real reason is that the Lord Chancellor wants to send out, as he put it, a strong signal that if people are trying to do the right thing—he used that sort of phraseology over and over again—the law will be on their side. In other words, the justification for including this clause in the Bill is nothing other than a publicity exercise on the part of the Government. If that is the case, and I suggest that it is, it is a flagrant misuse of the legislative process. The purpose of legislation is to make new law or to change existing law so that it can be enforced in the courts. This clause does not purport to do either of those things. It could not be enforced by the court, which is why it will be treated with derision when it comes before the courts—a word that was used by a recent Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Garnier, speaking from the government Benches in the other place. The clause should be rejected on that ground, if none other.

Finally, I should mention points made during the debate in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who I am glad to see in his place, is in favour of Clause 2. He was chair of the task force which published in 2011 the report Unshackling Good Neighbours. His view is obviously, therefore, entitled to great weight on that ground. I hope, however, that he will forgive me for saying that he did not really answer the point that Clause 2 covers exactly the same ground as Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006, which should be given much more time to take effect.

On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Blair, said that, while he was broadly in sympathy with the Government’s objective, this was, as he put it,

“frankly, a lousy way to do it”.—[Official Report, 18/11/14; col. 404.]

It was smoothing over all the difficulties with words that have very little meaning. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, went further. He was extremely critical of the drafting because of the use of the same word, “person”, in Clauses 2 and 4 to cover two entirely different persons. He said it was a great pity that the Government had not faced up to the real problems in this area. As a result, he said, he was deeply troubled by the clause as it stands.

For all these reasons, I hope the Government will think again before pressing ahead with this unnecessary clause. I beg to move.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to say some nice things about my report, and I reciprocate by saying that I have had the pleasure of serving under his chairmanship of various committees, and he has always been a punctilious and perceptive chairman. He is particularly kind in being ready to listen to and appreciate the views of those of us who are not learned in the law.

I hope that he will forgive me, but, once again, I cannot support his proposal this afternoon, and I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench not to do so either. We had a pretty thorough discussion of this issue in Committee on 18 November, and I do not intend to repeat the remarks I made then. As I understand it, and as I understood then, the noble and learned Lord is concerned about interplay between this piece of legislation and the Compensation Act 2006. I understand his desire for legal clarity and legal purity, but I have another objective, and that is of legal connectivity.

The report that I produced for the Government, Unshackling Good Neighbours, to which he kindly referred, looked in some depth at what was inhibiting people from getting involved in society and acting as a trustee, and whether they feared potential legal consequences. We received examples in sufficient numbers, which cannot simply be dismissed as anecdotal—a term that I sometimes feel is somewhat patronising. The noble and learned Lord sought to reassure the House that, if a case came to court, the court would throw it out, would, in his phrase, “have regard for the circumstances”. With respect, he may have overlooked the effect on an individual of the agonising, expensive, lengthy and psychologically depressing process of preparing the case—this against the background that, in the event, the court may not throw the case out.

I continue, therefore, to believe that this legislation sends an important signal—there I agree with the noble and learned Lord. This signal may seem unnecessary in the cool, calm, reflective atmosphere of the Inns of Court, but it has a greater resonance at the coalface of our civil society.

At another level, I am particularly looking forward to hearing the final determination of the Opposition’s position on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is a witty speaker and a very practised politician. He has made some disobliging remarks about the contents of the Bill, but he has so far not moved beyond that point. I suspect that, as a practical politician, in his heart of hearts, he knows that this is an issue that, in the minds of the public, needs addressing, and which this Bill does so address.

Before I conclude, I reiterate one other point that I made in Committee. I do not argue for a single minute that the Bill is a silver bullet as regards encouraging volunteering or greater participation in our society. There is much else to be done besides. Better insurance arrangements are crucial, as is the need to debunk myths about the legal consequences of day-to-day actions, too often assiduously and repeatedly promulgated in the press. However, even if the Bill is not a silver bullet, it is a bullet, and one well worth firing. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will resist the noble and learned Lord this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

I am not sure that off the top of my head I can think of a particular legislative provision that provides reassurance, but part of the function of much legislation is to provide reassurance and protection to the vulnerable. There is nothing novel about producing a piece of legislation which, in a difficult area, provides some clarity and a modest degree of reassurance in an area of considerable uncertainty.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I want to say a word about the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. He said that, as the Bill changes the common law, it ought to have been referred in the first instance to the Law Commission. I entirely agree that from time to time it has not been at all easy to discover what the government case has been, but their final position is that it does not change the common law in any way; it merely confirms what was already the common law and what was included as Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006. I hope that that answers the noble and learned Lord’s difficulty.

So far as the rest is concerned, I shall say nothing more about the arguments put forward by the noble Lord in answer to the debate. They have already been dealt with very fully. However, I want to say a word about the attitude of the Opposition to the amendment. As I understood it until 2.15 pm this afternoon, the Opposition would be supporting the amendment. That was my clear understanding.

[Lord Beecham]

If the noble and learned Lord understood that, he misunderstood it, and if I have contributed to a misunderstanding, I apologise. It was never the Opposition’s position that we would support the noble and learned Lord. We were considering the position and I tried to contact him unsuccessfully over the weekend. Therefore, we have not resiled from the position that we previously adopted.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am quite happy to accept that there must have been a misunderstanding. However, that was certainly my understanding of the position, just as my understanding of the position at Second Reading was that they would be supporting my amendment. I was wrong about that and I am wrong again. However, that still leaves the question of why on earth the Opposition are not supporting the amendment. After all, on the whole, it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. If they found that they were against something—and I understood them to be against Clauses 2 and 4, just as they are against Clause 3—in the ordinary way they would oppose it.

However, I am wrong about that. The reason given for this seems to me to be entirely incomprehensible. The reason why the Opposition now do not want to oppose Clauses 2 and 4 is that if they did so while opposing Clause 3, that would then have some effect—which I really did not understand—on the attitude of the Lord Chancellor in relation to some other Bill; namely, the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. That is a wholly irrational ground for an Opposition to act on. I would have thought it their duty, if they are against Clauses 2 and 4, to oppose them. They say, however, that, for reasons which I do not understand, they do not intend to take that view officially. I hope that at least some members of the party which is represented by those on the Opposition Front Bench who take that view will think differently.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, surely my noble and learned friend, as I will call him on this occasion, has heard of the mugwumps, who sat on the fence with their mugs on one side and their wumps on the other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am not sure that I fully understood. Perhaps I did not wholly hear what the noble Lord said. However, the arguments are now over, and there is really nothing left for it but to take the opinion of the House. I do not fancy for one moment that, in the absence of support from the Opposition on this clause, the amendment will be carried. However, in the interests of doing the right thing—those words which the Lord Chancellor kept on using—I ought to take the opinion of the House, which I now seek to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I turn now to Clause 4 and the amendment we have tabled relating to it. We noted the concerns raised in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Attlee that the current definition of “heroism” could be taken to exclude the actions of trained first aid volunteers. That is because the current clause says that a person acts heroically if he intervenes to help somebody in danger without regard to his own safety or other interests. Organisations such as St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross would always train their volunteers to have regard to the potential risks to themselves and others before intervening.

I had a very constructive meeting with representatives from those organisations after Committee to discuss these matters further, which culminated in the amendment that we are bringing forward today. We agreed that the simplest thing to do would be to remove the final 11 words of the clause. This will put beyond doubt that the clause applies to anybody who intervenes in an emergency to help somebody in danger, regardless of whether they acted entirely spontaneously or weighed up the risks before intervening. What is more, St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, as leading first aid organisations reaching hundreds of thousands of people a year, have said that if the amendment is agreed they will use the opportunity to encourage more people to come forward to act in emergencies. I am very grateful to them for their offer of assistance, which will help to reassure many new first aid volunteers that they can intervene in emergencies secure in the knowledge that the law will be on their side. I beg to move.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I also have an amendment in this group. It may be convenient if I say what I have to say now. In many ways, Clause 4, which we are now dealing with, is the oddest of these three clauses. As drafted, it was strongly criticised by the Fire Brigades Union, St John Ambulance and the Red Cross, among others. To take the instance of the Fire Brigades Union, the clause goes directly contrary to advice that it has given for many years to people involved in a fire: to get out of the way of the fire as quickly as they can and to stay out. If they intervene to try to rescue somebody, then they are only likely to put in greater danger the firemen, who will have to come to their rescue as well.

This was pointed out as a difficulty—indeed, as a serious objection—in the other place, but no notice was taken of that criticism until at a very late stage in this House, when the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, gave notice of his amendment to leave out the last 11 words of the clause. Leaving out the last 11 words of this clause is undoubtedly a great improvement, but leaving out half a clause to save the rest of a clause is an unusual thing to do. It only demonstrates that the clause, like the rest of the Bill, was never properly thought out in the first place. In Committee I suggested that it looked like a clause drafted on the back of an envelope. I now think that that may be going too far in its favour. It must surely have occurred to someone at some stage that a clause that protects someone who takes no thought for his own safety, but does not protect someone who takes some thought for his own safety—that, as it was put elegantly, as always, by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick,

“protects the instinctive hero but not the thoughtful hero”—[Official Report, 18/11/14; col. 416.]

—is surely inherently ridiculous. Be that as it may, the objection to Clause 4 is essentially the same as that to Clause 2. The substance of Clause 4, as it will stand if the noble Lord’s amendment is accepted, is already covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006.

It is difficult to imagine a,

“person … acting heroically … to assist an individual in danger”,

who is not by that very act engaged in a “desirable activity” as envisaged by Section 1 of the Compensation Act. If so, this clause adds literally nothing to the existing law. If the noble Lord in his reply can think of a single example where the point I have made is not valid because something would be covered by this clause and not by Section 1 of the Compensation Act, I hope he will tell us. In the mean time, I submit that it adds nothing and should be rejected on that ground. In due course I will move my amendment too.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, there is a further reason why Clause 4 is pointless and that is, of course, because it adds nothing to Clause 2. It is very difficult to understand in what circumstances a person is acting heroically in an emergency when they are not also,

“acting for the benefit of society or any of its members”.

Perhaps the Minister can tell the House of a theoretical case that would not fall within Clause 2 that falls within Clause 4. There is no doubt that the removal of the final words of Clause 4 is a distinct improvement. We must be grateful for small mercies.

I have a further concern that when courts have to apply Clause 4 there is ample room for no doubt lengthy debate as to what is meant by “heroically” and “emergency”, neither of which is defined in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, for the most part the Government’s amendment has been supported. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, says that the fact that we had to remove nearly half the clause, because half of it was not worth while, indicates that the clause really was not worth while. That may not do entire justice to his argument, but we say that we responded to the burden of the argument. We listened to the debate and we consulted St John Ambulance. We certainly do not want to do anything that does not realise the main objective of the Bill, which is to encourage people to volunteer, to assist and to provide, if necessary, emergency assistance.

The Government will no doubt take very much to heart the criticism of the use of language made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker. I explicitly do not promise to make any changes before Third Reading but I undertake to revisit the issue in case any further clarity can be attained by the use of “person” or “individual”.

However, I would say to anyone who is not a lawyer that Clause 4 is pretty clear. It states:

“The court must have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger”.

I am really not sure that that is a terribly difficult concept to understand. I think that men and women would understand what was meant to be conveyed by that, and it is perfectly reasonable to ask the court to pay regard to it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, may well be right that judges would take that into account. Certainly most judges would.

However, the outcome of any negligence case, as those of us who have laboured in that particular vineyard will tell the House, is never clear, particularly when there is a very badly injured claimant. Judges sometimes do not sufficiently bear these matters in mind. The court must now “have regard”—that is all we ask—to whether there is heroism as described. We do not believe that heroism needs further definition or examples. We think that judges should be able to recognise it when they see it.

I submit that, while taking on board the criticism of some aspects of the drafting, this very much maligned Bill and this clause serve a sensible, common-sense purpose, and I ask the noble and learned Lord not to press his amendment.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would just deal with the principal point made both by myself and by the noble Lord. In what respect does this clause add anything to Clause 2, as it will now stand part of the Bill, or to Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006? Will he please give us one single example?

[Lord Faulks]

I will give the same answer that I gave in relation to the distinction between the Compensation Act and this Bill, which is that the Bill says that the court “must have regard”. That is a distinction. I said in Committee that there may well be an overlap between Clauses 2 and 4. I do not say that they are wholly distinct; they convey an accumulation of concepts which are readily understood, and a judge may find it possible to bear in mind both Clause 2 and Clause 4. That fact does not mean that Clause 4 cannot, in appropriate circumstances, serve a useful purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

4: Clause 4, leave out Clause 4

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am not sure whether I am entitled to say anything more. I do not intend to do so, except to draw attention to the fact that we have not been given any explanation of how Clause 4 adds anything of any utility. However, for reasons best known to themselves, the Official Opposition have decided not to support this amendment. In those circumstances, there is little chance of a result different from that which we had earlier this afternoon. I therefore do not intend to take the opinion of the House.

Amendment 4 not moved.

Public Protection Sentences

Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the recent decision of the High Court in Fletcher and others v Governor of HMP Whatton and the Secretary of State for Justice that the Secretary of State is in breach of his public law duty in relation to the continued detention of prisoners detained under imprisonment for public protection sentences.

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

My Lords, the court did not find any breach of public law duty with respect to the continued detention of those serving imprisonment for public protection—IPP—sentences. The court did, however, find that the Secretary of State was in breach of his public law duty in relation to the provision of resources for the Healthy Sex Programme, a course designed for certain serious sex offenders. The Secretary of State has committed the additional funding necessary to remove the current backlog for places on the Healthy Sex Programme.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, the only defence to these proceedings was that the Lord Chancellor could not provide the courses that these prisoners needed to go on in order to come before the Parole Board because he did not have enough money. Does the Minister agree that if the Lord Chancellor were to exercise the power that he already possesses to change the release test for these prisoners, he could release forthwith up to 650 prisoners who were given tariff sentences of less than two years—some as little as three months—eight years ago, thereby saving £24 million a year that could then be spent on providing courses for the other prisoners who are waiting to go on them? Why has he not exercised that power?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has asked me this question before and I congratulate him on his tenacity. There are no current plans to review the release test. The release test is determined by the Parole Board. It decides when someone is safe to release. Attendance on courses can be evidence of their suitability for release. They can be released without attendance on the courses and attendance on the courses does not necessarily qualify them for release.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Debate on whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, I oppose Clause 2 standing part of the Bill, and my reason is simple: it adds nothing useful to what is already contained in Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006. It adds nothing to what was contained in the pre-existing common law, as my noble and learned friend Lord Brown has already demonstrated. What, then, does Section 1 say? It has already been read by my noble friend Lord Pannick but I find it a little wordy, so I will do my best to paraphrase it. It provides that a court may have regard to whether the desirable activity would be prevented or discouraged if defendants were required to take some precaution or undertake some action to avoid liability in claims for negligence.

Clause 2 says:

“The court must have regard to whether the … negligence … occurred when the person was acting for the benefit of society”.

The simple question for the Committee is whether there is any distinction between,

“acting for the benefit of society”,

and a “desirable activity”. If not, the clause and the section provide exactly the same.

Nobody has yet been able to suggest a distinction between those two ways of putting it. If Clause 2 is to stand part of the Bill—putting aside for the moment the must/may distinction—we will have, as my noble friend Lord Pannick stressed, two provisions on the statute book covering exactly the same ground. I suggest that that is not a good idea. It is said that it may not matter and does no harm. However, in this instance it matters a great deal because the drafting of Clause 2 is so defective that, if it is to stand part, it will give rise to what one witness described as “massive unintended consequences”. I will come back to that later.

I want to refer to the evidence of Mr Fraser Whitehead, who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee on 4 September. Mr Whitehead is chair of the legal affairs and policy board of the Law Society. In his view, Clause 2 is unnecessary because the subject is already covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act. He said that it adds nothing of value. That evidence was never challenged on behalf of the Government. Mr Vara, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, instead of challenging the evidence, attacked Mr Whitehead’s credibility. I think it is best in those circumstances if I quote from Hansard, which I would not normally do, but the Committee may find it helpful.

Mr Whitehead was asked whether he had consulted the many thousands of members of the Law Society and if so, whether by line, survey or in writing. Mr Whitehead replied that he had not consulted widely but he had discussed the Bill with the various chairs of the various relevant sub-committees of the Law Society. I take up what was said in Hansard. Mr Vara said:

“Are these personal views that are shared by a limited number of colleagues in the Law Society—the other chairs that you mentioned—as opposed to the views of the majority of the Law Society, whom you admit that you have not consulted?”.

Mr Whitehead said:

“The position I am putting forward is the Law Society’s position”.

Mr Vara asked,

“am I right in saying that this is your view and the view of one or two other people? You mentioned the chair of one committee or another, but how many people precisely have had an input into the views that you have put forward today? Are they principally your views? If not yours alone, how many other individuals have you spoken to who share your views? Finally, will you kindly tell me the precise number and their names, if possible?”.

Mr Whitehead explained that the:

“Law Society is actually a democratic structure”,

and was interrupted by Mr Vara:

“Forgive me for interrupting … As a former solicitor, I am aware of the structure of the Law Society. Basically, you have not consulted your members. You are relying on the views of a small number of people who sit on a specific committee of the Law Society”.

To that, Mr Whitehead said:

“The people on whom I am relying are a wide cross section of specialists.

Mr Vara: How many, please?

Fraser Whitehead: The total number is approximately 35”.

Mr Vara asked:

“Have 35 people given you their views, either in writing or by speaking to you?

Fraser Whitehead: No, but we have discussed—

Mr Vara:  Thank you. I am mindful that time is limited, and I am happy to give way to someone else”.—[Official Report, Commons, Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill Committee, 4/9/14; cols. 9-10.]

I do not know what impression that sort of questioning gives your Lordships. All I can say about it is that, in itself, it would be sufficient reason for the Government to lose this Bill, and they would deserve to do so. But of course there are many other reasons also, to which I shall come in a moment.

Next I come to the Lord Chancellor and the reasons that he gave for bringing this Bill forward in the first place. The key thing is that it lays down,

“a series of principles off the back of which the courts will evolve a jurisprudence”.

He said that there had been a number of examples over recent years in which Parliament has adopted that approach. Unfortunately, he did not give any details of those examples, so it is difficult to know exactly what he had in mind. A little later he said that the Bill would,

“consolidate the law, which exists in fragmented places around past legislation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/14; col. 1191.]

Again, he was not specific, but I think that he must have been referring to the Compensation Act—although, oddly enough, he does not actually mention it. I have not myself been able to find any other “fragmented” pieces of legislation dealing with social activity, so I assume that what I have said so far is his view. If so, I can summarise his approach by saying that, in his view, Clause 2 does not change the law—otherwise, he would hardly have described Clause 2 as consolidating the law. He must have been aware that the whole purpose of a consolidation Bill is that it does not change the law. I leave it at that.

I return to the evidence of Mr Fraser Whitehead and the massive unintended consequences to which I referred earlier. For example, he mentioned the use of the word “person” in Clause 2. No doubt the Lord Chancellor had in mind organisations and individuals such as the Scouts but, of course, “person” is not confined to individuals. It goes far wider than that; for example, it would include the banks. Are they entitled to the benefit of the clause? Is that what is intended by the Bill? Suppose that a bank were being sued for negligent misrepresentation, would it be able to argue that it acts,

“for the benefit of society or one of its members”,

whenever it cashes a cheque? Presumably, it would. No doubt “person” could have been amended by substituting “individual”, if that is the real intention. However, it is now much too late for the Government to do that and there is no government amendment to that effect. In any event, Mr Vara was present in the Public Bill Committee when Mr Whitehead described what he then referred to as the “horrific” unintended consequences of Clause 2. Mr Vara never challenged that evidence. All one can therefore conclude is that the Government were content with that evidence and accepted it. It remains unchallenged.

Moreover, “person” is not the only word in Clause 2 that is likely to give rise to trouble. What about the phrase,

“society or any of its members”?

What on earth is that supposed to mean? The drafting of Clause 2 is so woolly that I could not help wondering who did the drafting. That is a question I am not allowed to ask, so I shall: was it perhaps the Lord Chancellor himself? Is the Bill before the Committee something which the Lord Chancellor scribbled down on the back of an envelope, as seems to be the practice nowadays? To a lawyer like me, that is exactly what it looks like.

Lastly, I come to the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. He finds himself in an awkward position. Either he accepts the Lord Chancellor’s view that the Bill does not change the law or he accepts the view of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary—Mr Vara—that it indeed does. The Minister’s solution to that problem is, as always, ingenious: he comes down in the middle. He says that Clause 3 does, indeed, change the law because it refers to “a generally responsible approach”. He says that those words are new and I am sure that they are. They have never been seen before in any form of legislation with which I am familiar. That is part of what will be dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, when we discuss Clause 3. However, it is interesting that the Minister does not say the same about Clause 2. On 4 November, he accepted, at col. 1573 of Hansard, that Clause 2 covers “broadly similar territory” to what we have before us today but added that the approach “is different”. As he did not actually spell out the difference, I pressed him on this. His answer was that the 2006 Act had been “ineffective” and had not achieved what it set out to achieve. However, he did not explain why Clause 2 would be any better or more effective than Section 1 had been. When the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, pressed him again on that distinction, he said:

“I am entirely aware of the question that the noble Lord asked and I am attempting to answer it”.—[Official Report, 4/11/14; col. 1574.]

He then moved on. Of course, there are verbal distinctions between the Compensation Act and Clause 2 of this Bill. One important difference is that the Compensation Act is rather carefully drafted whereas Clause 2 is not, but the substance is the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blair and to my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead for supporting me. The Minister has not dealt with most of the difficulties which some of us feel. He has not really dealt with the fact that the ground is already adequately covered by the Compensation Act, and he has not dealt with the defective drafting and the unintended consequences which are bound to arise as a result. He said that the target at which he is aiming is very difficult to hit. At this stage, all I can say to him is that he has not hit it. I will certainly return to the matter on Report.

Clause 2 agreed.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

As an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to give the Bill a second reading on the grounds that (1) it is unnecessary and the subject matter is already covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006, and (2) the sole purpose of the Bill is not to make new law but to send out a powerful message or signal on behalf of the Government to the Courts, which is not a proper use of legislation.”

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way that he has introduced the Bill today, but on this occasion I want to go a little further, provided that it does not embarrass him too much. We all know that he is a distinguished and very successful barrister, so he must have given up a lot when he joined the government Front Bench. Still, at least it can be said that he has an interesting time on that Front Bench, because instead of appearing before judges in court he has had to face a number of Members of the House of Lords and ex-members of the Supreme Court, of whom it cannot yet be said, as one looks at them, that they represent a row of extinct volcanoes. Having said that, I have to warn him that on this occasion, and in relation to this Bill, I come to bury Caesar—in the shape of the Minister—rather than to praise him.

I will start by saying something about the course on which I am embarked. I do so because different views have been held as to whether such a course is appropriate. One view is that when a Bill has been passed by the elected Chamber, we should always give it a Second Reading in this House. However, that view is not supported in the Companion, and nor could this Bill possibly be described as a manifesto Bill so as to bring it within the Salisbury convention. If there were some parallel convention it would surely have been mentioned in the Cunningham report, but as far as I know it is not.

In any event, such a view is contradicted by history. There have in fact been four recent amendments in the past seven years. The most recent example is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. That amendment did not succeed but there was not the slightest hint that it was inappropriate to have approached the matter in that way.

Secondly, there was the amendment moved by the Labour Opposition to the Health and Social Care Bill in 2011. It is important to note that they voted in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Owen. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, would have wrecked the Bill.

Thirdly and nearer home, there was the Fraud Bill in 2007. The Conservatives were then in Opposition. Lord Kingsland moved a reasoned amendment. His argument was that if you are against a Bill in principle, the proper course is to move a reasoned amendment, otherwise you are impliedly accepting the principle. No other course, he said, was open to the Conservative Party. That argument succeeded and I shall be asking the House to accept the same argument on this occasion. It seems to be accepted on all sides of the House—including the Cross Benches—that a reasoned amendment at Second Reading is not in itself objectionable.

Finally, it has been said that a reasoned amendment is acceptable only in exceptional cases of great importance. To refuse a Second Reading here is to give this Bill an importance that it does not deserve. On the face of it, that argument seems to be counterintuitive. This Bill is indeed exceptional—not because it is of any importance but because it is of no importance at all. It is useless. It received negligible support in the Commons.

I remind the House of what actually happened in the Commons. There were only two Back-Bench speeches on the government side. One was by Sir Edward Garnier, a former Solicitor General. He opposed the Bill in the strongest terms. He described it a silly Bill. He said it would be greeted with “derision” by the judges. Mr Dominic Grieve, a former Attorney-General, described it as “utter tosh”. We should listen to what former Law Officers have said, coming as they do from the government side. They should know. So this is not the sort of Bill of which it could be said that denying a Second Reading is in some way being discourteous to the Commons or that we should give it a Second Reading out of respect. That is all I have to say on why I am approaching the Bill in the way I am.

I will now say something about the Bill itself and will start by summarising what the Government hope to obtain by it. This has already been done by the Minister but I wish to add a few footnotes. The Bill, it will be remembered, has three operative clauses—to encourage volunteering, to tackle the so-called compensation culture and to encourage, or at least not deter, brave actions. On Clause 2 the Lord Chancellor relied on a survey of 300 people carried out seven years ago, in which 47% of them said that they would have volunteered but for the fear of being sued. That seems to be the sum total of all the evidence the Lord Chancellor had to support the clause. His view on the matter, however, was contradicted by a recent Cabinet Offence paper which states that, on the contrary, volunteering is doing well and that section of the community is thriving.

More importantly, it was contradicted from the Government’s own Benches by a former Minister for Civil Society, Nick Hurd, to whom a great deal of credit is due for all his tireless efforts in this area. He told the Commons that the number of volunteers is rising, not falling: but it may not matter, for the evidence of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations warns that this Bill is not going to make any difference one way or the other, so I leave it at that.

Turning to Clause 3 on the so-called compensation culture, the Lord Chancellor said that claims by employees against their employers have gone up by 30% in the past three years. No one seems to know where that figure comes from. The evidence the other way is that workplace claims have actually gone down by half in the last 10 years, and half of those claims were for less than £5,000. The latter view was the view supported by the noble Lord, Lord Young, in his report published in 2010. His view was that the so-called compensation culture is based on perception—encouraged, as it always is, by the media—and not on reality.

That view was also taken by Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, in a lecture he gave last year entitled, Compensation Culture: Fact or Fantasy?. Again, it may not matter because it is the Government’s case that this Bill is not going to make any difference. In that connection, I am referring to paragraph 23 of the Government’s impact assessment which states that any difference this clause may make will not be substantial, and that if there is a problem, it can be solved only by education, not by legislation.

Finally, as to encouraging heroism, the Minister referred to ambulance drivers. But there was a far more significant piece of evidence against it from the Fire Brigades Union. It described Clause 3 as a very dangerous clause. For years, the fire brigade’s advice to the public in the case of fire is to get out as quickly as possible and stay out. It thinks that Clause 4 undermines that advice. If a member of the public enters the scene of a fire to rescue someone, he puts at risk not only his own life but the lives of the firemen who may have to rescue him as well. The Fire Brigades Union gave two graphic illustrations of when that has happened in practice.

Those being the purposes which lie behind the Bill, I come at last—I am afraid it has taken a long time, but I shall be quicker from now on—to the two reasons for rejecting this Bill. The first is simple enough. The Bill is unnecessary. The subject matter of all three clauses is already adequately covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006, to which the Minister made scant reference in his speech. I thought that it had always been the Government’s case that this Bill does not change the law. The key thing about the Bill, according to the Lord Chancellor, is that it simply lays down a set of principles. Mr Vara, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, describes is as a consolidating Bill. That is why, although it covers exactly the same ground as Section 1 of the 2006 Act, this Bill does not purport to repeal that section. If this Bill becomes an Act, they are apparently to stand side by side on the statute book. The Bill may not add much but it does no harm. Until recently, that has been the Government’s case—it does not change the law.

However, quite suddenly, on the third day in Committee in the Commons, the Government changed tack. According to Mr Vara, the Bill does change the law. He gave this reason. Whereas, under the 2006 Act, the judges “may” take certain things into account, under this Bill, the judges “must” take those very same things into account. That applies to all three operative clauses of this Bill. Which is it to be? If this is a consolidating Bill, what is it that is being consolidated? Is it “may”, as under Section 1 of the 2006 Act, or is it “must”, as under this Bill? That is the question to which we are entitled to know the answer.

If it is “may”, the Bill is wholly unnecessary and all it does is add confusion. If it is “must”, the change is crucial. Will the judges be bound to have regard to these three clauses, even though, on the facts of the case before them, they are wholly irrelevant? How are they to comply with this duty which has been imposed on them? Are they to say, in every negligence case, “I have had regard to this Bill”, so that people realise that they are complying? That seems to be what the noble Lord is saying now. If so, this is yet another case—and a very bad example—of the Government telling the judges what to do and how to exercise their discretion. That is sufficient reason for regarding the Bill as wrong in principle and rejecting it.

There is a further reason for taking this view. In truth, the Bill is unamendable. That was the view taken by the Law Society, and it was right. The Bill is so defective in all three operative clauses that the only feasible amendment is to take each of the three clauses in turn and remove them from the Bill, one by one. That was the view taken by the Labour Opposition in the other place. They moved an amendment to remove Clause 3. They might just as well have tabled amendments to remove the other two clauses. That is what I shall seek to do in Committee if the Bill is given a Second Reading. If I succeed, we shall have an Act which, after it has been brought into force under Section 5, will consist of nothing but its Title. I wonder what legal historians will make of that.

I turn even more briefly to the second reason set out in my amendment. The Lord Chancellor has said over and over again that the purpose of this Bill is to send out signals—signals to the judges and signals to the public. I will say no more about sending out signals to the judges. What about signals to the public? If, as we are told, the intention is, for example, to increase the number of volunteers, or to reduce the number of spurious claims, surely the way to do that is for Ministers to appear on television and write to the papers. Are potential volunteers somehow supposed to become aware of the Bill and say to themselves, “Now it is all right; now I can volunteer; now I can sleep easily at night”? Nobody in their right mind could take that view of what would actually happen as a result of the Bill. If so, does it not follow that the Bill is a misuse by the Government of the legislative process? I say again—I and many others have said it many times—that the purpose of legislation is to make law that can be enforced in the courts. It is not to send out government messages, however well intentioned. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting, entertaining and helpful debate, in which a number of useful points have been raised. As I explained in my opening speech, our core aim in introducing the Bill is to provide reassurance to people who act in a socially beneficial way, behave in a generally responsible manner, or act selflessly to protect someone in danger that the courts will always take the context of their actions into account in the event that something goes wrong and they are sued.

The amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, seeks to prevent the Bill from receiving a Second Reading on the basis of two premises: first, that the subject matter of the Bill is already covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006; and, secondly, that the sole purpose of the Bill is not to make new law but to send a message to the courts, and that that is not a proper use of legislation. The Government do not accept that either premise is correct. As I explained, Clause 3 does change the law—albeit not in a major way—by requiring the courts to have regard to whether a person, in carrying out the activity in the course of which the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred, demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others.

In making that change, we want to ensure that the courts take a slightly broader view of the defendant’s conduct than at present by looking at whether a defendant’s approach to safety during an activity was generally a responsible one, taking into account all that he did or did not do. The court will be obliged to weigh that in the balance when considering the ultimate question of whether the defendant met the required standard of care. While that does not rewrite the law in detail, it is a substantive change. If it were to tip the balance in favour of the defendant in a particular case, then that is a result with which the Government would be happy.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 also require the court to take particular factors into account. While, as I have said, Clause 2 relates to broadly similar territory to that in Section 1 of the Compensation Act, the approach that it takes is different. It requires the court to have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members. The fact that the fear of litigation remains so widespread almost a decade after Section 1 was introduced only goes to suggest that it has been ineffective and that firmer action, such as this, needs to be taken.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that I had paid scant regard to the Compensation Act in my opening remarks. Let me attempt to make good that omission. In her introduction to the Compensation Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, said:

“The Bill will provide better safeguards for consumers of claims management services and will reassure those concerned about possible litigation that the law of negligence takes the social value of activities into account and that they will not be found liable if they adopt reasonable standards and procedures”.

After dealing with the regulation of claims management services, she went on to say:

“The Bill's provision on negligence reflects recent judgments of the higher courts. It makes clear that when considering a claim in negligence, in deciding what is required to meet the standard of care in particular circumstances, a court is able to consider the wider social value of … the context of which the injury or damage occurred. It provides that the court can have regard to whether requiring particular steps to be taken to meet the standard of care might prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken or might discourage people involved in providing the activity from doing so.

The Bill forms part of a wider programme of work which is being taken forward across government and, in partnership with stakeholders, to tackle perceptions that can lead to a disproportionate fear of litigation and risk averse behaviour, to find ways to discourage and resist bad claims and to improve the system for those with a valid claim for compensation”.—[Official Report, 3/11/05; cols. WS 29-30.]

At Second Reading, the noble Baroness said:

“This Bill is part of a much wider set of initiatives that is being taken forward across government. The Government are determined to tackle practices that stop normal activities taking place because people fear litigation, or have become risk-averse. We want to stop people from being encouraged to bring frivolous or speculative claims for compensation. The provisions in this Bill will help us do that. They will reassure people who are concerned about being sued that, if they adopt reasonable standards and procedures, they will not be found liable”.

Later, she said, referring to Clause 1, that:

“This provision reflects guidance given by the higher courts during a considerable period and renewed in recent cases. It will ensure that not only all courts but also litigants and potential litigants are fully aware of this, and will provide reassurance to the many people and organisations, such as those in the voluntary sector, who are concerned about possible litigation”.—[Official Report, 28/11/05; cols. 81-82.]

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, seemed to imply that the notion of a compensation culture was entirely in the imagination of this Government, but it appears to have featured quite heavily in the imagination of the previous Government.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

When I said that the noble Lord had paid scant regard to Section 1, I thought that I would be understood as saying that he did not attempt to say why Section 1 does not cover everything in this Bill. Indeed, what he has just read out makes it clear that it does cover everything in this Bill.

[Lord Faulks]

Indeed, but the noble and learned Lord is saying in his amendment that this Bill should not get a Second Reading because the matter is covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act. I am identifying what lay behind the legislation when it was brought in, what it attempted to do and why, if the noble and learned Lord will bear with me, it failed to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I tried hard to persuade the Labour Opposition to support this amendment. They attacked all three clauses in the other place. I assumed that they were against the Bill in principle so I thought they would support this amendment: it would have been the logical thing to do. However, I am afraid that the ways of political parties are beyond my understanding. Try as I might, I simply could not persuade them. I was told they would definitely be opposing the amendment. If that is their intention now, it would certainly not be my intention to divide the House. However, as I understand it—and I may be wrong—they have decided at the last moment to abstain. Are they opposing or abstaining?

[Lord Beecham]

Perhaps I might assist the noble and learned Lord. It has been our formal position, in the discussions we have had over the last few days, that we would not support the amendment but we would not vote against it. We will abstain.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

That makes it much more difficult. It puts me in a quandary. I believe there are very many Members on the Labour Benches who want to support this amendment, if they are allowed to do so. I believe there are Members on all sides who want to support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, wants to support this amendment. So what am I to do?

I will say that I wholly disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said in one aspect of his speech, which was that to oppose the Bill on Second Reading would create a fundamental conflict between this House and the other place. Did the Labour Party’s reasoned amendment in the Health and Social Care Bill create a fundamental disagreement between the two Houses? Did the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment in the fraud Bill create a fundamental conflict between the two Houses? Clearly not. Although the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was right in every other respect in regarding the Bill as a wretched Bill which should have no support in this House, I cannot agree with the reason he gave that we should not agree the amendment now.

I come back to where I was. I do not want to disappoint Members who are here to vote for this amendment. I feel on the whole that the points that have been made, very forcefully, against the substance of the Bill have probably been enough for my purpose. My guess is that at the end of Committee, on which we will waste more valuable time, we will find that there is nothing we can do with the Bill—which is what I think they suspected in the other place. That is because essentially this is an unamendable Bill. I do not think that there is quite enough support for actually rejecting the Bill at this stage to justify wasting the time of the House in dividing on the amendment. I respectfully beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister’s amendment has been called. I rise just to say that I certainly support the Government’s view, subject to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Anything that we can do to relieve the burden on the Parole Board is worth doing. I confirm, incidentally, that the Minister was quite right to say that this would not have been possible until the recent decision of the Supreme Court at the end of July. To that extent, I certainly support the Government.

I hope that I may be permitted to add one comment. We shall shortly be coming to Amendment 39 in my name, which would do far more to relieve the burden on the Parole Board than this proposal could ever do. Furthermore, it could be done without any cost at all, it could be done at once and it has been calculated that it would save the Government some £25 million a year. I hope that those who are interested in relieving the burden on the Parole Board will stay behind and take part on that amendment when it is called.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, we have had something of a trailer from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and I do not propose to respond in detail at this stage. For the sake of clarity, I might say that these amendments are about determinate sentence prisoners as opposed to indeterminate sentence prisoners, into which category IPP prisoners fall.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

39: Clause 10, page 11, line 2, after “(prisoners)” insert—
“(a) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Without prejudice to the powers of the Secretary of State to change the release test under this section, the Parole Board shall direct the release on licence of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences with a tariff of less than 2 years imposed before 2008 when the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was amended.”;”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, this amendment relates to a group of 650 prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for the protection of the public under Section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. They are part of a much larger group of over 5,000 prisoners serving indeterminate sentences under that section. However, this amendment does not affect the larger group.

As your Lordships know, the IPP sentence has now been abolished. Mr Blunkett, who introduced the sentence in 2003, has accepted that although the idea was sound the implementation was disastrous—for which, I believe, he has apologised, a rare thing in politics. The problems became apparent very early on. As a result, Section 225 was amended in 2008. The amendment affected in two ways the group of prisoners with whom I am particularly concerned. First, the indeterminate sentence ceased to be available for those with a tariff of less than two years. Secondly, whereas the court was bound to assume under the provisions of the Act that the defendant was dangerous before 2008, that assumption ceased to apply after 2008. It was for the judge thereafter to decide in each case whether or not to impose an indeterminate sentence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

I accept that there have been certain delays in providing all the courses that might have been provided. Indeed, that has been the subject of quite widespread litigation, when individual prisoners have received compensation. Sometimes the compensation has been a higher figure if the court has thought that it would have made a difference and sometimes a lower figure if the court has thought that it would have made no difference. However, the test remains the same, regardless of cases, as I said a little earlier. The Parole Board has of course had a number of pressures, as I described earlier, not least caused by the Osborn, Booth and Reilly case. As I also indicated, increased resources have been provided financially, and there is a general awareness in the Parole Board—an arm’s-length body but under the Ministry of Justice—of the need to provide hearings as soon as practicable. However, I have responded by pointing out the fact that all these prisoners have had their cases reviewed by the Parole Board, and we believe that the system is working satisfactorily.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I regret to say that I do not find the Minister’s reply satisfactory in any way, no more than it was on the previous occasion. I do not intend to deal with any of his arguments, save just to mention one. He criticised the amendment on the grounds that we would be bypassing the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, but that is the whole point of the amendment. The Lord Chancellor has declined to exercise that discretion, so it is up to us now to exercise it in place of him. That is the purpose of this amendment.

The amendment has been supported in the strongest possible terms—indeed, some of the strongest terms that I have ever heard in this House—by lawyers and non-lawyers alike. I particularly value the support of the non-lawyers. The official position of the Opposition is that they cannot support the amendment but they are not opposing it. I hope that a great number of those who are sitting on the Opposition Benches will support the amendment for the reasons that have been so clearly explained by others. Nevertheless, I must express my gratitude for the fact that the Official Opposition are not opposing it.

There is just one other thing that needs to be said. From the many letters that I and others have received, both from prisoners and from their families, I know that this debate is being followed by those who will be most affected by the result. They will carefully read what we have said. They are looking to us in this House to do something for them, and I hope that we will not let them down. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I add simply one point. Amendment 7 would enact what was the practice prior to 1997, except of course that the review prior to that date was conducted by the Secretary of State and not by the independent Parole Board.

I am concerned that there is one reason and one reason only why this Government, and indeed their predecessor, removed the right to a review after 25 years and refuse to reinstate it. The reason is that, as a matter of law, such a review could not lawfully be undertaken by a Minister. The Strasbourg court has repeatedly stated that an independent person must make decisions on release. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on this, but I anticipate that the Secretary of State would be quite content for there to be a review by her or by her successors after 25 years but what she cannot accept is a review by an independent Parole Board. However, as the Strasbourg court has repeatedly stated—and it is surely right—decisions on release should be made by an independent person or body and not by a politician, however wise or experienced she may be.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, for the reasons that have already been given, I support the amendment and I do so all the more willingly because it is very similar to an amendment which I tabled two years ago when we were debating the LASPO Bill. A very significant difference between the two amendments is that I thought that the review should take place after 30 years rather than 25 years. My reason was that 30 years is one of the starting points for determining tariffs under Schedule 21. A defendant with a 30-year starting point and no mitigating or aggravating features would look forward to a review after 30 years but not before. It would not particularly make sense that a whole life prisoner should have a right of review after 25 years when one with a 30-year starting point would have to wait for 30 years, but that is a small detail.

The debate on my amendment took place on 9 February 2012, at col. 390. There were 12 speakers on that occasion. All, except the noble Lord, Lord McNally, supported the amendment. The only reason which the noble Lord gave for not supporting the amendment was that the public was not yet ready for it and, for that reason, the other place would not accept it and there was no point in it passing through this House. During my reply, he said that it would be easier to reach unanimity if we could arrange a joint meeting of both Houses. That is exactly what has now happened in the sense that we have the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which includes Members from the House of Commons and the House of Lords. So far as I know, there was no dissentient voice from any Member of the Commons. Perhaps we may put that objection on one side.

Until 2003, there was no doubt that exceptional progress in prison qualified a lifer serving a whole life tariff for a review after 25 years. Somehow, that right was overlooked when the 2003 Act was being pushed through Parliament. There was no evidence that I know of that the right of review after 25 years was causing resentment or was in any way unpopular with the public. Certainly, those serving these sentences had done nothing that I know of to forfeit the right which they then had. For my part, I cannot believe that anyone in government made a conscious decision to remove this right. It seems almost inconceivable that they would have done, but there we are. All we seek to do in this amendment is to restore to these prisoners a right which they have lost, so far as I am concerned, for no apparent reason.

There are other equally strong arguments to support the amendment. Prisoners serving tariffs of 20 or 30 years are entitled to a review after they have completed their tariffs. It gives them light at the end of the tunnel and provides them with a reason for making progress if they can. In those cases, the review is justified both on practical grounds and on humanitarian grounds. Will the Minister say why those reasons precisely do not apply to those serving whole life sentences? One might think that it should apply all the more so. It cannot be that they are being deprived of this right for some symbolic reason, but if that is the case I would be very glad to hear about it.

I could understand if the Minister said, like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that this amendment would never be accepted at the other end of the corridor, but I would have no sympathy with him at all if he said that we should wait until the Supreme Court has decided the appeal in McLoughlin. The decision in Vinter is clear: a life prisoner is entitled to know at the start of his sentence what he has to do to qualify for a review after 25 years. It is equally clear that exceptional progress in prison would be a qualifying ground. But Section 30 of the 1997 Act provides that a prisoner can be released only on “compassionate grounds”. A prisoner who has earned his review by making exceptional progress is not being released on compassionate grounds in any ordinary sense of that term. Whatever the Supreme Court may say, we will need primary legislation to change the word “compassionate” or make clear what the word “compassionate” means. I would have thought that we would need a different word or an additional word. That will require primary legislation. I see no reason to wait until the Supreme Court has expressed a view. Indeed, if we had the primary legislation now, maybe there would be no need for a hearing at all. We should, in my view, grasp the nettle now. That is why I support the amendment.

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

My Lords, I add only this to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in answer to my noble friend Lord McNally’s response. Not only is the Joint Committee on Human Rights composed of Members of both Houses, but members of all parties agreed unanimously on this report. My reasons for supporting the amendment are threefold. First, it is a matter of simple humanity. Secondly, I agree again with my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that I do not believe the decision of the Court of Appeal in McLoughlin has put the current position in English law beyond doubt in the light of the clear decision of what is required by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Vinter. In any event, it is for Parliament to make the law clear on this issue. Thirdly, our obligation to honour our treaty commitments is an absolute one that must not be shirked.

My first point is the point of substance, independently of the convention: a whole life tariff without the prospect of review is incompatible with a humane approach or human rights-based approach to punishment. I remain firmly committed to the principle that one of the primary purposes of punishment is rehabilitation. This is embodied in statute law by Section 142 of the 2003 Act, which is the very Act on which whole life sentences are based. That provides, under the heading “Purposes of sentencing”, that:

“Any court dealing with an offender in respect of his offence must have regard to the following purposes of sentencing”,

the third of which is;

“the reform and rehabilitation of offenders”.

The imposition of a whole life order without any hope of release on rehabilitation grounds is incompatible with that statutory purpose of sentencing. It does not follow that a whole life tariff cannot be imposed by the sentencing court, but it does follow that, when sentencing, a judge should know and the offender should know that there is some prospect at least that in exceptional circumstances there will be a power to enable the offender’s release other than on purely compassionate grounds. Of course, it is understandable that in the case of the most heinous crimes the purpose of rehabilitation comes low down the list, but the absence of any possibility of review except on compassionate grounds, interpreted in the “Lifer Manual” as being, effectively, only in the case of terminal illness, removes hope completely in a way that is inhumane.

My second point is one that has been made: that the judgment of the Grand Chamber in Vinter was unequivocal. The court was absolutely clear that the effect of such an order is that a prisoner cannot be released other than at the discretion of the Secretary of State. I urge on the House the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the Secretary of State should not be the decider. There should be an independent body. That release would occur only on compassionate grounds under our statute. The court therefore held that a whole life order of imprisonment violated Article 3, which prohibits inhumane and degrading treatment and torture.

The United Kingdom judge, Judge Mahoney, emphasised that states were free to choose the means whereby they fulfil their obligation to “abide by” the Grand Chamber’s judgment in relation to Article 3. The Court of Appeal’s decision in McLoughlin leaves the position unclear, because the Court of Appeal appears to have held that the existing law permits release on other than compassionate grounds, contrary to the statute and to the finding of the European Court of Human Rights in Vinter. Whatever the Supreme Court may or may not do with McLoughlin, it is, I suggest, now for us in Parliament to make it clear what the law is in this crucial area and to do so in a way that unequivocally honours our treaty commitments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

17: Clause 9, page 10, line 12, after “prisoners),” insert—
“(a) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Without prejudice to the powers of the Secretary of State under this section, the Parole Board must direct the release on licence of IPP prisoners with a minimum tariff of less than two years.”,”

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, this amendment concerns prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for the protection of the public under Section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The section was repealed in 2012, but there is a backlog of some 5,200 prisoners still serving sentences under it, of whom 3,600 have passed their tariff. At the present rate of release, which is running at about 400 a year, it will be nine years before those 3,600 will be out of prison.

This amendment concerns a particular group of prisoners who were given short or very short tariffs between 2005 and 2007, before the 2003 Act was amended. There are 773 of them. There is also a smaller group who were given tariffs of less than two years after the Act was amended in 2007 and are serving their sentences under different provisions, but this amendment is not intended to affect them. There are good reasons for distinguishing between these two groups: first, the 773 to whom I have referred have been in prison much longer; secondly, we know more about them; and thirdly, and most importantly, they were sentenced before the Act was amended, when judges had no real discretion as to the sentence. They were bound to assume dangerousness if certain conditions were fulfilled and were bound then to impose an indeterminate sentence. The word was “must” and not “may”.

I have a breakdown of how long the 773 have already been prison. It is dated March 2013, and they have of course spent a further 15 months in prison since then. On that basis, 275 of them are now more than six years over tariff, 291 are more than five years over tariff and 198 are more than four years over tariff. I remind noble Lords that these are all prisoners who were given tariffs of under two years, some as little as nine months or even less. I will give your Lordships examples of the sorts of offences that these prisoners committed. In April 2005, Mr Lee was given a tariff of nine months for criminal damage to the flat in which his former wife and children were living. In November 2005, Mr Wells was given 12 months for attempted robbery of a taxi driver. In November 2005, Mr James was given a tariff of two years for unlawful wounding with intent. As it happens, all those three prisoners have since had a successful appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, and I mention them only as examples of the sorts of offences—run-of-the-mill offences, your Lordships may think—which these short-tariff prisoners committed.

I turn to Section 128 of LASPO, which is referred to in Clause 9(3). When Parliament repealed Section 225, it was well aware of the backlog to which I have already referred, so it provided the Lord Chancellor with a power to alter the release test for those prisoners. It need no longer be the same as the release test for life sentence prisoners, nor need it depend in any way on an assessment of risk. It must be obvious, therefore, that Parliament gave the Lord Chancellor those powers in order to speed up the release of those prisoners and so reduce the backlog. It could have been given for no other purpose. But the Lord Chancellor—unfortunately, in my view—has declined to exercise that power.

The reason he gave in February 2013 was that it would not be right to interfere with the decisions of judges, who would have taken risk issues into account. But that reason has no validity at all in relation to the group of 773, since, for the reasons I have mentioned, their sentences were imposed when judges were obliged to assume dangerousness. In any event, when it enacted Section 128 of LASPO, Parliament must have intended the Lord Chancellor to interfere with the sentences imposed by judges; otherwise, what purpose did Section 128 serve?

The second reason given by the Lord Chancellor is that it would be irresponsible, indeed inconceivable, for him to release prisoners whom the Parole Board has assessed as continuing to pose risks. But again, that was surely the whole point of giving him the power to alter the release test. Is it to be said, therefore, that Parliament was being irresponsible in giving the Lord Chancellor that power?

Finally, there is the reason given by the Minister in his letter of 30 April. He said that Parliament did not instruct the Lord Chancellor to change the release test; it gave him discretion to do so. Of course that is true but it is well settled that, where a discretion is given by Parliament, it must be exercised so as to promote and not frustrate the purpose for which it was given; that is a principle that I know my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood will develop further. The Minister gave as the reason for not changing the release test that it would not reduce the risk to the public. Of course it would not reduce the risk to the public but that was not the purpose for which the power was given. The purpose, I say again, was to speed up the release of those prisoners, not to reduce the risk.

I suggest that the Lord Chancellor must give better reasons than these for not exercising the power that he has been given. If the real reason is that the release of those prisoners would not go down well with the public, he should give that as the reason openly and then it can be tested, if necessary in court. It would have been far better if the Lord Chancellor had exercised the power he has been given but he has not. The purpose of this amendment is simply to give the Lord Chancellor a gentle push in the right direction.

Of course, I accept that some of those with tariffs of less than two years will be more serious cases than others, but there is one thing that they all have in common. We know for certain the sentence that they would have been given if the IPP sentence, now abolished, had never been invented: they would have been given determinate sentences equal to twice the length of their tariffs. We know that, because that is how the judges fix the tariff in the first place; that is, at half the appropriate determinate sentence. Indeed, one way of dealing with the backlog would be, in the case of short and medium-tariff prisoners, simply to substitute determinate sentences of twice the length of their tariff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

I am not aware of the question of lie detectors and whether or not they are used. I will write to the noble Lord when I have some information about it.

Measures have been taken to ensure that programmes can be delivered more flexibly, supporting greater access and inclusion, including offenders with complex needs, as I was indicating. I was asked about the case of James, Wells and Lee. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out that the decision was that the retention of those prisoners was contrary to Article 5.1 and was therefore an arbitrary detention. I dare say that he will know, from having studied the decision, that the European Court of Human Rights did not hold that the sentence itself was unlawful. It was the unavailability of courses that was considered to be a breach of Article 5.1. I am sure the noble Lord would accept that it is simplistic to suppose that attendance at a course would automatically result in someone being appropriate for release. Clearly, it is carefully managed to ensure that so far as is possible those courses are reached. Those who attend the courses will not necessarily be eligible for or suitable for release. Equally, some who do not will be. However, I accept it is a matter of considerable assistance.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, the construction of a statutory duty is a matter of the purpose as construed on examination of the relevant statute. In response to a debate about this section, the Lord Chancellor’s predecessor, Kenneth Clarke, said that he would look at progress after the LASPO changes had taken effect. I mentioned earlier that the rate had increased. The position is—I am afraid this is more or less the same answer that I gave in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—that there are no current plans to review the release test for prisoners serving IPP sentences whose minimum term has expired, although we continue to use a range of measures to improve their progression and reduce the risk that they pose. The Government’s position is that it is right that IPP prisoners continue to serve their sentence until they are assessed as safe to be released into the community by the Parole Board. The Government were left with this rather crude device by the previous Government. They repealed it, but none the less they have to be extremely mindful of what lay behind the introduction of this provision; namely, the protection of the public. I accept that there is great concern that those who would have received a lower tariff sentence might seem on the face of it to be languishing in prison for far too long. However, there are factors which I have attempted to draw to the Committee’s attention which do not, in the view of the Lord Chancellor and the Government, warrant a change of approach to that discretion.

Of course, it is a matter of anxiety. While others are attending the opera, I am—as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would have it—having sleepless nights. However, the duty of the Government remains to protect the public, notwithstanding the persuasive arguments that have been put forward by noble Lords. I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Will the Minister explain why releasing these people now would present any greater risk than that they would have presented if they had been given determinate sentences back in 2005?

[Lord Faulks]

They did not receive determinate sentences. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, it is a hypothetical question because the sentence they received was not a determinate sentence; it was a sentence for the protection of the public. It is therefore the Government’s case that they have to proceed with caution using the processes which exist via the Parole Board to ensure that, before somebody in that position is released, the public are safe so far as reasonable precautions can be taken.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

First, I must thank those who have supported this amendment so effectively, as it seems to me, and say a particular word of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. How good and refreshing it is to hear from a layman, especially one who is able to speak with a certain passion, which we lawyers try to keep in control. It was a very effective contribution.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, we have just listened to two very powerful speeches, which have covered the whole scope of the Bill. For my part, I shall concentrate only on Part 1, in which there is much to criticise in detail when we come to Committee. Taken as a whole, I find Part 1 profoundly depressing. We have 28 new clauses full of new offences and increased penalties at a time when, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, demonstrated, and as we all agree, crime is actually falling and the prisons are full.

When I became a judge, not so very long ago, there was a prison population of 35,000. It is now 85,350. How can such an increase be explained, let alone justified? Mr Grayling says that there is no crisis because he has 1,000 spare prison places. However, the story from individual prisons is very different: Wandsworth is currently operating at 169% of capacity while Durham, which was built for just under 600 prisoners, currently accommodates 940. Mr Grayling says that there has been an unexpected increase in the demand for places and has suggested that one reason might be the number of recent convictions for historic sex offences. I would like to suggest a much more likely reason. Home Secretaries, as we have seen, have an itch for taking a hand in sentencing—and now, to Home Secretaries of the past, we have to add the Lord Chancellor.

I will give an example of what I know from my own experience. In the old days, the tariff in murder cases was fixed, or I should say recommended, by the trial judge, and the Lord Chief Justice would add his comments. Sometimes, the Home Secretary would accept the judicial recommendation, but in most cases he did not, for no very good reason that I could see. Then came the case of Anderson in the House of Lords, in which it was held that sentencing was the province of judges and not the Home Secretary, who must therefore play no part in fixing the tariff.

Mr Blunkett, who was then Home Secretary, had a riposte: Schedule 21 to the 2003 Act. Under that schedule, an elaborate framework has been created within which judges are now required to operate. There are four different starting points, and lists of aggravating and mitigating factors which sometimes, as we have seen recently, conflict. I have never understood the reason for Schedule 21. But I have no doubt at all as to its effect. It has increased the tariff in murder cases from 13 years, as it was, to 17.5 years, as it is now. We now have more persons serving life sentences than in the rest of Europe put together—about which I hope we will be hearing later from my noble friend Lady Stern.

However, none of this seems to worry Mr Grayling—like Gallio, he cares for none of these things. As he said recently, he makes no apology for the fact that, under this Government, there are more people going to prison than ever before, and for longer sentences. How very different he is in that respect from his predecessor, Kenneth Clarke. It was one of Kenneth Clarke’s objectives as Lord Chancellor to reduce the prison population. One of the ways he set about doing that was to repeal Section 225 of the 2003 Act. That was the section that enabled—and in many cases required—judges to pass indeterminate sentences for the protection of the public instead of determinate sentences. That was another new idea of Mr Blunkett and I would like to say a little more about it.

The original idea was that it would apply to a small group of serious offenders—perhaps a few hundred a year at most—for whom an ordinary determinate sentence would not provide sufficient safety for the public. That was how it was described by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, when she introduced the Bill into this House. However, the result was very different. Far more prisoners were given indeterminate sentences than was ever anticipated, many with tariffs of as little as two years or less—some as little as six months.

The Government were completely unprepared. Very few such prisoners were being released as they could not get before the Parole Board and, in the test case of James and others, the European Court of Human Rights held that in these circumstances their detention was arbitrary and therefore unlawful. In 2007, Section 225 was amended so as to stem the flow of new inmates, but it was too little and too late. By 2012 there was no alternative but to repeal Section 225 altogether. Kenneth Clarke described it as having been a stain on the system, and so it was.

However, in the mean time, a huge backlog had built up. Currently there are 5,500 prisoners serving IPP sentences of a kind that could not now be lawfully imposed. Of these, 3,500 have already passed their tariff with little hope of early release. The present rate of release is running at about 400 a year. At that rate it will be nine years before the backlog is cleared. That is the position in general, but I am particularly concerned about a group of 773 prisoners who were given tariffs of two years or less in 2007 before Section 225 was amended. If they had been sentenced in 2008 instead of 2007, they could not have been given IPP sentences, so they would by now be out of prison: indeed, they would have been out of prison long ago. Yet they are still in prison.

Some 275 of them are five years or more over tariff; some as long as eight years over tariff, including 37 where the tariff was less than six months. Can nothing be done for these people to speed up their release? The answer the Minister should give is, “Yes, something can be done”. When Parliament repealed Section 225 in 2012, it was well aware of the backlog that had been created and of the need to so something about it. So Kenneth Clarke introduced a new clause giving the Lord Chancellor the power to alter the release test in the case of IPP prisoners. It need no longer be the same for other lifers, as it had been and as indeed it still is; nor need it even depend on an assessment of risk.

This new power is contained in Section 128 of the 2012 Act. It is obvious that it was included in the Act for one purpose only: to speed up the release. I have no reason to doubt that if Kenneth Clarke were still Lord Chancellor, he would have exercised the power contained in that provision. He had already described the existing state of affairs as unfair and unjust, for the very reasons that I have mentioned.

Some time—very soon—after Mr Grayling became Lord Chancellor, I asked him whether he intended to exercise the powers that he had been given by Parliament to deal with the backlog. He said that he had no such intention. The only reason he has ever given is that it would not be right or appropriate to interfere with the sentences lawfully imposed by the judges. However, in the case of the 773 prisoners given sentences of two years or less, that reason will not hold. In their case, the judges had no discretion one way or the other; they were bound to assume dangerousness until Section 225 was amended in 2007.

Mr Grayling must surely find some better reason for not exercising the power he has been given in relation to those prisoners. Nobody is suggesting that he should release prisoners who are “dangerous” in the ordinary sense of the word, but he should find some way of dealing with those with tariffs of two years or less under the powers which he has been given for that very purpose. With tariffs as short as that, they cannot have been among the most serious offenders.

In the case of 37 prisoners with tariffs of six months or less, we now know that 24 of them have a low risk of reoffending—yet they are still in prison. The matter cannot be put better than it was in a leader in the Times on 25 March. It made this point:

“The scandal Mr Grayling should address is that a process set in law”,

should be “followed in life”. I hope that Mr Grayling will do just that—not just, as the Times said, to save some £40,000 a year for every prisoner released or to reduce overcrowding but to restore to these prisoners some sense that they are being fairly and justly treated, not only with regard to their victims but as between themselves. It would thus remove what Kenneth Clarke rightly described as a stain in the system that still remains.

Prisoners: Indeterminate Sentences

Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, I do not intend to go into the background of the IPP sentence, which was so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to whom we are all grateful for initiating this debate, but propose to concentrate instead on a particular group of prisoners who were given a tariff of less than two years before Section 225 of the 2003 Act was amended in 2007, of whom there are 773.

I start by giving the House a breakdown of that figure. These figures were given to me by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in a letter he wrote to me on 24 August 2013. I suggest that they ought to be on the record. Thirty-seven offenders were given tariffs of six months or less. Of these, 11 are now more than four years over tariff. The remaining 26 of that group are five years over tariff—in other words, 10 times the tariff they were originally given. One hundred and eight were given tariffs of six to 12 months. Of these, 46 are four years over tariff and 59 are five years over tariff. Two hundred and eighty were given tariffs of between 12 and 18 months; 110 are four years over tariff and 98 are five years over tariff. Three hundred and forty-eight were given tariffs of between 18 and 24 months. Of these, 124 are four years over tariff and 92 are five years over tariff. I suggest that these figures speak for themselves—something very serious has gone wrong.

There are two reasons why there are so many IPP prisoners with short or very short tariffs. In the first place, there was no minimum tariff, as there should have been. That was a grievous mistake. Secondly, until 2008, the sentence was, in effect, compulsory. Provided certain conditions were fulfilled, the judge had no discretion. Therefore, an offender who would in the normal way have been given between two and four years for a robbery, burglary or simple arson, was given an IPP sentence not because he was particularly dangerous but because, until 2008, the sentence was mandatory, as I say.

When Section 225 was repealed by the LASPO Act in 2012, very few IPP prisoners had been released, partly, of course, because courses were not available for them but also because the release test which the Parole Board had to apply was exactly the same for them as for those serving life sentences for much more serious crimes. Therefore, it is not surprising that a large backlog of these short and very short tariff prisoners had built up. Parliament was well aware of this backlog, and of the reason for it. It was clear that something had to be done. By Section 128 of LASPO, Parliament provided the solution. It gave the Secretary of State the power to modify the existing release test, with a view, obviously, to speeding up the rate of release. Section 128 paved the way for the Secretary of State to take action. He could require the Parole Board to direct release if it was satisfied that certain conditions existed. It was, or would have been, as simple as that. There is nothing in Section 128, whether expressly or by implication, that requires the new release test to be based on an assessment of risk.

The first question is: should the Secretary of State exercise the power he has been given by Parliament? The second question is: if so, what should the new test be? As to the first question, the answer is very clear. Of course he should exercise the power he has been given. There are many reasons why he should do so, but the most convincing to me is the one given by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. If these 773 prisoners, with whom alone I am concerned, had committed exactly the same offences but after 2008, instead of before, they could not have been given an IPP sentence; they could have been given only a determinate sentence. We know what that determinate sentence would have been—namely, twice the tariff they were given. They would all have been out by 2010 at the latest. Instead, they are all still in prison.

Prisoners, like everyone else, have a strong sense of just desserts. I know of no sentence that has created such a strong sense of injustice as the IPP sentence. I know that because of the many letters that I and others have received from prisoners and their families, and from a recent meeting that I had with their families, some of whom expressed the views that I have just tried to describe.

What reason, then, has the Secretary of State given for not exercising this power? Only that it would not be appropriate to alter sentences lawfully imposed by the court. The short answer to that is that if Parliament had not thought it appropriate, it would not have enacted Section 128.

I come to the second question. What should the new release test be? I wrote to the Secretary of State on 13 March, inviting him to consider converting the sentence of these 773 prisoners into determinate sentences equal to twice their tariffs. This would be fair because they would be the sentences that we know the prisoners would have received if the IPP sentence had not been available when they were sentenced. In his reply on 19 March, the Secretary of State said:

“It would be inconceivable and indeed irresponsible for the Government to release individuals that the independent Parole Board … assess as continuing to pose risks”.

What this seems to overlook is that these very same people, if sentenced after 2008 for exactly the same offences, would necessarily have been given a determinate sentence and would have posed exactly the same risk when released before 2010 as they would have done if released today.

Finally, I suggest that so far from it being irresponsible for the Secretary of State to exercise the power he has been given, it would be irresponsible of him not to do so. Indeed, it is his duty to do so in the interests of justice, for all the reasons I have given. In doing so, he would be righting a grievous wrong that these 773 prisoners have suffered—a wrong for which the Government ought to take responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for securing this debate. The issue of how to manage those prisoners who are still serving indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection is important and one that has generated considerable interest, not least in this House.

Indeed, our IPP prisoners could hardly have more effective advocates than the noble and learned Lords who have spoken this evening. Nor has their interest and concern been recent; it has been sustained and tenacious. At a recent meeting convened by the Bingham Centre, where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, spoke, those issues were thoroughly discussed. Although I was unable to attend myself because of parliamentary duties, he was good enough to send me a copy of his remarks there, so the Government do not pretend to be unaware of the full range of anxiety that has been expressed about the issue.

Much has been said about the history of IPP sentences. Briefly, to remind the House, the IPP sentence was first brought into effect in 2005, by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, to target those offenders likely to pose a risk of serious harm to the public. Imposition of the sentence was mandatory in certain circumstances. More IPP sentences were imposed than were originally anticipated—that is something of an understatement. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that there were problems with introduction. That, too, is something of an understatement. I understood him to be rather unrepentant about the sentence as a whole, but be that as it may. It was not until the reforms introduced by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 that a minimum tariff of two years was imposed, barring exceptional circumstances. Further, the mandatory requirement for imposition of the sentence in certain circumstances was removed—a “may” for a “must”. On 3 December 2012, the sentence was abolished by the LASPO Act. However, abolition was not made retrospective, so those prisoners already serving IPP sentences continue to do so until the independent Parole Board finds their assessed risks to have been reduced enough to be manageable in the community.

Although this Government have abolished the IPP sentence, it would not be right or appropriate in our view retrospectively to alter sentences that had been lawfully imposed prior to their abolition. When the LASPO Bill was being debated, a number of amendments were proposed in this House that would have changed retrospectively the sentences imposed by courts. However, none of those resulted in a change to the legislation to the effect to which some arguments have been directed this evening. That is usual—it is generally the case that when changes are made to the sentencing framework, they do not impact on current prisoners, and changes will not be made to sentences that were lawfully passed at the time they were imposed. One reason for that is because a court will have had regard to the range of sentences then available when imposing a sentence, so it will not necessarily be clear what sentence would have been imposed under a different statutory regime. Indeed, it would be quite wrong to assume in any individual case what sentence a court would have imposed under such a different regime.

On IPPs, at the higher end there will be IPP sentences that have been imposed where a life sentence might otherwise be available. At the lower end, given that the courts had found risk, it is not clear whether an extended sentence or a standard determinate sentence would have been imposed. Versions of the extended sentence are available under more than one recent statutory framework, but other considerations then arise: would the various thresholds for these sentences have been reached under different statutory frameworks? What would the length of the extended licence have been?

I hope I have said enough to demonstrate the complexity of trying to translate sentences imposed under one regime to another. In this case, the courts were specifically enjoined by the law to give priority to the consideration of risk. It would make it a particularly sensitive exercise retrospectively to change these sentences, which is what the conversion process would involve.

The Government also do not believe that it would be responsible or sensible, given the high risk levels presented by many of the IPP prisoners who remain in prison post-tariff. We do well to remember that many offenders who received IPP sentences, including those who remain in custody today post-tariff expiry, did so for serious crimes—notwithstanding the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—including attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and sexual assault of children. Any move to release those prisoners without due consideration of the risk they pose to the public would be wrong.

I know that many noble Lords have particular concerns about those offenders with short tariffs of less than two years imposed before the 2008 Act abolished such short tariffs except where there was serious previous offending. However, internal management information suggests that the clear majority of IPP offenders currently remaining in custody with tariffs of less than two years are there because they are assessed as posing a high, or very high, risk of serious harm to the public. This means that a serious offence could take place at any time. It would not be safe or appropriate to release these offenders on licence without due consideration of the risk which they present at the current time.

No one would claim that there have not been significant problems with IPP sentences. That is why we abolished the sentence and replaced it with the extended determinate sentence. There were practical issues arising from the number of IPP sentences with short tariffs that were imposed. The sentence did not command public confidence and led to apparent inconsistencies of sentencing. It meant that victims, the public, and offenders and their families were unclear about when an offender might be released.

However, we also have a clear duty to the public not to release IPP prisoners who continue to pose an unacceptable risk. It was never the intention of the sentence that offenders past their tariff should all be released, but only those who can be effectively managed in the community. It is for the independent Parole Board to determine whether an IPP prisoner has reduced their risk sufficiently to achieve release. The board does not, of course, take these decisions lightly: it examines reports from prison and probation and from psychologists where appropriate—and of course the prison governor provides information in the dossier—and decides whether the risk to the public remains too high to release an offender. All IPP offenders who have completed their tariff have the right to attend the regular parole review oral hearings, where release is considered. The Government consider that this is the best system for balancing the rights of the offender with our duty to protect the public.

I want to mention the NOMS work to improve the position of IPP prisoners, because this is clearly an important consideration. No prisoner should be left without opportunities to demonstrate to the Parole Board that their risk has reduced. I would also like to speak about the important work that has been undertaken to improve the prospects of progression for those IPP offenders who choose to engage with the opportunities presented to them. Examples of this work include: the streamlining of assessment, targeting and management processes, to ensure that IPP prisoners’ risks and objectives are identified as early as possible; reducing waiting times for transferring IPP offenders to open prisons, from over eight months to an average of two months; the refining of our commissioning strategies to maximise resources and focus investment on those interventions proven to be effective; and publication of guidance for those managing the sentences of IPP prisoners to ensure that the focus of sentence planning is on reducing risk in a planned and sequenced manner, and not solely on completing specific offending behaviour programmes.

The indeterminate sentence prisoners co-ordination group was established in 2010 to oversee the strategic management of all offenders serving indeterminate sentences, including both those serving IPP and life sentences. The group is led at director level within NOMS, with membership from senior representatives across NOMS. The group’s work has a particular focus on improving, wherever possible, the progression of these offenders through custody and then, should the Parole Board so direct, into the community. It achieves this by developing and promoting the most effective means of managing those serving indeterminate sentences and ensuring that resources are directed appropriately. This includes informing the development and co-ordination of strategies relating to offender assessment, sentence planning and delivery, access to interventions, parole processes, prison capacity issues and offender management in the community following release. I could give a number of examples of work that the group has delivered, but time does not permit me to do so.

As to interventions, it is a common misconception that IPP offenders must complete offending behaviour programmes in order to achieve release. Equally, it is a misconception that the completion of courses is a sufficient condition to secure release. Neither of these is the case. The Parole Board is under a general obligation to consider the offender’s risk level, which can be demonstrated in a variety of ways. In so doing, the board will take an holistic view and consider all available evidence. The completion of a number of courses is just one of a range of factors that the Parole Board will take into account.

In 2011, the Ministry of Justice carried out a research study into Parole Board decision-making in IPP cases. A summary of that research was published in 2012 and can be found on the Government’s website. There are points arising from that research that it is important to make. It suggests that programmes are far from the only relevant factor in release decisions. Release is to some extent related to the completion of programmes, but this is not a simple relationship. The research shows that the parole process is targeted on the individual and that only programmes specified to the individual’s needs, successfully completed and showing some impact on the prisoner, are likely to be taken as evidence of sentence progression. A number of other factors were important. The Parole Board members interviewed for this study thought that indeterminately sentenced prisoners benefit greatly from spending time in an open prison, for example.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I can see that the Minister’s time is nearly up. I wonder whether he could deal with one or two of the arguments which have actually been advanced in the House this afternoon, in particular regarding Section 128. What did Parliament have in mind when that power was conferred on the Secretary of State?

[Lord Faulks]

It is of course a matter of statutory instruction what it had in mind. The Secretary of State is aware of the obligation placed on him to consider the matter. The noble and learned Lord has recently been in correspondence with the Secretary of State and I have endeavoured to give the Secretary of State’s reasons for the position that he has so far adopted in that respect. The question is whether the Secretary of State should exercise that power in the way that the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords think appropriate and, if not, what steps are being taken to ensure that IPP prisoners are having the opportunity to obtain release via hearings from the Parole Board. On that and other matters, I will write to noble Lords because I have not sufficient time to deal with all the questions raised.

Reference was made to the European Court of Human Rights and the case of James, Wells and Lee and others. That is a decision which is not without difficulty and which has been considered by the Supreme Court in a number of contexts. I should declare an interest as an advocate in one of those cases. The decision by the European Court of Human Rights was indeed that there was an arbitrary detention because of the lack of provision of courses, and therefore a violation of Article 5(1), but it did not decide that the sentence was per se unlawful. There are of course further cases going through the courts and sometimes the facts do not quite fit the allegations. However, the Government are well aware of the consequences of that.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, as ever made some useful observations about offender management. We do not deny that offender management problems exist in custody and we accept the recommendations of the latest inspectorate report on the improvements that need to be made. Some improvements have been made but more needs to be done, including a full review of offender management in custody which will commence next year. As the noble Lord and other noble Lords will know, an inquiry has been set up into deaths in custody. That was announced recently in answer to a Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, himself. I hope that that matter will inform decision-making in that respect.

Finally, regarding the Parole Board, there is liaison with it as a result of the Osborn decision. Increased resources have been made available to the Parole Board and there is regular communication between it and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that its resources are appropriately deployed to increase the possibility of hearings taking place.

The sentence itself was clearly ill conceived and its impact was wholly underestimated. The Government recognised that by abolishing it in the Act. The Secretary of State has not considered it so far appropriate to exercise the power given to him by the LASPO Act, on which there have been a number of arguments. However, the Government are extremely aware of the importance of IPP-sentenced prisoners having the opportunity for their release to be considered and to have the opportunity of proving whether they are no longer a danger. That is a matter of which the Government are painfully aware.

All the observations made by noble Lords this evening in this valuable and helpful debate will be taken back to the Secretary of State and if there are any matters that I have not fully dealt with in the course of it, I will endeavour to deal with them in writing.

Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill [HL]

Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I have put down an amendment to the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill that will amend the way in which the level of the statutory legacy is set. As noble Lords will know, the statutory legacy, referred to in the Bill as the fixed net sum, is the sum awarded to a surviving spouse for his or her future maintenance before any other part of an intestate deceased’s estate is shared with any other beneficiary. It is therefore important that it takes account of the prevailing economic conditions.

The Bill as introduced required the Lord Chancellor to make an order specifying the level of the statutory legacy at least every five years. The proposed government amendment would sit alongside the existing requirement but would oblige the Lord Chancellor to make an order short of the five-year deadline if the level of the consumer prices index, known as the CPI, rises by more than 15%. The purpose of this would be to allow for the statutory legacy to be updated more frequently in times of high inflation so that it more accurately reflects the cost of living.

The CPI, which is published monthly by the Statistics Board, will be judged to have risen by the requisite amount if a particular month’s figure is more than 15% higher than the CPI for the month when the Bill comes into force in the first instance, and then the month when the most recent order specifying the level of the statutory legacy was made. It should be noted that although the default position would be that the order would raise the statutory legacy so that it is in line with the rise in CPI, the Lord Chancellor will still be able to amend the level of the legacy in some other way. However, if he chooses to do this, he must first submit a report to Parliament setting out his reasoning for doing so. If an order is made because the CPI has risen by the necessary amount, this will signal the start of another five-year period within which another order must be made.

This amendment has a very similar effect to the one that was put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, during a meeting of the Special Public Bill Committee. Since taking up my ministerial post, I have considered that amendment and recognise the merit in providing for more frequent updates to the statutory legacy should this be required. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his original suggestion. In those circumstances, I ask noble Lords to look favourably on this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, in his very helpful letter of 30 January 2014, the Minister referred to the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, at a meeting of the Special Public Bill Committee on 16 December. He indicated that the present amendment is to the same effect.

These things go out of one’s mind so quickly that I have had to refresh my mind as to what took place at the two meetings that we have had. At our previous meeting on 13 November, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked why the fixed net sum should be reviewed only every five years and not annually. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, strongly supported that suggestion. Professor Cooke said that she would look into why the Law Commission had come up with the figure of five years in the first place. In her letter of 28 November, she explained the Law Commission’s reasons: on the evidence that it had received, five years was a compromise figure.

By the time of our next meeting on 16 December, the noble Viscount had drafted his amendment, but it contained two, quite separate features. It contained, first, the requirement of an annual review such as we had discussed at our first meeting, but it also contained the new feature of a compulsory order if the consumer prices index should increase by more than 15%.

There was support for an annual increase from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, but doubts were expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I took the same view as the Law Commission; in other words, that an annual review was too frequent, certainly if it led to an annual revision of the fixed net sum. There was very little, if any, discussion of what is now before your Lordships; that is, the proposal for a compulsory review if the index rose by more than 15%—I think that a passing reference to it was made by the noble Lord, Lord Plant.

In due course, the noble Viscount sought leave to withdraw his amendment, but said that he would come back on Report. It is now proposed by the Government that we should accept the second half of the noble Viscount’s amendment but not the first—I think that I understand the Minister right in saying that. There is to be a compulsory review if the consumer prices index is increased by 15%, but there is to be no annual review.

My only concern is that this new amendment now before your Lordships, confined as it is to the compulsory feature, was not considered in any way by Professor Cooke—at least not to my knowledge. However, it seems a sensible amendment, and I cannot imagine the Law Commission, had it been asked for its views, having any objection. It makes sure that the Lord Chancellor will in only limited circumstances be, as it were, brought up to the mark, even though he will then—again, if I understand the noble Lord correctly—have discretion as to the amount. In my view, this represents an improvement to the Bill and I therefore support the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will not be the only person in the Chamber this evening who remembers when mortgage interest rates were 15%, and very painful they were too. I have one question for the Minister, relating to the term “available” in proposed new paragraph 3A(1)(a). When does the figure become “available” within the meaning of the provision? Does it mean published or “available” to the public? The figure must be available to others privately before it is published. I do not know whether it means published in the sense that the consumer prices index uses the word “published”, but we need to be clear about how one identifies when a figure becomes available.