Crown Court Criminal Case Backlog
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts(5 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging and impressive debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for securing it and for the comprehensive and persuasive way in which he opened it. I also join with everyone in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, on her excellent and moving maiden speech. Her long experience with the charity 4Children and as Children’s Commissioner will be invaluable, and she has shown today how she will give us a fuller insight into how the criminal justice system impacts on the lives of children and young people.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rightly concentrates on the impact of delays on evidence, victims and the fairness of proceedings for defendants. Last Tuesday, following the Lord Chancellor’s Statement to the House of Commons, I described the current backlog of 73,000 cases awaiting trial as “an utter disgrace”. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, have given us some more of the figures.
I maintain that the Government could mitigate these delays with determined and urgent action to reduce them. Every lawyer who has worked in trials, civil and criminal, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, well knows that evidence becomes less accurate with the passage of time. The accounts of honest witnesses often differ markedly, even when events are recent and reasonably fresh. Discerning the truth becomes much more difficult as time passes. Recollections fade, witnesses become unavailable, and details are forgotten—often, details which could help distinguish accuracy from falsehood, whether deliberate or unintended. Then, documents get lost, or their meaning and import are not recalled.
Unreliable evidence means unreliable trials, often leading to surprising acquittals where juries cannot be sure of guilt. There is also a risk of unsafe convictions, particularly where defence evidence cannot be found or witnesses traced and called. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, pointed out, the problems are compounded by our having a demoralised, frustrated and often overstressed judiciary, and, as my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, said, an underpaid and unhappy cadre of barristers.
The Motion speaks of the effect on victims. In that context, we rightly stress the effect of years of delay on victims of sexual violence, with many dropping out of prosecutions because they simply cannot take the strain, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London described. That is desperately unjust for the victims, who feel they have no option but to let the perpetrators go free and to live with the guilt that goes with the fear that those same perpetrators will reoffend against other victims. So, perpetrators are not brought to justice, and that means a widespread lack of public confidence in the justice system as a whole.
The Minister mentioned last week that there were courts—he mentioned Bristol—where sexual violence cases were treated separately and brought on faster than other cases. Should not that be a general practice? But it is not just in sexual violence cases where victims suffer from these delays; court delays blight the entire system.
Then, the Motion speaks of unfairness to defendants. Innocent defendants are deprived, sometimes for years, of the chance to clear their names. They and their families suffer unjustly through the process, often ostracised by friends, losing employment and suffering intolerable strain for extended periods. Defendants who are guilty can lose the chance of early access to rehabilitative services, sometimes in ways that might be surprising.
Many defendants, as we all know, need help with mental health issues, but they can be cut off from treatment. My daughter, an NHS doctor, has referred me to the exclusion criteria of one NHS trust for access to talking therapies. Such therapies are not available to
“Individuals who are undergoing court or legal proceedings which involves harm to others”,
and I do not believe this is atypical. So, defendants to a charge of violence cannot access, sometimes for years of delay, a service that might really help them to address the mental issues that brought them before the court in the first place. Thus, the cruelty of justice delayed takes a serious toll on the lives of all those affected.
What is to be done? First, the MoJ must take up all the sitting days the Lady Chief Justice says are available. My noble friend Lord Thomas referred to her views, and I have no doubt that she is right: whatever the exact figure, there are several thousand extra days that could be utilised.
The first reason given by the Minister last week for not taking up those extra days was competition for resources, but long delays in court hearings do not save money—they cost money. The delayed trials have to be paid for in the end, and meanwhile there are more defendants in prison on remand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Porter, said. They may be acquitted or receive community sentences at the end. There are more defendants, victims and families with their lives on hold, making greater demands on public resources as they await delayed trials. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, on increasing efficiency to reduce costs in this area.
The second reason given by the Minister last week was the need to have some headroom in the system to accommodate surges in demand for court time, caused by events such as the riots last summer. That argument has some force, but it would be better for such headroom to be provided—if the need arises—by emergency measures in the short term, rather than by tolerating unjust and unacceptable delays in the long term.
As others have pointed out, the court maintenance programme needs to be put on an emergency footing so that our, frankly, decrepit courts—many unusable and unused, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, pointed out—can be restored to full service, with temporary buildings used while the necessary repairs are undertaken.
Last week I suggested that the Government should consider evening and weekend sittings for uncontested cases, leaving more court days available for trials. Might the Minister respond to that suggestion?
I also agree with the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, that we should have criminal masters to deal with a raft of applications that do not need the attention of judges. More of the Nightingale courts may have to remain open for longer than planned—even if they are not ideal, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, they can be used.
We need to improve procedures, so that fewer cases are adjourned because of the listing errors and prison transport mistakes that currently bedevil the Crown Courts. I also agree with the procedural suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for more advanced notice of skeleton arguments to be deployed. I have always agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on the need for efficient interpretation.
The Government accept that more must be done and that, even with the measures they are taking, the backlogs will grow. They pin their hopes on proposals for structural reform, but we cannot rely only on the hope that the Leveson review will solve the problem. Certainly, in time, structural reform of the system may help. For my part, I am loath to restrict jury trials, not least for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that juries are multiracial and tend to be non-discriminatory.
I see the possibilities, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, of a new solution for long fraud trials. When it comes, Sir Brian’s report will have to be carefully considered, the Government will need to respond and any reforms will take time to implement, and even more time to have an effect on the backlogs. Given the urgency, we do not have that time.
Sentencing Council Guidelines
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts(6 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
The Sentencing Council is independent of Parliament and government. The council decides on its own priorities and workplan for producing guidelines. The Lord Chancellor was clear about her discontent with the guidance when it was published on 5 March, which was the first time that she and other Ministers had heard about it. It is her view, and mine, that there should not be differential treatment before the law. The Lord Chancellor met with the chair of the Sentencing Council last Thursday and had a constructive discussion. The Lord Chancellor will be setting out her position in writing to the Sentencing Council and it has agreed to reply before 1 April. We will not get ahead of ourselves beyond that.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the Lord Chancellor was reportedly incandescent that the new guideline appeared to suggest that lighter sentences should be imposed on members of ethnic minorities. I take a different view from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, but I find the Lord Chancellor’s position baffling. As the chair of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice William Davis, explained in his letter to her, the imposition guideline is absolutely not suggesting that lighter sentences should be imposed on ethnic minority offenders. Rather, it is concerned with setting out when pre-sentence reports are particularly important.
As the Minister is well aware, there is strong evidence—often discussed in this House—that offenders from ethnic minorities are more likely than their white counterparts to receive immediate custodial sentences, and particular care is needed to change that. We all agree on equality before the law and the guideline is intended not to encourage unfair sentencing but to prevent it. So, on reflection, do the Government now agree that, in view of their vulnerability to unfair sentencing, the guideline is right to highlight the need for pre-sentence reports for ethnic minority offenders?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The issue of tackling disproportionate outcomes in the criminal justice system is a matter of policy and should be addressed by Government Ministers and not the Sentencing Council. It is my view and that of the Lord Chancellor that everybody should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. It is worth noting that the party opposite was not only consulted but welcomed these guidelines when it was in office. The former Minister for Sentencing wrote a letter to the Council setting this out on 19 February 2024 in which he stated:
“In particular, we welcome the clarification provided by the council regarding … fuller guidance around the circumstances in which courts should request a pre-sentence report”.
Online Procedure Rules (Specified Proceedings) Regulations 2025
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument will specify proceedings for which the Online Procedure Rule Committee can make rules. The OPRC, established under the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, aims to modernise the civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions by developing rules governing the practice and procedure for specific types of online court and tribunal proceedings. These rules are intended to be simple, accessible and fair. They will streamline online processes and enhance the overall efficiency of the system. The OPRC cannot make any online procedure rules until the proceedings are specified in regulations.
I shall explain the proceedings for which this SI will allow the OPRC to make rules. In the civil jurisdiction, the OPRC will be able to make online procedure rules for property proceedings. The Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunal Service are working closely with MHCLG to ensure that the justice system is fully prepared for the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Bill. As part of this, HMCTS will digitise the court process for landlords to regain possession of their property, introducing a digital service for both landlords and tenants. Procedure rules will be required to allow use of this service. Parliamentary approval of the statutory instrument will enable the OPRC to make these rules. The digital service, and the rules, will reflect the renters’ rights measures as and when they are brought into force. The introduction of the digital service, and the rules which underpin it, are not, however, tied to the timelines for bringing the measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill into force. The OPRC will also be able to make online procedure rules for property proceedings in the First-tier and Upper Tribunal. This will allow certain cases currently dealt with by the Property Chamber or the Lands Chamber to be included in online procedure rules as and when HMCTS introduces digital systems that mean that those cases are managed online.
In the family jurisdiction, the OPRC will be able to make rules for financial remedies. This will include contested financial remedies and financial consent orders, for example, following a divorce. Online procedure rules for these proceedings will be designed to support the existing online services provided by HMCTS, which are currently governed by practice directions made by the Family Procedure Rule Committee.
The extent of this instrument is UK-wide. Its territorial application is England and Wales in respect of civil and family proceedings and UK-wide in respect of tribunal proceedings.
We believe that the digitisation of court and tribunal processes requires the development of procedure rules that are suitable for the digital age. They must be concise and straightforward to understand. They must support HMCTS and the judiciary to deliver online processes and keep adapting to advances in technology. These aims will be met by the transfer of these specified proceedings to the OPRC, a cross-jurisdictional rule committee whose members include experts in the law and in the development of user-focused digital services. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful introduction to these proposed regulations. We on these Benches support the introduction of digital procedures, certainly where they can be introduced without any adverse impact on the fairness, transparency and user-friendliness of the procedures as a whole. We agree that digital procedures have the potential to streamline court proceedings, cut delay and costs and, to use the Minister’s words, produce a straightforward and concise procedure that will be more accessible. We supported the introduction of online procedures when the Judicial Review and Courts Act was debated in the House in 2022.
We also welcome the introduction of the Online Procedure Rules Committee. It can only be helpful to have a specialist committee to establish rules for online procedures across several fields. There will be scope for cross-fertilisation between different areas utilising the various digital skills that are available for the development of sets of rules in different fields, and that can only be of considerable advantage.
Civil Proceedings and Magistrates’ Courts Fees (Amendment) Order 2025
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, once again I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to this instrument. It is difficult to say much about this amendment order in that, as he pointed out, it does not alter the existing fees at all, as far as I can see. Also, the possibility of enhanced fees is restated in relation to the fees covered by the order, there already having been that possibility in legislation.
Having read the Explanatory Memorandum and listened to the Minister’s introduction, it appears that the level would have gone down on the introduction of what I think he called the new methodology, which I thought was an attractive word in relation to this instrument. In the interests of transparency, it would be interesting if he could say how much lower the fees would have been on the introduction of the new methodology had this instrument not been brought into effect.
In general, we are of the view that the level of court fees should be assessed by reference to the recovery of the costs of administration, rather than being treated as a kind of profit centre for either the department or the Courts & Tribunals Service. Therefore, we do not see it as sensible to set fees at a level that produces a substantial profit for the administration, although I can see an argument for the cross-subsidisation that the Minister mentioned where there are other areas that are loss-making for the Courts & Tribunals Service which are covered by some excess income on some of these very high-volume fees. I do not suppose that anybody will be too worried about the commission-type fee for the sale of goods and shipping.
We simply state that, in general, there should be a good reason for enhanced fees, which I think is a principle that the department accepts. We accept that some fees will exceed the costs of administration, but that needs to be justified. We do not see the fees charged by courts as an appropriate way of raising extra funds for the public purse.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments, and I agree with the way he set out the objectives of raising fees. It is not the objective to make a profit on them. The vast bulk of fees are set at a level to recover their administrative cost. However, occasionally there are these enhanced fees. For reasons which the noble Lord will understand, there is some limited extent of cross-subsidisation for certain fees which are set much lower or at zero. But the general principle is that the fees should cover the cost of the application itself.
The noble Lord asked what the fees would be if this order was not in place. In the case of the council tax liability order, the fee is being maintained at 50p, but it would go down to 23p if this SI was not put in place. In the case of the warrants of entry, it is currently being maintained at £22 but would go down to £12.09, for the same reason. It is more difficult for me to give the equivalent value for the sale of ships or goods because it is a different calculation and I cannot give a single number to give a comparison. However, I hope that answers the noble Lord’s questions. I commend this order to the Committee.
Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, although I recognise and welcome some of the changes the Lord Chancellor has made in this Statement, they are far from sufficient in tackling the court backlog. It is of course tempting for any new Government to blame the outgoing Administration for all they possibly can. For that reason, I want to focus my remarks on what has happened since this Government took office in July last year.
On taking office, the Lord Chancellor was advised that at least 6,500 sitting days were available to tackle the growing court backlog—yet, instead of seizing that opportunity, the Lord Chancellor added only 500 sitting days, and still the backlog continued to expand. In response, the Lord Chancellor added a further 2,000 sitting days a month later, but by then the backlog had only worsened. Now, eight months after the Lord Chancellor assumed office, we learned last week that she is still rejecting available sitting days and, in a surprising admission, she conceded that the court backlog will only continue to grow. This is simply inexcusable.
The Lord Chancellor said that victims will receive quicker justice—yet victims of serious crimes such as rape are being told that their cases will not be heard until 2028. This is not just a matter of inconvenience or inefficiency; it is a failure to deliver the justice that victims deserve and expect. So it is critical that we act now, before the backlog expands further. It is vital that we fully maximise our court capacity, utilising every available day and exploring every possible avenue within the judiciary to relieve pressure and create additional capacity—there of course being a distinction between system capacity and judicial capacity.
I am confident that the Minister understands the importance of this. Cutting the court backlog will undoubtedly be a difficult task. However, it is essential that we have a clear plan and timetable for when this backlog will fall. So will the Minister tell the House by what date the Government expect the backlog to fall? Will he explain exactly why the Lord Chancellor did not, or will not, take up the 2,500 additional sitting days offered by the Lady Chief Justice? I look forward to hearing a clear and positive response.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the Statement describes the Government’s inheritance from the last Administration on Crown Court capacity as little short of disgraceful. It was worse than that: it was an utter disgrace. Sadly, even with the measures announced in the Statement, an utter disgrace it remains. A once great system of criminal justice, admired internationally, has sunk to a level of service that has produced unpardonable delays; decrepit courts—and not enough of them; and underpaid and demoralised staff and lawyers. Offenders are in custody on remand for unacceptable periods and prosecutions are dropped on many occasions because victims and witnesses lose heart and abandon cases, lacking the confidence that they will ever see justice. When trials eventually happen, they are bedevilled by lapse of time and witnesses’ failing recollection. Overall, the level of public trust in our criminal justice system as a whole is rightly, abysmally low.
Furthermore, the system would be even worse were it not for the tireless commitment of those who work within it, mostly underrewarded staff, lawyers and, in particular, our committed, indefatigable and independent judiciary, who struggle to keep the courts working with some semblance of order against overwhelming odds.
This Statement represents a move in the right direction. To that extent, we welcome it, but it is not enough. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor recognise that. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, she has acknowledged that, even with the funding and measures she has announced, the backlog will grow. She pins her hopes on more radical measures of structural reform that may or may not be proposed by the Leveson review. These will take place only when the review has reported and its recommendations have been implemented. Far more extensive measures are needed now to bring down the backlog.
There is, after all, no significant saving of resources in keeping people hanging around for long periods—often running to years—with their lives largely on hold because we cannot get cases to trial. I do not question the Government’s recognition of the seriousness of the crisis they inherited and we now face, but I do question the lack of urgency.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. Why is it that, at a time of catastrophic shortage of sitting days, a progressive Government, dedicated to the delivery of justice, should simply accept that the concordat process of agreeing a number of court sitting days should be a negotiation between the Government and the judiciary? The Lady Chief Justice, a judge widely admired for her level-headedness and good judgment, sought agreement to an extra 6,500 days a year. She advised the Government that that many extra days were available to address the court backlog of 73,000 cases within the system as it stands. Why have the Government not simply accepted that? Why have they not agreed to all the extra days for which she sought sanction and arranged to provide more? Those extra cases would make a significant difference.
In its report published last Wednesday 5 March, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee described the MoJ as
“tinkering at the edges, reacting to each new issue that affects the courts, without planning for long-term solutions.”
How is it that the Government have not made swifter progress with initiating a comprehensive programme of necessary repairs to our courts? Of course, the increased funding for repairs is very welcome, but why is the urgency lacking? This was a known problem way before last July’s general election. Might some of the Nightingale courts not have been retained in use to clear part of the backlog? Have the Government considered evening and weekend sittings for uncontested cases, leaving more court days available for trials?
I know that the Government are well aware of the disproportionate effect of long delays on cases of rape and serious sexual violence. Victims withdraw from prosecutions under the psychological pressure that these cases entail. The average wait for serious sexual offence cases, not from report or charge but from arrival at Crown Court to completion, is now 356 days. This is a shocking figure. Many cases wait far longer. Have the Government considered according an enhanced status to these cases because of the particular difficulties they face in order to get them on more quickly?
We agree that there is a need for long-term reform and we trust that Sir Brian Leveson’s review will make recommendations that will help restore our criminal justice system. There is much that we can do now and I invite the Minister to take back to his department an invitation to the Government to do much more, more quickly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to his current role. This is the first time I have encountered him speaking from the Dispatch Box.
The Government inherited a record and rising backlog that now stands at 73,000 cases—twice the figure of five years ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, there is a human cost to these delays. Victims are waiting years for justice and the attrition rate in rape cases has more than doubled in the last five years, from 2.9% in 2019 to 7.5% now—so I recognise the figures he quoted. This Government are funding a record allocation of Crown Court sitting days to deliver swifter justice for victims—110,000 sitting days next year, which is 4,000 more than the last Government funded.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked me a number of questions. Basically, the question was why we were not maximising the number of sitting days and taking up the Lady Chief Justice’s offer, as he put it, of sitting at capacity in the Crown Court system. There are two simple answers to that. One is a cash constraint—and I think we need to acknowledge that the Lord Chancellor has wider responsibilities than the courts and has to balance how the money is spent on the whole criminal justice system. We acknowledge that there are serious issues, and we have increased the number of sitting days. The second point is that it is wise to keep some headroom within the Crown Court system. We saw the benefit of that when we had the riots last year and were able to deal with them really quite quickly, in part because of the policy of keeping some headroom within the Crown Court system.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, rightly said that trials are bedevilled by delays, and he was right when he said that victims drop out of the system and there are many problems because of the many delays within our system. The noble Lord mentioned the concordat process. It is worth noting that that process has been accelerated this year; it has been resolved much earlier in the year than in many previous years, which will give more certainty to the judges when they are planning and allocating their sitting days between the various courts. That is the benefit of the system that the Lord Chancellor has introduced.
I reject the charge that we are tinkering at the edges. The fundamental point, which I think the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Cameron, acknowledged, is that ever-increasing sitting days will not solve the problem. We need more radical reforms, and we are looking to Sir Brian Leveson to present reforms. A number of things are being constantly talked about in the papers. We do not know exactly what he is going to recommend, but we are absolutely clear that there needs to be a much more radical change in how we deal with trials in the magistrates’ courts and Crown Courts. We have obviously gone some way within the magistrates’ courts by doubling magistrates’ sentencing powers to 12 months—but, again, that is a marginal benefit, and there need to be other changes. We are looking forward to Sir Brian’s recommendations.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke about repairs to the courts. As I think he acknowledged, there has been an increase in court maintenance, up to £148 million from £120 million—but of course we are trying to catch up on many years of underinvesting in our court estate. I have personally seen a number of courts that are in dire need of emergency maintenance. I acknowledge the point that the noble Lord made, but we are taking steps in the right direction to try to increase the quality of our court estate—and there are a number of Nightingale courts still operating, partly for that reason.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, made another point about the sexual offences or RASSO cases, and how people are waiting far too long. Some courts, including Bristol Crown Court, I believe, are using a different approach—I hesitate to use the word “specialist”—to how they bring on RASSO-related cases. I believe that a couple of other Crown Courts are looking at this as well. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the point that the noble Lord made about the importance of doing this—otherwise, you will get a higher victim drop-out, which is not in the interests of justice.
Asylum Seekers: Legal Aid
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for giving me notice of his question and I will write to him. I hear similar questions in my other private life, and I will ensure that a proper answer is provided to my noble friend’s question.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, most research suggests that about 60% of eligible asylum seekers cannot find a legal aid lawyer. The announced increase in legal aid rates should help but will not deal with the advice deserts across the country. Given the language difficulties and the complexity of these cases, online remote lawyers cannot cover the deficit. How will the Government encourage more solicitors to take on this work, and does the Minister agree that the review of civil legal aid has already demonstrated that urgently reducing the bureaucracy and complexity of legal aid contracting is at least part of the answer?
Courts: Backlogs
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Yes, I agree with my noble friend that justice delayed is justice denied, and I agree with the sentiments she expressed in her question. But that is the argument for bold and ambitious reform—and we very much hope and expect that that is what Sir Brian will deliver. The review will consider the merits of longer-term reform, as well as court efficiency. Sir Brian will consider court reform options that would reduce demand on the Crown Court, including reclassification of offences, consideration of magistrates’ sentencing powers and the introduction of an intermediate court. The review will provide findings on court reform by spring this year, and its findings on efficiency will come forward by autumn this year.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, will this Government distance themselves from the Conservatives, who blamed the backlogs on Covid and on criminal barristers, who had no option but to strike to secure proper remuneration? Will the Minister tell the House what immediate steps they propose to address the real causes of these record backlogs, which delay trials and frustrate justice—in particular, too few judges, lawyers and court staff; a wrong-headed cap on court sitting days, severely criticised by the Lady Chief Justice, which has led to unplanned courtroom closures; and trials adjourned through listing and prisoner transport mistakes?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the two factors to which the noble Lord referred are real factors—Covid and the action by barristers. However, there is an underlying problem of increasing cases coming to Crown Court, which overlays the other problems to which the noble Lord referred. The Government have increased the number of allocated sitting days to 108,500, the highest level in almost a decade, and increased the sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts from six months to 12 months. Nevertheless, with those two increases, there needs to be further radical reform to address the problem to which the noble Lord referred.
Home Detention Curfew and Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods (Amendment) Order 2024
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, both as Victims’ Commissioner and a victim going through the criminal justice system, I was horrified to read the NAO report published week which assessed government plans to expand the prison population. The report told us that on current forecasts the population would exceed prison capacity by 12,400 by the end of 2027. It is impossible to see how this can be absorbed by any building programme, let alone one that can be completed in just three years. It leaves the Government in an impossible position of having to explore all alternatives and it is against this backdrop that we find ourselves here today.
I am told that the home detention curfew scheme is hugely effective. Other than in the context of reducing the prison population, I am not sure how this statement can be made. As far as I am aware, there has been no recent evaluation of the scheme, but I would be interested to hear on this point from the Minister. Prison governors are responsible for selecting offenders who are suitable for the scheme. It is to their credit that compliance levels are relatively high. However, can we really be confident that current compliance levels will remain if the scheme is, in effect, doubled in length? Again, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view.
It will come as no surprise when I say I come to this debate from the perspective of the victim. As I have said before, most victims seek justice, not vengeance. On hearing a sentence being delivered, the victims expect the sentence handed down to be served in full. This is not unreasonable; surely it is what we mean by justice. Victims listen to the remand time that has been deducted from the sentence; they know that part of the sentence will be served on licence, but they struggle to accept a prison sentence being reduced—by up to 12 months—through one or other early release scheme simply to reduce prison population pressures.
I fear that retrospective pruning of sentences by all successive Governments over the years has had a corrosive effect on public confidence in our justice system. How can you trust a justice system if all Governments keep moving the goal posts? It also adds an extra layer of complexity on sentencing and, heaven knows, sentencing is already complicated in the first place.
I make a plea to this Government and future Governments: let this be the very last time we have to extend an early release scheme to bail us out of another prison crisis. We need a sustainable sentencing regime where the sentence handed down is the same as that victims hear and the same as that the offender will serve, and we need a prison system that has the resilience and the means to meet the challenge.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we support the principle of this order and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his helpful introduction and explanation of it. He acknowledged, indeed asserted, that the background to the measure is the capacity crisis of which we have spoken over a number of years under the previous Government. This order is, in essence, the amendment of an emergency measure taken in the face of extreme pressure on the Government as the space in prisons simply ran out.
We recognise the need to extend the time, in the face of the continuing crisis, that may be spent on home detention curfew or HDC. It is significant that the reoffending rates among HDC prisoners are lower than those among the prison population at large on release. We also recognise that, for the technical reasons that the noble Lord has outlined, there need to be changes to the range of offences where eligibility for release under SDS40 is established.
As prisoner numbers have risen, with longer sentences resulting from sentence inflation, from legislation introducing longer sentences and legislation imposing longer periods which have to be served in custody as a proportion of the whole sentence, we have to look at how we deal with this crisis in the future.
While we support the principle of this order and the orders that have preceded it, I will ask the Minister for assurances in two specific areas before making a number of general points. First, it is an essential part of the early release scheme that offenders be tagged and that, when tagged, they are properly monitored within the community. Many were alarmed by the number of reports at the beginning of this scheme of offenders being released without tags. The noble Lord, Lord Timpson, described that as “completely unacceptable”, and we agree. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister details of steps the Government have taken to ensure that nothing like that can happen again. It would also be helpful to hear further details of how well the steps taken to monitor prisoners who are tagged on release are working in practice.
Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord on his concise and detailed opening on a complicated set of regulations. I note that the regulations were introduced by the last Government and have hardly undergone any significant change since their introduction, so it is unsurprising that they are likely to be relatively uncontroversial. There will certainly be no opposition from the Liberal Democrats to these proposals.
The most significant of what are largely tidying-up amendments are those that bring into line with other fee-paid judges a number of tribunal judges and chairs. That is completely in line with the view that we all take—that tribunal judges and chairs are a very important part of the working judiciary and that the tribunal system does the whole work extremely well. It is right that the pension arrangements for paid judges should be aligned.
The other significant point is that the pension arrangements for part-time service in the light of the O’Brien judgment are now going to be tidied up so that some of the anomalies that arose from that judgment have been eliminated, so far as they can be, although it is a difficult area—and I appreciate that the regulations have to reflect that difficulty.
I noted from the Explanatory Memorandum and the Minister’s opening that there was a consultation, which attracted no fewer than six responses, none of them critical—and, I take it, all of them raising questions that have been satisfactorily answered. In view of that, I have no further questions for the Minister on this SI.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am not sure whether I need to declare a formal interest, as my wife sits as a fee-paid tribunal judge but, for the avoidance of any doubt, I do. I suspect that the impact of this regulation on her will be de minimis and no doubt happen in many years’ time.
That said, I can be brief because the Minister has been so comprehensive. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, these regulations emanate from the previous Government; this is not an area where, historically, there has been political controversy. Indeed, as the Minister said, we debated similar regulations when our roles were reversed. I echo his comment to me that this is probably not the last time we will come back to debate and discuss these pension regulations, because they are complex. Part of the reason for that is the history and the litigation that has arisen, but the one thing we share around the Committee is the importance of having an attractive pension scheme so that we attract the finest candidates to our judiciary—and retain them. Indeed, one of the things we did in the previous Government was to increase the retirement age to 75. The Minister referred to our outstanding and independent judiciary, and we absolutely endorse those two adjectives; it is outstanding, and it is totally independent.
I also endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: the fact that we are widening some of these pension schemes to include more tribunal judges is testament to the fact that so much of the important work of our judiciary is done by tribunal judges, both full-time and part-time—I think fee-paid is the proper term. Day in, day out, tribunals up and down the country deal with really important issues for people on the ground, so to speak. They are often unsung, and far from the legal journals and law reports, but they deal with important legal issues on a daily basis.
I have only one question for the Minister, which I ask as a matter of interest rather than in any controversial way. I note that, by these regulations, we are extending the time to enable judges to make choices between the pre-1995 and post-1995 schemes. I am interested in why we are extending time for that and why this particular period of extension has been chosen.
Other than that, I am tempted—as I think they are still debating the Budget in the Chamber—to point out that, although it is important to have attractive and gold-plated pensions in the public sector, that does not mean that we should raid private pensions in the private sector. If I say any more on that I will take this debate to places where it ought not to go, so I will stop there and make it unequivocally clear that we on these Benches are also firmly in favour of these regulations. I thank the Minister for introducing and explaining them so clearly.
Prison Capacity
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Timpson of Manley, to his place on the Front Bench. Repeating a Statement has always struck me as one of the odder things that one has to do from the Front Bench, and I congratulate him on having completed it. I also have a further degree of sympathy with him in his opening outing in your Lordships’ Chamber. When I gave my maiden speech, I had to speak half of it as a maiden speech and half of it on a Bill, prompting my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern to say, “I very much enjoyed half of the Minister’s speech”. However, I look forward to welcoming properly the noble Lord to his place on the occasion of his maiden speech, which he is shortly to deliver.
The strain on prison capacity has been a matter of anxious concern for Parliament for some time, and the matter was brought frequently before your Lordships’ House in the course of the last Parliament. This is an area of great complexity, in which the actions of the Government of the day must take into account considerations over which they have no control, and should never seek to have control—such as decisions taken by the independent judiciary on sentencing, carried out on a case-by-case basis, to arrive at a sentence apt for the individual circumstances of the case and the need at once to protect the public, to punish, to deter and to rehabilitate.
It also has to reflect the physical capacity of the prison estate to accommodate prisoners. There is an inevitable tension between the need to protect the public by imprisoning serious offenders and the need to have sufficient provision of prison accommodation and staff so that the crucial function of rehabilitation might be best accomplished. It is liable to be upset by sudden contingencies, such as the closure of HM Prison Dartmoor and the effect that had on the number of available places on the estate.
At all times, the previous Government sought to manage this difficult problem in a manner which addressed all concerns while reflecting their paramount concern: the safety of the public. That is why, during the pandemic, in circumstances wholly without precedent, the previous Government made the decision not to order a mass release of prisoners from our jails, as happened in other countries and as was pressed on us by public health experts and others. I acknowledge immediately that we were supported in that steadfastly by the then Opposition, who now sit on the Government Front Bench. Events demonstrated that that was the correct decision. During the pandemic, we maintained that vital safeguard of our liberties which we all enjoy: trial by jury.
However, all that added to the pressure on the prison estate: the numbers of those remanded pending trial or sentencing increased from around 9,000 to 16,500. The previous Government acted to allow longer sentences for the most serious crimes, conscious of the possible strain on prison places, and acted at all times to reflect the overriding necessity of protecting the law-abiding public and reflecting their concerns that punishment should properly reflect the gravity of the crime for which it is imposed.
The previous Government also acted responsibly and with foresight to address the capacity of the prison system in England and Wales. The biggest prison-building programme since the 19th century was commenced. During the last Government, more than 13,000 additional prison places were created, two new prisons were opened, a third is under construction at present, planning permission has been granted for two more and a decision is imminent on another. Some £30 million was allocated for the purchase of land on which prison construction could take place.
On probation, a detailed Statement was made to the other place and repeated in your Lordships’ House on 13 March. I repeat some of the details: additional funding for probation of £155 million; more than 4,000 trainee probation officers beginning their training; and probation practice redirected to areas which bring the best results in reducing reoffending, as well as public protection.
When the Lord Chancellor says that she will recruit at least 1,000 new trainee probation officers, is that in addition to those that we announced? Will the Government commit more funds to recruitment and training of probation officers? We do not see any acknowledgement of that in the Lord Chancellor’s Statement. She professes to find herself shocked by what she discovered on taking up office about the pressures on the system, but the figures on the prison population in England and Wales were not only widely publicly available during the last Parliament but matters of urgent debate here and in the other place. They can have come as a surprise to no one.
The previous Government left the new Government with no ticking time bomb, but the Lord Chancellor’s Statement prompts real concern for public safety. These Benches will watch what develops with anxious concern. In the Statement, she made a promise to be transparent in a way that she says the previous Government simply were not. In the spirit of that transparency, I pose certain questions.
Does the Minister agree with the position outlined from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench in the other place by Alistair Carmichael MP that prisons should be used less? It is a perfectly defensible position which is perfectly capable of being argued. We do not agree with it on these Benches, but do the Government? If they do, how do they intend to deal with violent crime, rapists, persistent offenders who have no fear of the system and the epidemic of benefit and financial fraud which the country is experiencing? Does the Minister agree that it is easier to speak about community alternatives to custody than to devise ones which are not expensive to operate and difficult to organise and command the support of the public and the judiciary?
We heard from the Lord Chancellor of the safety measures on which she relies in relation to this new measure of early release. I submit that she does nothing more than rehearse safeguards which already exist. She speaks of strict licensing conditions, electronic tagging and curfews where appropriate. These are familiar measures, deployed to support prisoners released on licence. They are measures of long standing. The Lord Chancellor announces a policy which will understandably create concerns for public safety and then, to allay concerns arising from that new policy, founds a series of safeguards that already exist. That is nothing new.
The Lord Chancellor offered specific reassurance on crimes of domestic violence in the debate that followed her Statement. Before too long, I hope that we will hear from her about the significance of other crimes, such as those relating to public order, the need to maintain our civic spaces and free thoroughfares and the need to protect our retail sector and those working in it from those who try to dictate to us what we should buy and from whom. We look forward to hearing from her on these matters.
I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor would agree with that great man of the left, George Orwell, about the harmful properties of stale, clichéd language and dead metaphor. Her Statement gives us “ticking time bomb”, “silver bullet”, “veil of secrecy”, “the guilty men” and much more tired language besides. Orwell’s point is that such language not only serves to disguise meaning or conceal the absence of content in a statement but has actively harmful effects on the reader by helping to deaden not only the capacity for clarity of expression but the capacity for clarity of thought. It is inevitable that we express ourselves in such a way in politics—and I certainly would not hold up my own contributions to this House as models—but the Lord Chancellor’s Statement was filled with cliché. Can we see clarity from the Government?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we too welcome the Minister to his new role, and we look forward to his official maiden speech later today with enthusiasm, not least because we have for a number of years on these Benches cited his ground- breaking commitment in his business and more generally to the rehabilitation of prisoners through training and employment.
However, to say we welcome this Statement would be inaccurate, because it reflects a complete failure of our prison system, but we recognise the emergency and, with it, the need for the measures announced in the Statement. We also endorse the Statement’s serious criticisms of the last Government’s performance; they allowed, encouraged and created the present prison capacity crisis. I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, for whom I have the greatest respect, as to the foresight, commitment and care of the last Government on this issue, which was sadly lacking.
On these Benches, and on the Labour Benches, we warned of this crisis during the last Parliament over and over again, but the Government carried on in the same old way, filling our prisons to bursting and failing to address the disastrous conditions within them.
The Government’s stated aim is that the 40% early release point should not stand in perpetuity and is to be reviewed in 18 months’ time. We agree with that and that this process will be a slow one, but progress is thoroughly necessary. A wholesale programme of prison reform is needed. We imprison far too many people in this country for far too long. We have seen significant sentence inflation over recent years, and it is no good just blaming the judges for passing longer sentences; government legislation on sentencing and later release dates has significantly increased prisoner numbers. We need more use of community sentences and that means more probation officers—we welcome the commitment in the Statement to an urgent recruitment programme. However, to echo the question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, does that include a commitment to fully funding an increased overall number of probation officers?
Our prisons are desperately overcrowded; cells are packed to well over capacity; temporary prefab cells are used; repairs and maintenance are cancelled. Cells that should not be in service are brought back into use. Prisoners are shuffled around the prison estate at the expense of continuity of training and supervision. Understaffing remains acute, with insufficient officers to manage our prisons, even to get prisoners to where they need to be for education and training courses when they are available. Twenty-two hours daily in overcrowded cells has become the new commonplace within our prison system, which has led to mental health issues, serious violence and massive drug abuse. When will we introduce mandatory drugs checks for everyone entering prisons, staff as well as visitors? There is ample evidence that too many drugs enter prisons in the hands of members of staff who give their colleagues a bad name and seriously damage morale.
The prison building programme set out to provide 20,000 new places under the last Government, but, of those, some 4,000 already counted as present capacity. Only Millsike in Yorkshire, with just 1,500 places, is approaching completion next year. Grendon in Buckinghamshire now at least has planning permission for another 1,500 places, but in the other sites not a brick has been laid. Two prisons at Gartree and Chorley are still in the planning process, and two near Braintree have not even been decided on yet. The whole promised programme of the last Government involved double counting and smoke and mirrors. The new Government’s programme is welcome, and so is the caution and moderation with which the Statement stressed it—but it is crucial.
On any view, the last Government’s building programme could not possibly keep up with the projected rise in prison numbers—17,000 more places needed in three years on present trends. The only answer is to reverse those trends; reduce reoffending, emphasise reform and rehabilitation as the function of prisons and do all we can to reduce prison numbers. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for their questions. This is my first time in this House answering questions, so I apologise in advance should I not respect any of the customs and courtesies of the House by mistake. Having not even done my maiden speech yet, this feels to me like having a first ski lesson on a black run. I thank noble Lords for their patience and will do my best to answer all their questions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, raised a point on the sentencing review that we are planning. The sentencing framework has been allowed to develop piecemeal, over time. As a result, there have been inconsistencies that do not make sense to victims or the wider public. We will be launching a review of sentencing. While the terms of reference are not yet defined, this will look to ensure that the sentencing framework is consistent and clear to the public. More details of this review will be announced in due course.
On HMP Dartmoor, one of the first roles that I have had since taking on this job is focusing on prison capacity. It was unfortunate that I had a note from my officials regarding the temporary closure of HMP Dartmoor at a time when we really need capacity. At Dartmoor, safety is our number one priority. After close monitoring of the situation, it has been decided that the prison will temporarily close. I will update the House as the situation develops.
This Government are committed to a 10-year capacity strategy, and we recognise that we need to make sure that this country has the prison places that it needs. We will deliver where the previous Government failed, and we will never allow the planning process to get in the way of having the prisons we need.
Talking about the prisons we need, we need to build more prisons, because we need to keep the public safe, but one of the themes also raised is around reducing reoffending. I have been working on this for the last 22 years, finding ways to recruit people from prison to help them get a job, live a normal life and not reoffend. This is not a quick fix—it takes time—but recruiting 1,000 probation officers is a good start. These will be in addition to the probation staff we have now.
Only late last week, I went to the Camden and Islington probation delivery unit and met the team there, which was preparing to deal with the offenders who were being released in September and October. I was delighted at the commitment, focus and professionalism of this team, and I am confident that they will do their best in very difficult circumstances.
On training, I do not know about probation officers but, just before I came into this role, I completed a review for the Government on prison officer training. It was clear to me where the gaps were, and I am looking forward to working with colleagues in the months ahead to see what can be learned not just for prison officers but for probation officers.
On safeguards put in place for early release, the scheme currently in place is a very rushed and disorganised way of releasing people from prison, which puts extra pressure on probation officers to do all the work they need to do to identify victims, to find places to live, and to connect the offenders up with mental health and drug workers. The eight weeks that they now have to prepare for the releases will make this easier, but it is far from perfect.
The 40% early release scheme will be reviewed and, in 18 months’ time, the plan is for it to go back to 50%, but the noble Lord is right when he says that we need a wholesale programme of prison reform. Community sentences are vital, but we need to resolve the capacity crisis we have now, because our probation officers are overworked. The recruiting of 1,000 extra probation officers will help, but they also need time for the system to settle down.
Finally, I will mention training and education. Prisons are not places where we want people just to be locked up. We want them to have opportunities to turn their lives around. A lot of that is around training and learning skills, so that when they are released they can have a job and not go back. Some 80% of people who offend are reoffenders. It is hard to do this well in the current crisis, but I emphasise that I look forward to working with the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord and having countless important debates. I stress to all noble Lords that I will write a letter, which might be quite a long one, on all the points I did not answer today.